Comparing Thomas Hobbes and John Locke’s views concerning what life is like in a state of nature, we can see that the two-theorist’s share opposite views in making an assumption of what the state of nature is like. Thomas Hobbes’ views include pessimistic views of nature and how its effects can influence man to selfishly consider what he would need to do to secure his safety while John Locke presents a natural concept that assumes there is a universal thought of good that man is aware of. Attempting to justify the role of government or justice by understanding the state of nature can be somewhat accurate and can be considered for such purposes, but may fail to answer some aspects of society overall and leave other things unanswered. In regards …show more content…
Hobbes’ views on absolute monarchy is a tested theory, which through a historical lens, we know to be problematic and ineffective in the long haul. Hobbes during the years when he began forming his concepts, aware of the wars during his time, may have failed to assess properly the political structure, then, being that it was similar to absolute monarchy, and that most wars during his time were waged through political systems that adopted this. Locke while having significant influence such as influencing the founding fathers of America and providing a more complex political structure in detail, however, can be seen to miss certain issues that arise from his views on private property and government functions. Viewing things through a modern lens, if we were to adopt Locke’s limited government, which does not provide societal needs such as the development of infrastructure, services, or the maintenance of various things than this form of system would be problematic (i.e., using a modern lens we know people need more from government). Proponents who may support Locke’s view on government should consider that while in Locke’s government if agreements are broken the government will be the arbitrator. However, this does make up for the various things that the government would not do along with not …show more content…
However, this can be a slippery slope due to the uncertainties that can be encountered by comparing Hobbes and Locke’s individual views. For example, both theorists’ note of the possibilities or things that could happen in the state of nature to which they do (e.g., the good and bad people do or are capable of). Locke’s notions of human begins being social animals is a common feeling that many can relate to which this means that humans are born to interact with one another. Hobbes’ view on the same issue suggests that human beings are not social animals and are unfiltered in how they behave or what they know, being a view would be widely rejected assessing modern day developments. At the same time, if we were to reject Hobbes’ views on human nature than there would be some things that could not be justified. Throughout history as early as what we know to be the first human sighting from an evolutionary perspective homo sapiens are known to be social (e.g., tribes forming or hunting together) or from a biblical perspective it was Adam and Eve (e.g., marriage and children). Through both scenarios, the evidence of human beings being social is present, meaning that while Hobbes’ notion of man living a solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short life is somewhat accurate. Hobbes view