Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Thomas Hobbes was a classic English philosopher who wrote in the 16th Century, during the English civil

war and the execution of Charles I. Thomas Hobbes wrote during the time when violent death was a real threat to humans thus leading to the questioning of who had the right to govern, and what constituted political authority and legitimacy(I. 548). Through Thomas Hobbes writings, he tried to influence the conflicts and decision making of his time, his writings were banned repeatedly, as it was seen as an avenue for rebellion and questions, but today Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan is believed to have set the foundation for western philosophy(I. 551). During the English Civil war, Hobbes held strong to his views and believes on the importance of an absolute monarchical government. An absolute Monarchical government government being a form of government where the monarch exercises ultimate governing power and authority as the head of state and head of government thus wielding political power over the sovereign state and its subjects. Hobbes being a strong believer of absolute sovereign-ism, developed some fundamentals of today's European liberal thoughts. John Locke was a classic English philosopher often referred to as the father of Liberalism. Just like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke wrote during the 16th and 17th Century respectively and is also known and referred to as one of the most famous and influential English thinkers of the 16th and 17th Century (I. 682). John Locke's writings were influenced by his social contract theories and believes, thus leading to the development of political philosophy and epistemology. Today, his theories and believes has influenced the classical republicanism and liberal theory as well as the American declaration of independence. Although Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both social contracts and natural law theorists, their theories and believes are quite different and similar in numerous ways. Thomas Hobbes being one of the founders of modern philosophy, describes human by nature as being an antisocial animal thus making human conflictual in their natural state and often driven by motion and above all very self-interest(I. 553). Thomas Hobbes further explains that society could not exist except by the power of state, thus insinuating his distinct few and understanding of human being, it is believed his views was influenced by his understanding of matter and motion.In contrast to

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke insinuates that man is a social animal who is against the acceptance or belief of absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical or theological matters. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, John Locke being an important figure of modern liberalism defends a system which is limited by parliament ,individual rights and the monarchical system of government. He describes human nature as being endowed by nature with individual rights, thus implying that humans have the right to life,as well as liberty, property and political freedom and the authority of sovereign rulers based on the laws of nature. STATE OF NATURE John Locke's idea of a state of nature was a state where every man kept their promises and honoured their obligations even though its insecure, it was most likely good as it would make the state peaceful and pleasant. John Locke thinks the is need for a superior authority to appeal to, as opposed to everyone being equal as there was need for a superior power to make and implement law and orderliness in the society. His laws of nature implements that every man is equal and independent, thus insinuating that no one should harm another's life health, liberty, or possessions he further explains that the law of conservation of life and that of oneself implies that no one should be subordinated to another as the law of natural freedom states. John Locke believes that to understand political power and derive it from its original source, man must consider the equality of all man, as well as a state of perfect freedom in order to carry out actions, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking, leaving or depending upon the will of any other man. A state of equality also has to see all other forms of power and jurisdiction as being reciprocal, no one having more of anything than any other person, everyone having the same advantages of Nature, with the access and use of the same faculties. Hobbes insinuates that the law of natural freedom is tied into protection and rights as well as the protection of properties. Properties whose value or basis of individual entitlement lies in the individuals work, their mixing their will with material nature. John Locke's definition of propers covers both material and non-material goods as he argues that property is

a natural right which is derived from labour. He believed that property is gotten from labour, labour being an important part of the society is as important as the government. In contrast, Thomas Hobbes describes what life would be like in a state of nature thus implying the condition of a state without government. Perhaps a state where people might fare best, a state where everyone decides for himself how to act, and is judge, jury and executioner in his own case whenever disputes arise and at any rate. This state is the appropriate baseline against which to judge the justifiability of political arrangements. He describes the condition of mere nature as being a state of perfectly private judgement in which there is no form of superior authority to help solve disputes and enforce its decisions. Thomas Hobbes agues that man's resistance to a sovereign authority would create an avenue for an unstable state where there is no place for industries, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, no navigation, no instruments of moving and removing such things that might require force, no account of time, no Arts, no Letters and worse of all, no Knowledge of the face of the Earth nor any form of culture whatsoever on the earth. It can be argued that Hobbes assumes that people are sufficiently similar in their mental and physical attributes that no one is invulnerable nor can expect to be able to dominate the others, furthermore, he insinuates that people generally shun death, and that the desire

to preserve their own lives is quite strong in a lot of people. Hobbes insinuates that each person in the state of nature has the liberty and right to preserve oneself, which he terms the right of nature. This can be explained as the right to do whatsoever one sincerely judges as being required for ones existence. This theoretically limits the right of nature when it becomes an unlimited right to potentially anything, or as Hobbes describes it as the right to all things. LAW OF NATURE. John Locke's explains that humans have the ability to differentiate what is right from what is wrong, what is lawful and unlawful aw well as what is good and what is not, thus making them fully capable of resolving their conflicts, unlike animals. He further explains that humans being capable of

all the above stated points also have the ability of telling the difference between what is theirs and what belongs to someone else. The law of natural law insinuates that earth belongs to all humans, for man to give value to earth, he has to merge labour with land, thus giving individuals the ability to acquire and own part of the earth as ones own property. Property becomes the expression or the concretization of the will of an individual, it is the expression in natural material of thoughts, intentions, and physical efforts, thus making property an outward extension of the subject, an externalization of my interiority. Thus making it the basis of the idea that human rights should protect not only the body of the individual, but also his/her property. According to John Locke, property is natural (prior to the establishment of civil society) thus making it unaccountable to the any form of authority or a sovereign leader, every human has the right to possess it. Individuals retain the natural right to their property as the law of natural right gives man the power to possess property, this can be justified against any form of power thus limiting the authority and power of the state as it stays limited as individuals always retain a natural right to their property. John Locke uses this to justify any form of rebellion against states that do not respect natural rights of individuals. John Locke insinuates that peace is the norm, and should be the norm. He says that man can and should live together in peace, by abstaining, as well as refraining from any form of molestation, misunderstanding or dispute or stealing of each-other's property and and personal belongings. In contrast to John Locke's theory on natural law, Thomas Hobbes argues that the state of nature is an execrable state of war in which no desired or important human ends are realizable, furthermore, Human nature also provides resources to escape this pathetic and miserable condition. Having being exposed to the scientific yet rationalist works of Bacon,

DesCartes, Galileo and Galileo,Thomas Hobbes proposed that all life experience is based on geometry and motion. Hobbes argues that every human, being a rational being, can see that any form of war could be harmful, on the contrary, humans still practice it for the satisfaction of her interests. At this Thomas Hobbes insinuated that peace is good, as well as its way or means ( L , 2 0 0 5 , 6 8 7 ) . Thomas Hobbes further explains that humans know the importance and worth of peace, thus making and encouraging them to do things that would help them secure it, as well as attain it safely. Every man ought to pursue security and peace as far as he has any form of hope at attaining it.Thomas Hobbes describes practical imperatives as the Laws of Nature( S r e e d h a , 2 0 0 8 ) as it teaches one should teach oneself and other humanity as an ends and never a means, inother words, he insinuates that everyone should treat others in ways that one would want others to treat one, at this Thomas Hobbes disagrees with any form of iniquity, cruelty, ingratitude and or wickedness. A man is willing when others are too, for peace and defence of himself and his family, to lay down his right to all things including killing others and be contented with as much liberty against others as they would allow others to have against himself, thus implying that everyone is willing to pursue peace as far as everyone else is. Although Thomas Hobbes insinuates that man should not kill one another and that man should live in peace, he also hints that man does cannot differentiate between good and evil, thus leaving them no other option than to live in peace, harmoniously and together, they are subject to the absolute form of authority or power of a common master, thus casing a form of conflict and unease between kings as well as peace between states. DEFINATION/ UNDERSTANDING OF LIBERALISM. According to Thomas Hobbes no one can impose their views of bad or good on

anyone else, since it is everyones natural right to determine how an individual will fulfill the natural law of self-preservation ( S r e e d h a , 2 0 0 8 ) . He explains morality to have shifted to a private realm, thus alluding that the private space of pursuing the good, not performance of virtues together in public. He explains that our particular pursuit of the good, is to the extent that it threatens the natural right of self-preservation of another thus making it the only limit on freedom.

Thomas Hobbes explains that liberalism enhances the equality of men in the state of nature, he further explains politics as being the limitation of individual right to selfpreservation. He explains that this form of individual right is not derived from duty, attainment of virtues, obligation, but because of the classical idea of humans being political by nature. Thomas Hobbes further explains that politics is often delegated as it is mostly misunderstood and viewed negatively, thus encouraging a lot of people to purse the tradition of civic republicanism and neo-aristotelianism which happens to be a view of literature and criticism, rather than pursuing private concerns. In contrast to Thomas Hobbes, John Locke is against the absolutism of Hobbes which implies that there must be one and only one sovereign authority in every state, although it can be a body consisting of more than one person. The sovereign leader/authority holds all legitimate power and authority thus implying that they should never be actively resisted (L, 2005. 698). Even if the sovereign leader/authority commands any sort of action that violates a law, treaty, or any other ruling of God's law, or disobeying of any laws. At this, John Locke defends any form of monarchy, including limited monarchy which can be limited by parliament, or by individual rights as well as the defence of the inalienable right to property. Despite the submission to the monarch, John Locke implies that political freedom and submission to the sovereign authority should be

based on the Laws of Nature as the natural law of freedom and protection of ones property is the right of every individual. John Locke being a very influential philosopher whose theories are quite important in the foundations of liberalism, set the theories and structures of modern day liberalism thus insinuating that humans by nature are endowed with individual rights, outside or previous to the state, thus giving them the rights to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property ( L . 2 0 0 5 , 6 8 6 ) . The law of natural freedom hints that political freedom and the authority of sovereign rulers should be based on the Laws of Nature, John Locke implies that when humans enter into civil societies they establish the state and retain more inalienable rights, as there are divisions in authority within the state. The parliament being the legislative branch of the society and the monarch the executive agent of the legislative branch.Thomas Hobbes argues that that everyone naturally aims at self-preservation thus implying that "a state of nature" where there is no sovereign authority or government, life would be completely aggressive,

miserable , insecure worse of all, it would be quite dangerous. John Locke's defence of property is quite fundamental as his definition and explanation of the protection of the life, liberty, and property of the individual is quite intense, as humans own their own life, their own bodies, their own talents, and therefore they own their own labour. John Locke explains political liberalism in general conceive in every individual as being the master or proprietary of his/her life, body, talents, and, so, his/her own work/labour. In Europe, this was a revolutionary idea, since the feudal system was still current and serfs had no personal liberty, but were attached to the earth and had personal obligations to their lord. It was the will of

their lords that determined the life plans of serfs, so dependence was very personal. In contrast to Plato and Aristotle who saw that mens souls were not equal, and do not have a naturally equal capacity to reason(( L . 2 0 0 5 , ) , John Locke explains class inequality as seen naturally as being part of the eternal order, determined by God or the Cosmos. To Aristotle man is not by nature a political animal, but decides or consents together to establish a political community for certain conveniences, to protect his natural right to freedom( L . 2 0 0 5 , 7 0 2 ) . At this John Lock implies that liberty depends on natural equality as the law of natural liberty insinuates that we bear natural freedom and a natural right to our freedom, outside or before the establishment of the state. This can also be seen as a counter argument to republicanism, which says that liberty is only realized as a citizen, within a political community, through our belonging within a state and through political participation. John Locke explains that part of liberty is the right of free conscience, free religious practice, as humans we are entitled to our own private good by our own insights as long as we dont impinge on others same right.

Citation Page 1 . L . , M i c h a e l . C l a s s i c s o f m o r a l a n d p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y. 4 t h E d i t i o n . I n d i a n a p o l i s : H a c k e t t P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y, 2 0 0 5 . 5 4 8 - 7 4 8 . P r i n t . 2. S r e e d h a , 2008, Susanne. (2008). Hobbes's Moral and Political

P h i l o s o p h y. s t a n f o r d e n c y c l o p e d i a o f p h i l o s o p h y . R e t r i e v e d A u g u s t 7 , 2 0 11 , f r o m http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ 3. L o c k e , J , H o r w i t z , R , & S t r a u s s , J . ( 2 0 0 8 ) . Q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e l a w o f n a t u re . U n i t e d S t a t e : C o r n e l l U n i v P r. (L. 2005, 686)