Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Thomas More were all political philosophers during their time. Locke and Hobbes are usually paired. Thomas More is considered the least among the three philosophers. Both Locke and Hobbes are 17 th century political philosophers; however, they were separated by a generation. The two philosophers are a state-of-nature theorists who formulated teachings of the natural liberty and the natural equality. Hobbes and Locke delineated civil society and ruling organ as artifacts of man invention. The paper focuses on the most successful philosopher in grappling with great problems through comparing and contrasting their political philosophies, strengths and weaknesses.
As per this study’s view, Hobbes made quite a commendable progress in his work. His vision for the world was considerably original and necessary in present-day politics. His ideology differs with the Locke’s since his primary focus revolved on the issue of social and political order; that is, how human being can live together in harmony and stay away from dangers and fear of civil rivalry ( Hobbes, 2016) . He argued that people should be obedient to an unaccountable sovereign being. He referred to what awaits humans as “state of nature” which can be referred to as call civil war. Indeed what await people is a situation of universal insecurity where every person fears violent death.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Locke differentiated the state of nature and the state of war. He described the state of nature as the “perfect freedom” and “equality”, which is ruled by the “law of nature” thus giving guidelines that no human should harm the other. Locke concluded that the state of war and state of nature are unrelated. Therefore, Locke and Hobbes approaches differed in their account of the natural condition which led them to focus on different problems. Particularly, Hobbes addressed natural inclination towards war and chaos. He elaborated more on how peace is produced. Contrastingly, Locke argued that the state of nature is subject to certain situations that result to war. Locke and Hobbes are comparable in their basic political philosophies about human being and their rights in the state of nature. The similarity between Hobbes and Locke’s ideologies are based on few features of state of nature and state of human being. First, as per Hobbes (2016), both agreed that all men are equal; however, their definition of equality in the state of nature differs slightly. Also, both philosophers seemed concerned about dangers of state of nature.
One of the Hobbes philosophy’s strength is the argument that people’s actions are controlled by self-interest. Another strength is the effectual advancement in vocabulary for philosophy in English language. Notably, this development was shown in his Leviathan one dissension which has overshadowed Hobbes arguments. The question that arises asks whether he views human beings as self-interested or egoistic. Several theories support such statement, which persuade some to thinking that his political philosophies can be avoided if people adopted a more original image of human nature ( Watkins, 2017) . However, most people believe that Hobbes interpretations gave a much more complex picture of the human motivation. Moreover, he focused on materialism. However flaws in his ideas are ridiculous and enormous. He believed everything that happens results from the physical world. His idea aimed at presenting permanent peace. Hobbie’s idea was precise, and emphasized that it was irrational to believe that individuals’ act rationally at all times.
Conclusively, the three philosophers played a major role in contributing to the state of nature and other contemporary problems facing the world.
References
Hobbes, T. (2016). Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy) . Routledge.
Watkins, J. W. (2017). Philosophy and Politics In Hobbes 1. In Thomas Hobbes (pp. 107-128). Routledge.
