Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

Introduction

This essay will try to compare the political theories of these two classic autos through the analysis and understanding of their works, while their ideas and political theories are exposed. At the same time, the importance of this comparison will be analyzed to understand contemporary political phenomena. In this way, it is expected to be able to clearly and concisely identify the similarities and differences that they travel throughout their theories. 

Developing

The following work is only academic and without any intention of plagiarism. All the material from the writings of both authors that has been used throughout the trial is subsequently cited. Both Hobbes and Locke leave describing a state prior to social formation as such, referring to this stage as the state of nature, which they start to build the foundations of their respective social theories. John Locke affirms that the state of nature of each person is a state of perfect freedom for each one to order their actions and have possessions and people as appropriate, within the limits of natural law without asking anyone for permission or depending onThe will of any other man. 

Understanding this, we can understand the reason why John Locke is called one of the pillars of the liberal doctrine, trying to expose the way in which he defends the freedom of the individual with a minimal intervention of the State in the social and economic life of individuals.

Locke exposes us the idea of a state in which everyone has the same power to choose and develop, no one but anyone. No one has a greater condition or ability to enjoy their decisions more than others. Analyzing this thoroughly, we can realize that Locke’s political theory is based on the principle of equality, something that is born from the natural state of man of man. All are of the same species, born to jointly share the resources, advantages and natural faculties that have been given to us, because of this, there is no subordination of one people to another. 

This clearly clashes with the theory of Hobbes, in which we are explained that equality is born from nature, but there will always be a clash of equality proceeds distrust. Explaining us that there will always be a conflict, while one man wishes to be superior to another or possess more than his neighbor and this object is only consumable by one, these two men will become enemies.

Given this analysis, we can understand that Hobbes tries to explain that, given the beginning of distrust between men, there will always be conflict, there will be no true equality because men try to protect themselves, demonstrating a higher force or by cunning, withwhich can overcome other men. So and only, being superior to their neighbors, they can be able to prevent another power from being able to threaten them.

Thomas Hobbes, agrees that nature has made all men the same, but in turn it differs in great measures to the political thought raised by Locke but this proves that men are at that point equal rather than unequal and this can be noticedeasily in his work Leviathan. In Leviatán, we can realize the way in which Hobbes describes the State and its necessary intervention with the people. Aspect that clearly clashes with Locke’s ideas, in which, promoting liberalism, we are explained that the State as such should not have an intervention in aspects of the people, both economic and social. 

Man cannot live in equality due to conflicts that will be created. As long as there is equality, man cannot develop due to the situation that is handled, a state of war due to the discord that exists in an environment in which all are enemies of all. In this situation, man cannot advance due to the constant danger of dying, thus transforming his life into poor, gross and brief. On the other hand, Locke certainly states that man has the ability to send on his possessions and resources, but does not have the ability to decide on his life or any other being close to him, due to the same natural law. 

Although it is clearly more complicated to understand, here there is a clear difference between the ideas of Hobbes and Locke. On the one hand, there is Hobbes exposing that the human being must overcome, must overcome others and demonstrate his mandate in order to be respected and never questioned, thus creating a ruler and, on the other hand, he finds Locke, explaining that the human beingIt must be maintained in a state of equality in which man should not overcome others due to the natural law that has been granted since its creation. If you ask me, Locke’s idea listens more to an idealistic state, something that should work as well but is not, while, by Hobbes, he knew how to understand how hierarchies should move in a society and expose theway in which everything was going to develop throughout human history. 

conclusion

To conclude with this part, it should be clarified that Locke tries to demonstrate that because the human being is forced to advance equality, respecting and promoting cooperation, he is forced to take care of himself and, therefore, must take care ofothers. This generates a society close to perfection, a society in which violence cannot be made only in extreme cases of justice, nor attempt against freedom, health or assets of those who are their same. With this I reaffirm what I said before, Locke exposes an extremely ideal idea, something that is heard perfect and in harmony, while Hobbes speaks with cruel reality in each of his words. There will always be those that must be superior to others to maintain a stable order. 

But in all this the question comes in how does a social order remain then?. Well, both authors gave the answer, with notorious differences of thought and posture, but I think it is necessary to emphasize this question, because I think here is the true difference in both authors. The true difference is found in how the authors explain the social order because this is based on a society, whether ideal or not, every society must possess an order. Hobbes and Locke expose a different method, but, from my point of view, one more successful than the other. 

Locke understands the state of war as a state of enmity and premeditated destruction against the life of another man, who in turn puts him in a state of war against whom he declares these intentions. In this way, Locke exposes the idea that, in this way, it is correct to take justice in the event that another man tries to do it wrong to another, only in that case, he can take defense and support actions of others who decidejoin the affected to stop the aggressor. Since it is reasonable that a man has the right to destroy who threatens him. Under the ideas of Hobbes, the man in itself, must demonstrate strength from the beginning. 

In Leviathan we are exposed to the clear idea that the State must be strong, clear and concise with its orders so that, from the beginning, there is not the one who wants to oppose him and in the case that the one who wants to face it exists, the Leviathanhave the ability to end him with relative ease. In Locke, there must be a reason to use strength and justice, while, in hobbes, force and mandate must be used from the beginning so that justice is absolute without the need for greater intervention.