Political philosophy (Locke and Hobbes)

Political Philosophy
By Name:
Course code+ Name:
Professor:
Institution:
City and State:
Date:
Political philosophy
Political philosophy has greatly been revolutionized and explained in the works of the two renowned philosophers Hobbes and Locke. Both of them have different views on the political world. They share common ideas in some aspects as evidenced in their views on nature and purpose of government. The political philosophy tries to explain whether a government is important or people should be left to rule their own world. The philosophers explain the use of natural law to maintain order. The state of nature is simply stated as the period that existed before the establishment of the government, a concept common between the arguments of the two philosophers. They try to distinguish whether man should be left at the state of sole freedom or should be ruled by sovereignty. As such, they tend to make their view different from each other’s despite the predominant similarities that exist between their concepts. To understand the similarities that exist in their ideologies, a closer look their individual views on the law of nature and purpose of government are focused upon. The two studies are often contrasted although they still have similarities if studied at an advanced point of view.[Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Theory, 1st ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2009).] [Ibid]
By deducing information from the Leviathan literature and the earlier works of this philosopher, John Hobbes explained his views on the state of nature also called ‘the natural condition of mankind.' He argued that all humans are naturally equal in terms of body and mind. As such, no human being is at any point different from the other in a way. From this equity everyone is, therefore, willing to fight against one another so that they can be respected and be feared by their counterparties. He explains that everyone will fight hard to earn the respect and fear from others. The awe state keeps all men in a condition called warren, where every man is against others.He says that in this state each person has a ‘natural right’ or liberty to execute anything that is considered necessary for protecting one’s own life. Hobbes explained this condition as ‘ war of all against all.’ In the state of nature, there is no personal law or an act of injustice since no law exists to govern the people except for natural laws discovered by the law of nature. The first one was that each person has to endeavor peace, as long as he has hopes of attaining it. The second was that a man should be willing to indulge in any endeavor whenever the others are willing too. For an individual to enforce peace and freedom for himself, it would be necessary for such a person to put down this right to all things. According to Hobbes, the state of nature subsists all the time among the countries that are independent as long as there is no law except for the ones enacted from the law of nature.[Thom Brooks, Just War Theory, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Tigermoth publishers, 2011).] [Thom Brooks, Just War Theory, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Tigermoth publishers, 2011)] [Mark Evans, Just War Theory, 1st ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).]
Conversely, John Locke gives an explanation to the state of nature in his second treatise on civil government. Locke explains the state of nature by saying that all men are free to redirect their actions and dispose off their tenures and persons as he perceives all men as having fit thoughts within the law of nature.Locke suggests that the state of law has a law of nature that governs it where that law is reason. He argues that the reason is an indication that no person wants to harm others in his life. All people desire to live in freedom and possessions, and if one goes against this, he may be punished. Locke’s view of nature is, in a way, obtained from the Christian beliefs. As such, the belief in Christianity explains that he acknowledges the existence of God. In his argument, he brings in the moral law where a man has to think what is morally right and what is morally wrong according to his own judgment. Locke further adds that, without moral laws, men cannot exist in a society and the trust between men would collapse. He, therefore, gave two ways that a man can rely on for differentiating what is morally right or wrong: divine revelation and the sense of experience.[Donald Jay Herzog, Justification In Political Theory: Hobbes, Locke, Utilitarianism, Hume And Smith., 1st ed. (Cambridge: Law Book Co., 2010).]
From the two explanations, we can deduct the similarities from our own understanding; Hobbes and Locke do not believe in the existence of any laws for governing the people. From this, it would be suggested that no acts of injustices can suffice in the society where some people get mistreated. Locke says that a man has to think morally right in order to make the best decisions. If two people had to choose between two actions, and both made different choices according to their mentality, they both hold the notion that each is morally right. This is as a result of the fact that the methods given by Locke for identifying what is morally right or wrong does not exactly lead to the same answer when used by different people in different circumstances. This leads to the conclusion that Locke has the same view as Hobbes...