Each individual is not subject to any other individual but to the? This equality is not based of alliances, physical or mental prowess but rather on the fact that we are, in a sense, children of a god. The sovereign power may be vested in the hands of a single person or group of persons. But people will refrain from adopting that extreme and dangerous path. Absence of natural power to execute natural laws. It may be one containing a few rogues and be occasionally guilty of the misapplication of justice, but man is still primarily rational rather than a desire seeking species. Locke will challenge the truth of innate doctrine and willing to admit if it is a mistake by those who believe the truth derives from some other notion.
Dictatorship and you would be right. So long as the state will be able to fulfill the terms of contract people will not hesitate to show obligation to the state. The government or ruler is no almighty entity as in Hobbes theory. By the second pact of subjectionis, people united together and pledged to obey an authority and surrendered the whole or part of their freedom and rights to an authority. For the government to have the obedience and loyalty of the citizens, the government must perform certain functions and act appropriately.
Thomas Hobbes theory of Social Contract appeared for the first time in Leviathan published in the year 1651 during the Civil War in Britain. This is the opinion of C. Hobbes envisaged of a secular state. Though he continued to work for the Cavendish family intermittently for the rest of his life, Hobbes also made several voyages to Europe to learn and work with his philosophical colleagues, including Galileo, Mersenne, and René Descartes. It is in this sense prudential. A commonality that both Hobbes and Locke hold is the necessity of government which is again contrasted by the means of recourse said government's citizens have when the government has become abusive to their rights. But one-sided evaluation must not be allowed to preoccupy our mind.
John Locke theory of Social Contract is different than that of Hobbes. Sadly there is some ambiguity about the definition of these rights, but there are at least three that are well know. He has viewed it from a comprehensive perspective. He who violates the inalienable rights is the enemy of mankind. But Rousseau thought that the power must come from the people through the means of general will. Naturally, individual freedom had no importance to him. The chief objective of the state would be to protect these.
For man X may desire a set piece of land and take it peacefully, but his knowing that all else is equal could give him reason to suspect that man Y or Z may have a desire to take this land, even though they have made no such expression of the will. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. Hobbes believed people act on their own self-interest, and they would go to any extreme to help themselves. Hobbes was a known English philosopher from Malmesbury. It even contributed greatly to the American Declaration of Independence centered on classical republicanism and liberal theory.
However, for both authors, human reason is the result of a thinking — and prudent — being. This idea of self-preservation and self-protection are inherent in man? The implication is, if the existence of community is not threatened the community will go on exercising its power. From these premises of human nature, Hobbes goes on to construct a provocative and compelling argument for which they ought to be willing to submit themselves to political authority. People were deprived of contradicting that will. When it comes to the issue of the state of nature, Locke believed that in that state, men are usually true to their word and fulfill their obligations.
Hobbes thinks that citizens should relinquish all of their rights to the sovereign, because the sovereign knows what is best for them. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. The two men both had very strong views on freedom and how a country should be governed. Hobbes assumed otherwise, thus his conclusions are strikingly different from those of other natural law theorists. Prior to the Social Contract, the life in the State of Nature was happy and there was equality among men. People slowly began to live together in small families, and then in small communities.
Society creates order and grants the state legitimacy. Also, both Hobbes and Locke both believed that people are free and equal in the state of nature. You will not violate the social contract because you do not have the right to rebel. That while there are some who are stronger than others, the weak are capable of forming confederacies to kill the stronger and so be strong themselves Hobbes, p. Comparison Political Ideas of Hobbes: 1.
Yet still this is not all, for the picture painted becomes even worse if we consider those who simply enjoy conquest or the suffering of others. Locke and Rousseau, on the contrary, set forth the view that the state exists to preserve and protect the natural rights of its citizens. He did this by imagining persons in a situation prior to the establishment of society, the State of Nature. As a result of this contract, the mightiest authority is to protect and preserve their lives and property. Locke on the other hand, held the belief that reverberates today that when the people are being an injustice and they have exhausted all means, that they have the right to… philosophy period.
By emphasizing upon the development of the environment of society and individuality Hobbes had strengthened the foundation of democracy. But the stand of Rousseau in clear. Despite the insecurities, they are more pleasant and quiet. Based on Hobbes' theories there is little to nothing defining right and wrong except for what the individual, in the state of nature, or the state, in society, decides. So long as the Government fulfils this purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding but, when it ceases to fulfil it, then the laws would have no validity and the Government can be thrown out of power. There are few similarities among them, but differences are more prominent.