Essay about Comparing Hobbes and Lockes Versions of the...

Comparing Hobbes and Lockes Versions of the Social Contract Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, claims that peace and unity can best be achieved by setting up a society by having humans agree to a covenant (Hobbes: Ch.18 pg.548). A sovereign who is in charge of protecting the society or state rules Hobbes’s society. In his introduction, Hobbes describes this commonwealth as an artificial person and as a body politic that mimics the human body. Hobbes portrays the state as a gigantic human form built out of the bodies of its members, the sovereign as its head (Hobbes: Introduction pg.492). Hobbes calls this figure the Leviathan, which means sea monster in Hebrew and is the name of a monstrous sea creature appearing in the Bible.†¦show more content†¦There are two types of freedom: positive and negative. Positive freedom is the ability to do what you want to do and what you should do without any restrictions. Negative freedom is the ability to do what you want to do but with consequences. According to Hobbes, natural rights incl ude the right of self-preservation, equality, and the ability to punish. Hobbes defines natural rights with three natural laws. He claims that natural law is used so that people know what to do so that they do not compromise their own reason. Hobbes does not believe that divinity has anything to do with natural law or rights. The first natural law (Hobbes: Ch.14 pg. 534) is that everyone should be peaceful but if one has to go into war to get peace then they should go into war. The second natural law (Hobbes: Ch.14 pg. 534) is derived from the first natural law. It states that a human has the right to self-preservation by defending oneself even if it means going to war. As long as humans are protecting themselves and as all as they want to attain new things, they will always be in a state of competition or war. The third natural law (Hobbes: Ch.15 pg.538) is that humans must obey agreements or covenants. If a person is to break a law then that is considered unjust. According to Hobbes people keeping agreements defines justice (Ch.15 pg.538). If justice ca nnot be kept in state of nature then no justice will be found. People would join together in a society and be willing to giveShow MoreRelatedCompare and Contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s Views of the State of Nature and the Fundamental Purpose of Political Society. Whose View Is the More Plausible? Why?1564 Words   |  7 PagesCompare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why? Introduction Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from thoseRead MoreConceptions of the Social Contract Theory924 Words   |  4 PagesThomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau were political philosophers who formulated their own version of the social contract theory. The social contract theory is a treaty or an agreement that developed a set of laws, organized a functional society, and created the need to be governed. It was put into place when man realized that there was no law. Mankind eventually sought the desire for security and order. To receive security and order people shall voluntarily give up all their rightsRead MoreThe Theory Of Social Contract Theory2326 Words   |  10 Pages Social Contract Brian Horvath Cleveland State University Business Society Government The concept of social contract theory is that in the beginning man lived in the state of nature. They had no government and there was now law to regulate them. There are three main philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau that are best known for the social contract theory. In the twentieth century moral and political theory with John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contractRead MoreJurisprudential Theories on IPR13115 Words   |  53 Pagesof an individual. Utilitarians believe that intellectual property stimulates social progress and pushes people to further innovation. Lockeans argue that intellectual property is justified based on deservedness and hard work. Various moral justifications for private property can be used to argue in favor of the morality of intellectual property, such as: 1. Natural Rights/Justice Argument: this argument is based on Locke’s idea that a person has a natural right over the labour and/or products which