• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Politics A: Analysing Theories of the State and Individual - Hobbes and Locke

Extracts from this document...


Gordon Daniels Politics A: Analysing Theories of the State and Individual Hobbes and Locke John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two political theorists and philosophers alive in the seventeenth century. Europe had seen the thirty years war that ended in 1648 and was followed by a period of civil wars and revolts in many countries. Most famously in England where a republic was declared and the king executed, war and revolution became a major concern of political theorists. Out of this period came John Locke's Treaties of Government 1689 and Thomas Hobbes Leviathan 1651. Two theories regarding the role of the state and individual that shared much the same theoretical methodology. The discussion of a hypothetical state of nature and the idea of a social contract in order to achieve a civil society, but despite this their views could not have been more diametrically opposed. John Locke would be considered a liberal and liberalism was considered a middle class or bourgeoisie movement for freedom from feudal and monarchial control. They were concerned with freedom legal and economic and supported the idea of civil liberties. Locke argued that sovereignty should not reside with the state but with the people. The state had supreme power but only if it was bound by civil law what he called 'natural law'. ...read more.


He envisaged a "state of peace, goodwill and mutual assistance and preservation" Thomas Hobbes unlike Locke was an absolutist, absolutism being a political theory made popular by Hobbes. An absolutist system being one where there is no limitation on what a legitimate government may legally do, where authority is absolute and unchecked. This is not to say that a legitimate government can do anything whatsoever and get away with it, but rather an assertion hat a duly constituted government has the right to absolute authority. Hobbes did not see a state of nature as a state of plenty he saw it as a state of war. He imagined a fictional state were no government existed, and he had a bleak image where everyone would be fighting over scarce resources it would be a state of war. Man would not be required to have some social responsibility; he thought self interest would be man's main motive the pursuit of passion, power and wealth. Hobbes concluded that in nature, when all men would act on the basis of their unstable beliefs, there would be an equal instability in their actions. Men would rightly or wrongly conclude that all other men represented a danger to them the life of a man Hobbes said would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. ...read more.


Locke like Hobbes appreciated the need for government to regulate the relations between men. The contract envisaged by Locke was very different from Hobbes. The Lockean individual only gave up as much of his power as was necessary for the sovereign to leave for him the right to "life, liberty and property". The sovereign was granted a trust by which he governed to safeguard the natural rights of individuals. If a sovereign should prove to be in breach of the trust granted, then the subjects had the right to rebel against the sovereign authority and regain their own power as executors of the law of nature. Both Locke and Hobbes rely heavily on the notion that individual nationality can determine the transition from their hypothetical state of nature to a legitimate political or sovereign authority. Many believe this to be a contrived basis on which to construct the legitimate foundations of government. The detached autonomous individuals Locke and Hobbes viewed as the primary units of a legitimate political society have been seen by some thinkers as an adequate basis for the proper construction of the state. Both were concerned with the security necessary for the individual's existence. However theories of both did to some extent introduce the notion that men had some sort of say in their political destiny, even if it meant sacrificing much of their natural freedom. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. How revolutionary were Lutheran and Calvinist theories of authority?

    Christians must follow their Lord and Saviour but at the same time be under the law instituted by the almighty God. Christians and non-Christians both need to be under the law. 'Both the Church and the State must acknowledge their subjection to God and that each has a distinctive God

  2. Are Judges Politicians In Disguise?

    Judicial review is one of the greatest and most controversial contributions of the constitution to the law and government. Power of the Supreme Court to overturn any legislation or governmental action is deemed as inconsistent with the constitution, bill of rights or federal law.

  1. Marx and Weber - Theories of the state

    Marx believed "for the individual and society alike the very business of getting a living-production, consumption, exchange and distribution- is the structure within which personal and national politics are played out and the way in which these economic activities are organised is itself political, malleable and contentious" (Redhead, 1995, p.160).

  2. Notes on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    risk on someone without their consent (which is analogous because the government does not ask individuals' consent when it passes laws). Clarifying the analogy: Passing a single paternalistic law is analogous to imposing this surgery on a single person - because each of these things might have some good effects

  1. Andrew Jackson: Common Man or Common Scoundrel

    common constituency, Jackson won the election with 178 electoral votes to Adams's 83 votes. Once incumbent, Jackson instituted the "leading principle in the Republican creed" (Hofstadter 66) of rotation in office in the form of his spoils system. In theory, system would permit as many citizens as possible to hold office at least briefly.

  2. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    That is the only way to have a proper government, a government the people will want to be under. References Locke, J. (1688). Second Treatise of Government. Locke begins by saying that God gave the world to mankind. Every feature of the world was "common" to man, meaning that the world belonged to everyone.

  1. Russia's Political Party System as an Obstacle to Democratization

    instituted a greater balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in their constitutions (for example, the presidents of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, and Moldova are elected by the parliaments), and their political parties enjoy considerable independence of action.

  2. Compare Hobbes and Locke's views on the obligation to obey the law.

    Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work