Comparisons between Hobbes and Lockes Accounts of Politics - Essay Example

Comparisons between Hobbes’ and Locke’s accounts of politics and political obligation Introduction Hobbes and John Locke lived in the 17th century, and their arguments in Philosophy impacted change in the world of politics. The philosophers emphasized on the factors surrounding human lives as contradicting depending on the diversity of social structures. For instance, the Latins and Greeks displayed different perceptions towards leadership styles thus resulting to different political approaches in their societies. John majored his philosophical views on natural and divine laws and the advantages and disadvantages that the two independent variables would bear for the society (Grant 22). On the other hand, Hobbes approached the laws with relevance as well as controversy to John’s arguments. The following discussion portrays the philosophical approaches of John and Hobbes in relation to politics and political obligations. Thomas Hobbes argues out on the implicit factors that society should exercise in delivering of authority over subjects. Hobbes perceives that political authority and structure is a science rather than the divine law of God (Finn 24). He argues out that such authority emanates from a process of ideas that originate from senses to the imaginations and later results to bearing the consequences of both factors. According to Hobbes, man abides to the virtual imaginations that relay during his wake and sleep and establish them in the course of life, and at times will use them as controllable over immediate subjects. Hobbe’s comparison to John Locke’s argument on political obligations, the two philosophers seem to show similarities that there is no specific mandate that any human being should dictate or express authority over subjects. They decry the approach that people portray authority as a biblical fact and establish that establish that it is only through natural law that people express authority over others (Grant 23). According to their philosophical documents, natural law is a science that dictates individuals in a society. Political obligations emanate from the masterminds who are first to conceive different imaginations and perceive them as appropriate to dictate their subjects. For example, the authority parents express to their children. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke perceive authority as a social menace as human beings react negatively to any sense of oppression (Finn 26). Perceptions that every person needs freedom of choices in life are often fond of causing distress and reactions towards societal authorities following any sense of dissatisfaction. However, Locke argues out that is naturally a social animal while Thomas contrasts with the argument by stating that human nature is not a replicate of social animal since it is the source of social existence. Hobbes further states that through nature and the importance held on human senses and imaginations to issue of modification, every society results to presuming a particular state structure through the possession of power (Grant 24). The two contrasts intensely since Locke perceives authority as the course of atrocities while Hobbes argues for the authority as essential to the political welfare of any given society. Comparisons made on the philosophers’ arguments on the concepts of natural law John and Hobbes derive different approaches and establish different arguments on the issue of the state of nature in relation to politics and political obligations of different societies. John argues out that the practice of the state of nature could show the significance if all associated variables would be let free to dictate their specific places in the in the society (Finn 27). His quotes on the American frontier and the ancient structures between Rome and Venice depict on his emphases on the necessary effects of letting all social factors presume their appropriate positions in accordance to the stipulations set in the state of nature. Locke derives an understanding that despite the existence of enmity and constraints between different people in the society, people resolve and adopt peaceful obligations to the best of their co-existence. For example, John explains on America and Soldania as precise approaches of exhibiting the state of nature since the inhabitants of the two different states enjoyed the right to own properties and rivalry remained a rare case since all individuals were at peace (Grant 25). Thomas Hobbes argued out that the state of nature was imminent to falling short of different conflicts as a result of the lack of a specific protocol for the delegation of authority to the society. His perceptions revolve around the fact that political obligations have to emanate from a centralized source of authority and that is the only means of achieving a proper society. He argues out that lack of authority may result to untimely dangers among the citizens of the society as each of them has unlimited freedom and does not fall a subject to any legal institution. Hobbes observes that such a situation may result in deaths due to the circumstances of violence among citizens. His arguments further point out on the value held for human life and the fact that the emergence of intense conflicts will result to violence and early deaths, contrary to the natural intentions of a supreme being (Finn 29). The above arguments depict contradicting approaches to the state of nature, and the two philosophers establish different but concrete facts in accordance to their perceptions on the particular practices that will nurture the will of the society at large. John perceives it as a necessity to practice a free state of nature whereby every individual acts in accordance to ethics and not as a subject of another person. On the contrary, Hobbes opposes John’s arguments on a basis that a free state of nature is inapplicable, and its practice shall cause more harm than good to the society. Therefore, they set a platform for different societies to implement the state of nature in which they derive their prospective political obligations in nurturing goodwill and value as a community (Grant 26). Politics and political obligations exist to serve the will of the majority group in the society. However, John Locke argues out on the disguise born in the knowledgeable approach to the issue of natural law. He states that as a matter of fact, the society has full knowledge and understanding of the occurrence of the law and the acts which are termed as good and bad in accordance to the societal beliefs and norms. John implements that different societies abide by different laws, and the individual populations to these societies have knowledge on the existence of the laws. He argues out on the nature that citizens may downplay their knowledge in relation to the law by acting in a controversy to the set law of the land. During such occurrences, Locke clarifies that people are able to define legalities and illegalities of the surrounding circumstances and the extent at which one shall be committing an offense against another person (Grant 27). Therefore, John denotes on a fact that people may disguise their knowledge of natural law to commit offenses against others. Hobbes takes a controversial approach to the knowledge held on natural law, adding although the society abides to it; the implied meaning may differ in perceptions according to the meanings conceived by the citizens. He holds that people implement their constitutions as they intend to co-exist beautifully amongst themselves, but they may misinterpret their desired laws. This philosopher declines on the factor of abundance in knowledge of common law and stipulates that people show naivety and lack of the desired knowledge towards the law. The philosopher articulates ignorance of natural law to the existence of a state of nature establishing that such naivety shall propel a continuous violence and animosity amongst the citizens. His perceptions to the occurrence of such conflicts revolve around the lack of definite approaches to indicate legality of possession. He denotes an understanding that the society shall conflict eternally as each person is politically obliged to his own freedoms and ethics. Therefore, Locke’s arguments that the society has adequate knowledge on the existence of natural law fall critic of Hobbes’ statement that the society exhibits naivety to understanding their laws and the contradicting effects result the state of nature and c system of unrest (Grant 28). The issue of politics prevails upon all societies thus; all citizens depict considerable degrees of politics. Both philosophers argue out on epistemology since it is a branch of philosophy that reveals the origin and composition of existing knowledge, and the extent at which it would be of relevance to the community or society. Locke establishes on the parity between the arguments held on the world and the exact nature of the world. John argues for the value held on ethics and the differences that people show in executing judgments on the aspects referred to as good deeds and those referred to as bad deeds. John perceives the diversity and extent of differences between individual perceptions of ethics as a source of conflicts. On the other hand, Hobbes argues out on the issue of epistemology as concentrated on the will of the powerful individuals of the society (Finn 42). The controversy rules out the effective will of man to implement a political approach that serves the goodwill of the society in essence that the people shall fall subject to the leaders. People are always in a conflicting situation with others as they struggle to achieve common benefits from scarce resources. John emphasizes on the fact that people should practice peaceful approaches when dealing with one another as an approach to curb and control conflicts. He explains about the importance of evidence to indulgence on circumstances that may bear conflicts at the long-run. As a political approach, John’s ideas to conflicts are relevant to ensuring that people concentrate on their sole interest and refrain from any intentions to harm other people’s rights and freedom. On the other hand, Thomas establishes on the nature of man and the fact that he can never coexist peacefully in the society lest there is a controlled system of power vested upon an individual who executes it upon the loyal citizens (Grant 29). Significance of the approaches The philosophers established differences and little similarities to the subject of natural law and its purpose of the society. Throughout the John Locke’s philosophical document, one can easily identify his condemn on leadership of the society with specific people as a social evil. He argues out that through knowledgeable approaches on differentiating on factors that pose as morally correct and those that pose as morally contradicting, people shall be able to live peacefully among themselves and shall avoid any conflicting situation (Finn 43). According to Hobbes’ approaches on natural law, human beings portray a system of unrest and continuous predation among themselves. With the existence of these challenges, Hobbes documents on the necessity that people should vest allow for power to emanate from a head and become subjects as it is the only method to accrue the benefits desired. Thomas Hobbes’ philosophical documentation seems to be the most appropriate and applied approach on natural law. This fact emanates from the prevalence and continued imposition of different systems of governance in different societies (Grant 32). Conclusions Philosophy poses as the historical approach to centralization of authority in the global society and the emergence of the modern systems of governance. The philosophers are accountable to modern political systems and the occurrence of democracy. Modern politics are incorporations of John Locke’s advocacy for the state of nature thus resulting to democracy, and Thomas Hobbes arguments on authority thus resulting in implementation of governance. According to their philosophical documents, natural law is a science that dictates individuals in a society. Political obligations emanate from the masterminds who are first to conceive different imaginations and perceive them as appropriate to dictate their subjects. For example, the authority parents express to their children (Finn 45). In conclusion, scholars applaud the two philosophers as the origin to the diverse systems of governance and political structures in existence. Work cited Finn, Stephen J. Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Natural Philosophy. London: Continuum, 2006. Internet resource. Grant, Ruth W. John Lockes Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Internet resource. Read More