Hobbes vs. Locke

[Kilroy_x]

Both were social theorists and philosophers. Hobbes believed something which is essentially the opposite of what Rousseau believed, namely that human society acts to restrain human nature and keep human beings from engaging in transgressions against one another. For reference, Rousseau believed that human society was the root of human misery, that human beings were naturally free, more or less self-sufficient individuals and that society acted to corrupt this.

Hobbes seems to be one of if not the first advocate of a form of social contract theory. He believed the establishment of authority was necessary to prevent a war of all against all, but only enough authority to ensure common peace.

John Locke seemed mostly interested in what might be called natural law, in terms of his social perspective. He did not believe that men were inherently violent, but he did believe that they had the potential for violence. The main contention between Locke and Hobbes in this area is not over the legitimacy of government or even the reasoning behind it, but rather the extent to which power should be consolidated and considered legitimate.

Hobbes thought men would naturally and necessarily try to acquire all and so had to give up some of their freedoms of pursuits in order to gain peace. Locke thought that mens rights naturally stopped where others began. Both supported government, just to different degrees.

So to conclude, both believed violence was bad and that human beings shouldn't pass that point at which they would do violence. Both believed that government should enforce this border. So while there are significant contradictions between Hobbes and Locke it doesn't seem like they are completely at odds.