Locke’s And Hobbes’ View of Human Nature
Locke’s view of human nature is that it is inherently equal, with a tendency toward peace. Locke believes that human nature informs the state of nature in that since human nature is thought to be “good” and just, therefore, it must be the state of nature. According to Locke, human nature is generally one of independence and unwillingness to meddle in others’ lives.
Locke believed that human nature is marked by the way they tolerate the level of reasoning. He thought that nature makes people selfish. More overall people have equal independent and a natural way to defend their possession and life in general. He believed the right to protect nature was not enough, so he introduced the civil society to resolve the conflicts. Locke argues that “humans have inherent, God-given rights whether or not a government is around to guarantee them” (Vaughn 370). He advocated governmental to separate power such that it was the only way to determine the right and also an obligation idea to save nature.
Moreover, Locke’s view of human nature is that all humans are equal and independent with common natural rights to protect their possessions, lives, and liberty. Locke sees the state of nature as an inferior state caused by a lack of enough support and similar laws but still sees it as the one where humans enjoy their rights. He remarks that, “… every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property” (Vaughn 373). He believed that human nature was based on tolerance and reasoning and that all humans are equal and independent with natural rights to protect; this allowed them to be selfish. Humans’ inability to protect their natural rights leads them to opt for civil society to help them solve the conflict in a civil way with the government’s help. Through the government, all individuals are bound by the laws of a central authority that represents the will of the majority. Locke’s view of human nature is based on the fact that it does not have enough support as it is independent but finds support in the government, which binds individuals with common laws.
Hobbes points out that to know the elements of natural and political laws, it is necessary to investigate what human nature is, what the body politic is, and what is called law.5 Three categories that are linked without losing their independence, because an analysis of the aspects that constitute human nature cannot be made without considering its relationship with the body politic and the law. This idea postulates a vision of a social human nature, which comes from this trilogy. Three categories, which intervene in the anthropological and political conformation of the philosophical theory proposed by Hobbes, are used as instruments to explain the praxis of men as architects of a State to guarantee the individual and collective autonomy for peace and concord. He contends that “Those living in the state of nature are free, sociable, equal, and (mostly) at peace” (Vaughn 370).
Locke believes that human beings are rational and compassionate, while Hobbes’ view is that human beings are naturally selfish and greedy. Locke has a more optimistic view of human nature. He does not believe that all human beings are bound to fight and compete with one another, but Hobbes’ holds an incredibly pessimistic view of human nature in which he believes that the only thing that motivates humans is power. A person’s quest for power is what drives their daily decision-making process. I think that both Locke and Hobbes make valid points with their theories, but in my opinion, Locke holds a more accurate view. While human beings can be incredibly selfish, greedy, and power-driven, I think these traits are more the product of the society they live in, as opposed to their inherent natural state or disposition. With this in mind, Locke’s idea that human beings are rational creatures with the capability to set aside their needs to assist with others’ needs is a theory that I believe holds more weight than Hobbes’.
Work Cited
Vaughn, Lewis. Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press, 2019.