Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Hobbes or Locke?
Although you have not yet reached the age of 20, you have all enjoyed plenty of chances to observe human beings and their behaviors. Do you agree with Thomas Hobbes, the political philosopher who viewed humans as selfish beasts who need to be ruled by an absolutist government in order to avoid a state of hellish anarchy; or do you agree more with John Locke, the political philosopher who viewed humans as reasoning creatures exhibiting goodwill towards one another who should agree to be ruled by a limited ruler who will respect their natural rights? Remember, try to keep your comments brief. You are encouraged to respond to each other, with criticism and/or humor, provided you do so appropriately and with mutual respect. Please post by Monday, December 10th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd tend to agree more with John Locke on this one. Though I'm no fan of the state in general, my agreement with Locke is more based on anthropological data than any sort of political sympathies. If one looks at the historical record, the view of Hobbes makes little sense. If humanity was living in a hellish way before the creation of an absolute state, then humanity would not have survived for almost 2 million years; we would have simply killed ourselves off through internal conflict. And in fact, the life of these humans was actually very good. Because of low population density, humans in pre-historic times had a varied diet and in general spent little time on surviving. This is of course mirrored today in the tribes of Bushmen and other indigenous groups who continue a pre-agricultural existence. Another counter-argument to Hobbes would be that of Peter Kropotkin, who in his book Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution argued persuasively that co-operation is as important a factor in evolution as competition.
ReplyDeleteWell supported.
DeleteLocke's political philosophy is very well suited for a utopian society. Locke’s ideas of being governed by a limited ruler who will respect our natural rights are the basis for an ideal platform that all politicians should run on and stick too. Hobbes, on the other hand, has a political philosophy that is better suited for politicians who care more about their country, than they do their countrymen. Despite the lack of perfection in our world, I agree with Locke's philosophy because I disagree with the idea of division between races. We need to accept the fact that being French, Spanish, Dutch or 'Merican does not matter because those races do not exist. We are human and belong to the human race. There is a world full of people out there and we are responsible to it. We are responsible for ensuring that the dignity of every human being is upheld. Yes, some may not uphold this principle but I long for a perfect world. I am realistic; however, I am also optimistic.
ReplyDelete“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, nay, their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” ~ American Declaration of Independence
I do not agree with your opinion. I do not think political philosophies has to do with the existence of races. French, Spanish, Dutch, and American are nationalities, not races. Nationalities most certainly exist. Locke's philosophy is not exactly contributing to the unity of all races and ethnicities, either. While I agree with Locke, as you did, I do not understand the relevance of your reasoning.
DeletePolitical philosophies do deal with races, disguised as "nationalities".
DeleteI agree more with John Locke's political philosophy. The government has limited power to allow people to exercise personal freedoms. There needs to be some power that limits what people can do to avoid the anarchy Hobbes was describing, but the power cannot be too strong. The possibility for the power in Hobbe's philosophy to abuse power is much greater than that potential in Locke's theory if power is given to one person. These abuses are demonstrated udner the current Syrian leadership, which has the total power described under Hobbe's theory. Clearly, it is not working for many of those people.
ReplyDeleteThe political philosophy of John Locke is more agreeable than that of Thomas Hobbes. If one had to choose between living in a world following Locke's belief or a world following Hobbes's belief, they would most likely choose Locke's. It presents humans in a good way. Unlike Hobbes who describes humans as "hellish beasts", Locke describes humans as "reasoning creatures exhibiting goodwill towards one another". Therefore, it is natural for people to prefer Locke's political philosphy because it portrays our species in a positive way. In reality, I believe Locke's philosphy is better overall. In certain circumstances such as an uprising, natural disaster, famine, etc., Hobbes's idea may be more effective towards restoring order. However, Locke's philosophy is more effective in sustaining a ordered world.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I agree more with the philosophy of John Locke more than that of Thomas Hobbes. I feel like many Americans would feel this way, because the philosophy of our country is very similar to that of John Locke. We live in a society where we have a limited ruler and who respects our natural rights. Over the years, the United States has been a very successful nation and in some cases the greatest country in the world. The philosophy of Hobbes on government is something that we would associate with a countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and just a couple of decades ago, the Soviet Union. These nations have had many issues in foreign relations and have people living in unimaginable poverty, and have not been as successful overall as countries who adopted Locke's philosophies. Countries like the United States and others in the Free World. For these reasons, I tend to agree more with John Locke's philosophy on government.
ReplyDeleteI feel that both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes philosophies can be applied to society. Hobbes feels humans are selfish, which is very true, as much as some people try to deny it. We all want what is best for us first and others usually come second. The part about an absolutist government, however, I do not agree with because and absolutist government is reenforcing what Hobbes is saying about humans being "selfish beasts" because an absolutist government, whom ever is in charge, will most likely do what they want and what will benefit them not the good of the people. John Locke's philosophy is more down to earth and he is correct in that people help others but most people do not. His policy of government is much more reasonable than Hobbes in that the government should be there to help the people and by helping the people it will make society better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with John Locke in the respect that humans are, in our most basics form, good willed and reasoning creatures and should be ruled by a limited ruler who respects their natural rights. This philosophy works well when it is applied to the government but is impractical when applied to other places in society. For example, presidents or CEO of company's respect their workers as competent, reasonable, good willed people but nevertheless rule absolutely. Whatever road they see as best for the company these choose without consulting the majority of the workforce. There aren't democratic elections to see how the company should proceed because as Hobbes' suggest this would lead to anarchy and nothing would ever get done. I do believe that Locke's philosophy overall is the better way to govern because it requires the involvement of the entire population to reach a solution which, in theory, benefits the population. Hobbes' philosophy of absolute rule works in businesses and other small hierarchical places because it is the most efficient way to get things done. In short, Hobbes' philosophy works on the small scale while Locke's philosophy is better suited for governing on the large scale.
ReplyDeleteJohn Locke provides a better philosophical outlook than that of Thomas Hobbes. I say this as humans are far more developed than the "beasts" that Hobbes claims they are. Humans can function without a government stripping their rights, as has been proven throughout nations such as ours. While it may be important for the government to take away some rights of its citizens in dire circumstances, anarchy will not ensue if we are not ruled by an absolutist. Similalry, most humans will seek goodwill towards others without the force of a government. With a government lightly ruling a country as Locke suggested, most citizens of that nation will continue to act without harm towards one another despite the lack of absolute rule. While there may be a few instances in which Hobbes' philosophy should be enforced, Locke's teachings of a ruler who respects their natural rights far outweighs the rule of a government that strips humans of these rights.
ReplyDeleteLocke's argument for government is applicable in a successful and peaceful society but during times of war or other strife Hobbes idea of an absolutist government is more practical. In times of trouble many people can be fearful and also selfish. They do this not on purpose but rather only see their own situation and don't see the big picture. When this occurs, a strong leader is necessary to take control and lead a nation towards the best option for everyone. However, during peace time people are much less emotional and are able to consider the entire situation. In this situation, which I believe is far more common than one full of war and strife, Locke's argument for a limited ruler is much better.
ReplyDeleteI find myself agreeing more with John Locke on this one because if I agreed with Hobbes then life would just suck. Not every human being is a "Hellish Beast" because if that were so then you couldn't interact with people. Hobbes may not have been loved as a child or maybe he just doesn't have many friends. Every example of Hobbes' humanity has failed in the past or is considered to be a terrible way to life. Absolutist monarchs and leaders such as the regime in North Korea is an example of place where absolutists are limiting the extent of peoples lives. Obviously the people of this country hate living there and are against this way of life but they can't escape it. Locke understands the real world and knows that in order for a country to survive and thrive it cannot be lead by only one person. I agree with Locke because he doesn't hate the world and he actually has some common sense.
ReplyDeleteI am more comfortable with John Locke's out look in that "humans are reasoning creatures exhibiting goodwill towards one another," rather than selfish beasts looking out for their own selfish needs. Hobbes' theory did not go to far off the beaten track for the political thoughts of that time in that many absolutist monarchs ruled in this time, such as the Bourbon kings, Frederick the Great, and Joseph II, and looking back at these empires, life seemed miserable, and although Louis !4th did have great success, it was at the cost of many people. A leader that is given too much power becomes to self centered and grows more hungry for power, rather than being interested in the well being of the country. For Locke, he understands that humans, on their own, will thrive, succeed, and look out for each other, and when they need a leader, they have someone to fall back on, and that person won't be a tyrant, because he knows the people do not really need him so badly, and in order to be a real leader, you need the people, and that was not the case for the absolute rulers. Locke allows for the society to grow, and gives a ruler open to change, not a ruler that oppresses the people for his own well being and power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Philosophy of John Locke rather than Thomas Hobbes. I agree that humans are reasoning creatures and have good will toward each other. I also agree that people are born with natural God given rights. Unlike Hobbes I do not think people shhould be forced to surrender them for promises of security or well being. Those rights unalienable to quote the Declaration of Independence. Leaders should preserve those rights since their power derives from the people. Citizens should not be forced to surrender their natural born rights to the whims of a tyrant.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Lockes philosophy more so than Hobbes. Locke concluded that humans are reasonable by nature. He also concluded that nurture makes the individual, not nature. Locke also said that if a government does not meet the approval of the citizens that it serves, then the citizens have the right to overthrow the government. This notion of rebelling against an unfair form of government helped form the United States, and many of Lockes philosophies on human rights are exchoed in our own Declaration of Independance. Locke was before his time when he stated his ideas, and these ideas later shaped the free world.
ReplyDelete