Modern
political thinkers like Hobbes and Locke are trying to understand
why people enter into social contracts and each author comes to
different conclusion. Which raises the question, how did these
modern thinkers end up with different conclusions upon answering
the same question? I argue that looking more specifically their
ideas on the equality of human nature will help answer how these
two authors came to different conclusions. For instance, Hobbes and
Locke both believe that humans are fundamentally equal in the state
of nature, where they differ is in what way that humans equal. For
instance, Hobbes believes that we are equal in our mentality and
strengths, which creates a competitive drive because everyone than
has equal opportunity and any means to find happiness. In contrast,
Locke believes we are equal in our rights and duties because in the
state of nature we are governed by the law of nature and reason.
The purpose of this paper is to show that the distinction of
equality between the two authors
show more content
For instance,
Hobbes argues that because we are all fundamentally equal at the
core the differences are quite minimal between each other, as even
the weakest can kill the strongest. He gives this example the fact
that even though the weakest is not as strong he can still fight
him through conspiracy or other factors because we all have access
to everything and at the end everyone is in danger of the other.
Moreover, competition as a result of equality is then at the heart
of Hobbes understanding of human nature and why people enter into
social contracts, as it is to avoid this constant competition with
the other. As he states that life in the state of nature is a life
of continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of
man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
Other samples, services and questions:
When you use PaperHelp, you save one valuable — TIME
You can spend it for more important things than paper writing.
