Differences between the Locke and Hobbes Philosophy: – John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were known as social contract and natural law theorists. However, both are completely different in terms of their position and the conclusions in respect of several laws. Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher. He became famous when he published his book “Leviathan”; he was the founder of political philosophy in the West. All this allowed him to obtain to Hobbes several recognitions. He was the main exponent of absolutism. Not only that, it contributed greatly to the various branches, including ethics, geometry, gas physics, theology and even political science.
Differences between the Locke and Hobbes Philosophy
John Locke, on the other hand, is considered the father of liberalism. He was one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment and proved to be a great philosopher and physician. He is one of the first British empiricists. It even contributed greatly to the American Declaration of Independence centered on classical republicanism and liberal theory. John Locke studied at a prestigious institution in London called the Westminster School. Once he finished his studies, he was accepted at Christ Church, Oxford. However, I was not satisfied with the undergraduate curriculum at that time. He was more interested in the works of René Descartes than in the curriculum taught at the University. He was also introduced to medicine and obtained a bachelor’s degree of Medicine in Oxford.
Thomas Hobbes’s education was different. He studied at Westport Church when he was four years old. From there he entered the Malmesbury School and had the opportunity to enter a private school maintained by Robert Latimer. Her academic qualifications were impressive, so she approached Magdalen Hall, closely connected to Hertford College of Oxford. Hobbes was not very interested in school learning so he decided to have his own curriculum. It was not until 1608 that he managed to obtain his degree.
In regard to the question of the natural state, Locke believes that in the natural state men are usually faithful to his word and even do their duties. Despite the insecurities, they are more pleasant and quiet. As for Hobbes, he made his clear position on the natural state in a brief statement. He said that there is no society that is not afraid continuously to the danger of a violent death. He argues that without a state with government, man’s life would be poor, brutal, brief and unpleasant.
The social contract is different between the two. Locke believes that while respecting the right to life, one obtains the right to justice and the impartial protection of property. Any violation of the social contract would cause a state of war between compatriots. Hobbes, on the other hand, man surrenders his freedom in exchange for security and that he obeys the social contract to be safe.
Key Differences between Locke’s Philosophy and Hobbes
Lock believes that man is a social animal by nature, whereas Hobbes asserts that man is not naturally social, but submits himself to the state in exchange for protection.
Lock believes that man in the natural state is obedient and true to his word, whereas Hobbes thinks that without a man to rule it is brutal and his life would be in danger.
In the social contract, Lock believes that man has an impartial right to life and protection, while Hobbes believes that whenever man obeys the covenant he will be safe.