Hobbes or Locke?

**chickendude** · 10-9-2005, 12:57 PM

Who do you think has the right theory on the nature of man and the role of government?

In case you didn't know, Hobbes and Locke are both philosophers from around 1500-1600.
Hobbes lived during the English Civil War (gruesome battle) while Locke lived through the glorious revolution (a bloodless revolt)

Hobbes believed that men in nature (without goverment) are savage and irrational, only caring about their own survival. Government must do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING it can to prevent the state of nature, because it is the worst. Government should be all powerful becuase it is preventing the state of nature. People should not have the right to revolt against goverment because anything is better than the state of nature.

Locke believed that man in nature are logical and reasonable. He believed that humans were able to use logic and reasoning BY NATURE. By creating a government, the people and the government are agreeing to a deal. The government protects people's rights (something that everyone has). The people are agreeing to follow the rule of the government. People have the right to revolt against the goverment if it breaks this agreement. The reason behind this is that man by nature is logical, and can create their own government on their own after they revolt.

Summary:
Hobbes: Men are irrational by nature - seeking only survival. Government should be all powerful to supress this - preventing chaos

Locke: Men are logical by nature. Goverment just protects rights.

To take a modern view on this, look at Iraq
In Iraq, everything is pointing towards a hobbsian view of government. When the US removed Hussain, the country went into chaos. The people couldn't work together to create a government. Americans are trying to bridge this gap.

On the other hand, take the American Revolution. Americans overthrew the British government in the Americas and were able to come together and create their own government. The new world didn't fall into chaos. This backs the Lockian view.

Which one is true?

QreepyBORIS · 10-9-2005, 12:59 PM

I go with Locke, since I am not exactly comfortable with totalitarianism.

I thought this thread was in the GB, and it was referring to the Calvin and Hobbes character and the FFVI character.

>_<

**chickendude** · 10-9-2005, 01:03 PM

But this thread involves thought, directly to the contrary of the garbage bin =o

also, it must be clear that hobbes doesn't mean oppression. Just because the government is all powerful, doesn't mean that its oppressive. The government can give people privileges, it just means that they can be taken away at any time (to help the country).

Locke believes that these things are RIGHTS and that the goverment cannot take them away.

Jam930 · 10-9-2005, 01:07 PM

Locke... mostly.

I think that people want survival first... and once they feel safe, they'll get bored and naturally think beyond their next meal.

QreepyBORIS · 10-9-2005, 01:10 PM

I know that hobbes was not into oppression. I studied this last year.

But really, totalitarianism and total control can have some nasty side effects.

**scottish** · 10-9-2005, 01:36 PM

I like both of their ideas, yet theres more to it rather just that. Society's role on nature and natures role on society totally depend on the person viewing it. What is a so-called "society" or "nature"?...depending on the person, nature could mean in one's views on how "god" made him/her, and in another it could be veiwed as genes. Personally I dont belive in justification. Ones veiws are can never be known as correct or incorrect due to the way they were raised. Babies don't talk as soon as they are born, so there is no knowing through verbal interactions. Yet if we study and rely on physical actions between the baby and nature, we come to conclusions that it would have to be from societies affect on the baby, or nature, whatever you intend that to be. Think about this. What would happen if we were raised with out words, words never existed. There is no society, there is no nature, because words give them meaning. Having the knowledge of a word lets us put a personal impression of the meaning of it, thus letting us have a picture of it in our heads. Now try this. Think of something that is beyond what we already know. Close your eyes, and try picturing something that you have never seen before. You cannot base it on words that you know, colors that you know, lines that you know, anything that you know of. Cant do it, eh?...good, because you not supposed to. Your mind only can work on things that your eyes have already seen. Society itself and nature have a big effect on what you know, but it is in a balance. When i say nature, i dont mean how god made us, (i believe there is no god, never was, never will be. God is a made up figure from a childrens story passed down from person to person to insure and reassure the safety and protection of people. He's a figure to keep people sane. Yet, doesn't work. Almost every war that has been fought was over some type of god or religous reason.) or genes passed down from person to person. It's just the presence of other beings and living things around a person.
Ehh anyway..ill touch up on this later, I have to run out.

Jam930 · 10-9-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottish

Think of something that is beyond what we already know. Close your eyes, and try picturing something that you have never seen before.

Maybe we need to stop being taught in some aspects...

Most of the greatest and truly unique musicians didn't major in music or anything. They just grew up in poor conditions with their own mind at their exposal. No contamination from the assembly-line educational system. Many musicians looked to artificial means of cleansing out or distorting views that may have been engraved in their minds with the use of drugs.

I think this relates to what you're saying very well. =D

**scottish** · 10-9-2005, 02:10 PM

Yes i think so too.

purplepopcorn · 10-9-2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QreepyBORIS

I thought this thread was in the GB, and it was referring to the Calvin and Hobbes character and the FFVI character.

>_<

same here XD.

i'm going with locke. You can't trust completely in government, considering it is run by people itself. Hobbes pictures government as a perfect hand of justice, only, the people in it go by the state of nature themselves (well, maybe not savagery, but a certain level of corruption).
one more thing...

Pumble · 10-9-2005, 02:35 PM

Like you said in the first post, they both lived in completely different time periods. In Hobbes' lifetime, with what was going around him, it probably seemed like that viewpoint was very logical. The same goes for Locke.

However, Locke's viewpoint seems more reasonable, because when the government has total control, most people, if they were in power, would probably give into temptation and become corrupt themselves making life better only for those close to them.

And just in case someone says that they wouldn't become like that if it was them, consider how you were raised. If you were born into a corrupt family of power always having the best of everything, you would probably have a set of ethics like the people who you would associate(sp?) with, namely, other rich, powerful, corrupt people. If a government like this was in power, they wouldn't prevent chaos, only create it.

Popcorn: I knew somebody was going to do something like that.

-Skooter- · 10-9-2005, 02:58 PM

I'm a Rousseau fan myself. Read and learn.

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jun/rousseau.html

**chickendude** · 10-9-2005, 03:55 PM

The key thing to think about is about that baby that scottish was talking about

the baby born without society, without any societal way of being brought up
would that baby be by nature
a) savage irrational, seeking only survival in a brute way
b) rational, able to reason

The rationale behind Hobbes is that humans by nature will kill each other, create savagery and chaos, with much fighting and bloodshed, without a government. For this reason a government must stand.

Locke says government is there to PROTECT rights... not to give them. People have those rights.

and to clarify: the state of nature means life without government/society

Pumble hit the point on the time periods.
hobbes lived through the english civil war, where parliament tried to overthrow the king. This lead to bloodshed chaos, and rampage- thus creating his view.
Locke lived through glorious revolution where they overthrew the government without fighting. The people were rational, and found a way to do so without chaos- using reason.

Also - government having complete power doesn't necesarily lead to corruption of the people. - You can have a government with complete power, but no one person has that power. The power is either handed off or spread out widely. (like many today). The hobbes viewpoint just says that there must be a government or chaos ensues. Locke says that people can be logical without a government.

Like I said, there are examples throughout history going both ways

I think Hobbes has a point, using Iraq as a prime example. When Hussain was overthrown, the country went into chaos. People did not think rationally. Wow, look we don't have a government, we need to stay calm and sort things out so people don't kill each other. That didn't happen. They all went out looted stores, killed people stampeded, rampaged, for their own survival. Without government they went into a raw form. When a government is created in Iraq, it is likely that it will want to keep its power to avoid having this chaos again.
I agree with Hobbes
Its not that I like to admit it, but I think its true

**scottish** · 10-9-2005, 04:05 PM

Well put.

**talisman** · 10-9-2005, 04:34 PM

I think the government should exist to do what the governed want it to do... I'm a firm believer in the principle of democracy even though in practice it doesn't always work out (in the short run at least). I don't think that that's either hobbesian or lockesian I think it's whatever the majority of the people vote it to be.

Furthermore, I'd argue that it's logical and reasonable for men to be savage when in nature because survival is always the most important thing in the short run.

blahblah18 · 10-9-2005, 04:52 PM

The Social Contract is not an either-or... and nor can you lump philosophers together and say which do you agree with. they have different stances on different issues.

Its stupid to just say
Rousseau - man is good
Locke - Tabula Rasa , man is neutral
Hobbes - men are brutish

**chickendude** · 10-9-2005, 06:19 PM

@blahblah
tell us what you think then =)

@talisman
First half of your thing is locke, second half is hobbes
they kind of contradict each other in a way too

first half says, we should all work together to come to a consensus on a good idea and work with that.
second half says, we must kill everybody who disagrees with us because they might kill us first. We must kill anything that gets in our way for our own good.

They are very contrasting views and you kind of have to go one way or the other.

The_Q · 10-9-2005, 10:35 PM

I'm a hardcore Libertarian.

Locke.

Q

GuidoHunter · 10-10-2005, 12:02 AM

Locke, most definitely.

Almost every "primitive" culture develops a form of government to regulate the sharing that is necessary for survival and comfort, not to control it completely. Hobbes's ideas failed by evidence.

Also, chicken, I think you're way oversimplifying the situation in Iraq and cherry-picking examples to nicely fit an example of Hobbesian brutishness.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

**chickendude** · 10-11-2005, 05:16 PM

Is the government actually created by the people though?
The governments are mostly created when one person gets enough power to enforce their will on everyone. Sometimes this will is good, sometimes it isn't.
Many governments aren't formed by the people deciding on one. They are formed by one person having enough of an army loyal to them, that he can force people to follow him.
This is how almost every monarchy began
The first modern democracy (not rome) was in britain when the parliament overthrew
Cromwell(parliament) and king charles fought it out, and it was gruesome. People went back into a primitive state. Hobbes said that someone needed to take control, because either person was better than nobody.

It's not very often that a government is created by a culture working together to form it. (USA is one of the few that did though, and it turned out quite well)

this debate isn't over what you want government to be
its about what government should be

the US government can be viewed from both sides for example
Hobbes:
government is powerful. It has enough power to be able to give people privileges, because it knows it can control its people. People are afraid to break rules because of the cops. It keeps us in line. We get lots of freedom only because the government is strong enough to enforce it.

Locke: Government is only protecting our rights. It is working for us. We follow its rules in exchange for it protecting us. If it fails to do well, then we have the right to overthrow it and create a better one on our own.

esupin · 10-11-2005, 05:30 PM

Well, considering the founding fathers believed that government is created by the people, and can be overthrown by the people if it becomes too oppressive, Hobbes's theory does not really work in this case.

However, times have changed, and I think the US government can be looked at in a more Hobbesian point of view, so who knows.

10-9-2005, 12:57 PM	#1
chickendude Away from Computer Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Massachusetts Age: 33 Posts: 1,901	Hobbes or Locke? Who do you think has the right theory on the nature of man and the role of government? In case you didn't know, Hobbes and Locke are both philosophers from around 1500-1600. Hobbes lived during the English Civil War (gruesome battle) while Locke lived through the glorious revolution (a bloodless revolt) Hobbes believed that men in nature (without goverment) are savage and irrational, only caring about their own survival. Government must do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING it can to prevent the state of nature, because it is the worst. Government should be all powerful becuase it is preventing the state of nature. People should not have the right to revolt against goverment because anything is better than the state of nature. Locke believed that man in nature are logical and reasonable. He believed that humans were able to use logic and reasoning BY NATURE. By creating a government, the people and the government are agreeing to a deal. The government protects people's rights (something that everyone has). The people are agreeing to follow the rule of the government. People have the right to revolt against the goverment if it breaks this agreement. The reason behind this is that man by nature is logical, and can create their own government on their own after they revolt. Summary: Hobbes: Men are irrational by nature - seeking only survival. Government should be all powerful to supress this - preventing chaos Locke: Men are logical by nature. Goverment just protects rights. To take a modern view on this, look at Iraq In Iraq, everything is pointing towards a hobbsian view of government. When the US removed Hussain, the country went into chaos. The people couldn't work together to create a government. Americans are trying to bridge this gap. On the other hand, take the American Revolution. Americans overthrew the British government in the Americas and were able to come together and create their own government. The new world didn't fall into chaos. This backs the Lockian view. Which one is true? __________________

10-9-2005, 12:59 PM	#2
QreepyBORIS FFR Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: It is a mystery. Age: 33 Posts: 7,454	RE: Hobbes or Locke? I go with Locke, since I am not exactly comfortable with totalitarianism. I thought this thread was in the GB, and it was referring to the Calvin and Hobbes character and the FFVI character. >_< __________________ Signature subject to change. THE ZERRRRRG.

10-9-2005, 01:03 PM	#3
chickendude Away from Computer Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Massachusetts Age: 33 Posts: 1,901	RE: Hobbes or Locke? But this thread involves thought, directly to the contrary of the garbage bin =o also, it must be clear that hobbes doesn't mean oppression. Just because the government is all powerful, doesn't mean that its oppressive. The government can give people privileges, it just means that they can be taken away at any time (to help the country). Locke believes that these things are RIGHTS and that the goverment cannot take them away. __________________

10-9-2005, 01:07 PM	#4
Jam930 FFR Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,069	RE: Hobbes or Locke? Locke... mostly. I think that people want survival first... and once they feel safe, they'll get bored and naturally think beyond their next meal. __________________ -Jamie

10-9-2005, 01:10 PM	#5
QreepyBORIS FFR Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: It is a mystery. Age: 33 Posts: 7,454	RE: Hobbes or Locke? I know that hobbes was not into oppression. I studied this last year. But really, totalitarianism and total control can have some nasty side effects. __________________ Signature subject to change. THE ZERRRRRG.

10-9-2005, 01:36 PM	#6
scottish FFR Veteran Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New Jersey Age: 36 Posts: 3,257	yeah.. I like both of their ideas, yet theres more to it rather just that. Society's role on nature and natures role on society totally depend on the person viewing it. What is a so-called "society" or "nature"?...depending on the person, nature could mean in one's views on how "god" made him/her, and in another it could be veiwed as genes. Personally I dont belive in justification. Ones veiws are can never be known as correct or incorrect due to the way they were raised. Babies don't talk as soon as they are born, so there is no knowing through verbal interactions. Yet if we study and rely on physical actions between the baby and nature, we come to conclusions that it would have to be from societies affect on the baby, or nature, whatever you intend that to be. Think about this. What would happen if we were raised with out words, words never existed. There is no society, there is no nature, because words give them meaning. Having the knowledge of a word lets us put a personal impression of the meaning of it, thus letting us have a picture of it in our heads. Now try this. Think of something that is beyond what we already know. Close your eyes, and try picturing something that you have never seen before. You cannot base it on words that you know, colors that you know, lines that you know, anything that you know of. Cant do it, eh?...good, because you not supposed to. Your mind only can work on things that your eyes have already seen. Society itself and nature have a big effect on what you know, but it is in a balance. When i say nature, i dont mean how god made us, (i believe there is no god, never was, never will be. God is a made up figure from a childrens story passed down from person to person to insure and reassure the safety and protection of people. He's a figure to keep people sane. Yet, doesn't work. Almost every war that has been fought was over some type of god or religous reason.) or genes passed down from person to person. It's just the presence of other beings and living things around a person. Ehh anyway..ill touch up on this later, I have to run out.

10-9-2005, 02:10 PM	#8
scottish FFR Veteran Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New Jersey Age: 36 Posts: 3,257	Yes i think so too.

10-9-2005, 02:35 PM	#10
Pumble FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: ladies love cool james Age: 34 Posts: 1,301	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? Like you said in the first post, they both lived in completely different time periods. In Hobbes' lifetime, with what was going around him, it probably seemed like that viewpoint was very logical. The same goes for Locke. However, Locke's viewpoint seems more reasonable, because when the government has total control, most people, if they were in power, would probably give into temptation and become corrupt themselves making life better only for those close to them. And just in case someone says that they wouldn't become like that if it was them, consider how you were raised. If you were born into a corrupt family of power always having the best of everything, you would probably have a set of ethics like the people who you would associate(sp?) with, namely, other rich, powerful, corrupt people. If a government like this was in power, they wouldn't prevent chaos, only create it. Popcorn: I knew somebody was going to do something like that. __________________

10-9-2005, 02:58 PM	#11
-Skooter- FFR Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Computer ;) Posts: 316	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? I'm a Rousseau fan myself. Read and learn. http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jun/rousseau.html __________________ .so what. -Skooter- .drama makes life boring.

10-9-2005, 03:55 PM	#12
chickendude Away from Computer Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Massachusetts Age: 33 Posts: 1,901	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? The key thing to think about is about that baby that scottish was talking about the baby born without society, without any societal way of being brought up would that baby be by nature a) savage irrational, seeking only survival in a brute way b) rational, able to reason The rationale behind Hobbes is that humans by nature will kill each other, create savagery and chaos, with much fighting and bloodshed, without a government. For this reason a government must stand. Locke says government is there to PROTECT rights... not to give them. People have those rights. and to clarify: the state of nature means life without government/society Pumble hit the point on the time periods. hobbes lived through the english civil war, where parliament tried to overthrow the king. This lead to bloodshed chaos, and rampage- thus creating his view. Locke lived through glorious revolution where they overthrew the government without fighting. The people were rational, and found a way to do so without chaos- using reason. Also - government having complete power doesn't necesarily lead to corruption of the people. - You can have a government with complete power, but no one person has that power. The power is either handed off or spread out widely. (like many today). The hobbes viewpoint just says that there must be a government or chaos ensues. Locke says that people can be logical without a government. Like I said, there are examples throughout history going both ways I think Hobbes has a point, using Iraq as a prime example. When Hussain was overthrown, the country went into chaos. People did not think rationally. Wow, look we don't have a government, we need to stay calm and sort things out so people don't kill each other. That didn't happen. They all went out looted stores, killed people stampeded, rampaged, for their own survival. Without government they went into a raw form. When a government is created in Iraq, it is likely that it will want to keep its power to avoid having this chaos again. I agree with Hobbes Its not that I like to admit it, but I think its true __________________

10-9-2005, 04:05 PM	#13
scottish FFR Veteran Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New Jersey Age: 36 Posts: 3,257	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? Well put.

10-9-2005, 04:34 PM	#14
talisman Resident Penguin Join Date: May 2003 Age: 37 Posts: 4,598	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? I think the government should exist to do what the governed want it to do... I'm a firm believer in the principle of democracy even though in practice it doesn't always work out (in the short run at least). I don't think that that's either hobbesian or lockesian I think it's whatever the majority of the people vote it to be. Furthermore, I'd argue that it's logical and reasonable for men to be savage when in nature because survival is always the most important thing in the short run.

10-9-2005, 04:52 PM	#15
blahblah18 FFR Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: NOW BLAHTOPIA Posts: 1,662	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? The Social Contract is not an either-or... and nor can you lump philosophers together and say which do you agree with. they have different stances on different issues. Its stupid to just say Rousseau - man is good Locke - Tabula Rasa , man is neutral Hobbes - men are brutish __________________ but for now... postCount++

10-9-2005, 06:19 PM	#16
chickendude Away from Computer Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Massachusetts Age: 33 Posts: 1,901	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? @blahblah tell us what you think then =) @talisman First half of your thing is locke, second half is hobbes they kind of contradict each other in a way too first half says, we should all work together to come to a consensus on a good idea and work with that. second half says, we must kill everybody who disagrees with us because they might kill us first. We must kill anything that gets in our way for our own good. They are very contrasting views and you kind of have to go one way or the other. __________________

10-9-2005, 10:35 PM	#17
The_Q FFR Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Columbus, OH Age: 34 Posts: 4,391	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? I'm a hardcore Libertarian. Locke. Q

10-11-2005, 05:16 PM	#19
chickendude Away from Computer Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Massachusetts Age: 33 Posts: 1,901	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? Is the government actually created by the people though? The governments are mostly created when one person gets enough power to enforce their will on everyone. Sometimes this will is good, sometimes it isn't. Many governments aren't formed by the people deciding on one. They are formed by one person having enough of an army loyal to them, that he can force people to follow him. This is how almost every monarchy began The first modern democracy (not rome) was in britain when the parliament overthrew Cromwell(parliament) and king charles fought it out, and it was gruesome. People went back into a primitive state. Hobbes said that someone needed to take control, because either person was better than nobody. It's not very often that a government is created by a culture working together to form it. (USA is one of the few that did though, and it turned out quite well) this debate isn't over what you want government to be its about what government should be the US government can be viewed from both sides for example Hobbes: government is powerful. It has enough power to be able to give people privileges, because it knows it can control its people. People are afraid to break rules because of the cops. It keeps us in line. We get lots of freedom only because the government is strong enough to enforce it. Locke: Government is only protecting our rights. It is working for us. We follow its rules in exchange for it protecting us. If it fails to do well, then we have the right to overthrow it and create a better one on our own. __________________

10-11-2005, 05:30 PM	#20
esupin FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Alphabet City, Manhattan Age: 35 Posts: 1,756	RE: Re: RE: Hobbes or Locke? Well, considering the founding fathers believed that government is created by the people, and can be overthrown by the people if it becomes too oppressive, Hobbes's theory does not really work in this case. However, times have changed, and I think the US government can be looked at in a more Hobbesian point of view, so who knows. __________________ http://www.youtube.com/esupin

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)