On Why Hobbes Is More Reasonable Than Locke Essay Example for Free

On Why Hobbes Is More Reasonable Than Locke EssayKeOf totally the social contract theories that cede been put forth, the most influential perhaps soak up been John Lockes and Thomas Hobbes. While both are inborn Law theorists, they have completely different views of whiles state of character. John Locke thinks of gay in a natural state as a peaceful, social being while Thomas Hobbes thinks of man as an aggressive and greedy man. Both theorists also showed that man doesnt live in a state of nature, social contracts will be variationed to g all overn the populace. It is, however, the reasons for the formation of these social contracts that are of relevance to this essay.I believe that neither of these theories are dead on target depictions of man but Hobbes seems more practical in his theory than Locke. In a state of nature, as perceived by ALL these theories, each man will live a solitary life. Therefore, when resources are scarce and each man is trying to get the best ou t of the environment, there has to be a way to resolve the conflict that is bound to occur. A social contract has to be made. Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes lived in an era when wars were being waged all over Europe.Hobbes saw Spanish Armada, 30 Years War, First Second Bishops War, Scottish invasion of England, Irish Rebellion and English Civil War. It is no wonder, then, that he has such(prenominal) a dim view of mankind. Locke starts off by proposing, in his treatise On the Citizen that all men are born with more or less partake faculties of body and mind. There are no natural disparities so great as to give one man exclusive claim to some benefits. People, self-absorbed as they are, will always try to make their life as at rest as possible. In a state of nature, it is possible for everybody to live a comfortable life in a certain society.This, however is in the event that the natural resources are too vast to be exhausted. When resources are scarce, which was the plate in Europ e at Hobbes time, men will resort to force to get what they want. The stronger man will live the most comfortable life. This would inevitably claim to the establishment of a kratocracy. In an effort to promote peace and equality, the people will cede their power to the Leviathan, who will proclaim truths that none of the governed will have the power to go against. For this social contract to subsist, the cession of power has to be mutual between the members of the society.In this respect, he endorses our modern view of a constitution as deriving power from the people. Any further explanation of Hobbes theory is pointless as far as this essay is concerned. The relevance of Hobbes Social pin down theory Most people wrongly get stuck at the point where life is described by Hobbes as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. I have no authority to describe what life was without a social contract as I have never known man to exist in a state of nature for long enough to study. More i mportant to me is what mans reaction to being in a state of nature is.Man strives to remain peaceful and maintain equality with his fellow man. According to Hobbes, the Leviathan ought to maintain this state by punishing those who unjustly exceed the limits of their power as per the contract. A modern view of the Leviathan is the government, which will enforce the laws that the citizens (through their legislative representatives) have agreed upon (a social contract). Hobbes view that the Leviathan should be a monarch is, no doubt, influenced by European politics at the time, which was dominated by monarchies.Hobbes does not argue that man is not a social animal, his argument is based on an economic point of view (self-preservation and development in the Commons). In support of the argument put forth in class, I believe that when faced with a difficulty that affects many people, the people will come together in an effort to solve it. Hobbes problem is maintenance of peace, which is essential for man to live a comfortable life, is solved by appointing an authority (the Leviathan) to ensure that this happens.The biggest argument I could draw from the argument in class was that Hobbes saw man as unable to form any relationships with another so as to achieve a common good. This, I would like to point out, is a state of nature, which I am heretofore to witness. Hobbes biggest undoing perhaps, is his infatuation with preservation of the power of the Leviathan. He says that the Leviathan has the power to punish all who undermine its authority. Elinor Ostroms view What I took from Ostroms discussion on Economics, the State and the Third Sector is that we should not always look to the state as the solution to all our problems.Furthermore, institutional diversity should be embraced beca aim you cannot have a one-size-fits-all solution for some issues. Where land is a scarcity e. g. The Peoples Republic of China, there is a much more urgent for land law than there is i n such sparsely populated areas such as Chads rural lands. This part of Ostroms views I totally agree with. Furthermore, in her treatise, Governing the commons, she demonstrates mans apathy to a state of nature, coming together to create a law that will govern their use of common property.Conclusion I believe that while man in a state of nature (and otherwise) is greedy and egoistic, being a rational being, man will look for a solution to a common problem by coming together to solve it. The solution to the tragedy of commons as per Hobbes is the establishment of a Leviathan. This eliminates indecision, which is an inherent characteristic of human beings. Clans, tribes, states, empires and monarchies are all headed by a Leviathan of sorts and it is no wonder they are so successful.