It compares Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau in regards to social contract, the state of nature and each of their ideal governments.

Essay by duetomorrowUniversity, Bachelor's April 2002

download word file, 7 pages 4.2 3 reviews

Downloaded 596 times



Hobbes invites us to take place in a thought experiment where equals and nonequals are placed together in a state of nature without the existence of a state power placed over them. Hobbes believes that the people will soon lapse into a state of war where each person is threatened with violent attack. He says the conflict is caused by three basic factors, which are, competition, diffidence and glory. Competition consists in the fact that in the state of nature, if there is some resource which a person wants there are no restraints on getting it other than the physical and mental powers of other people. Glory, consists in the concern that each person has to have value for others. But arguably, more important than either of these, is diffidence. This is essentially the suspicion that another may be about to attack you, a suspicion that makes it rational for you to get in the first blow.

Locke's view of the state of nature is that man has the right to "as much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy." "Man obtained property through his labour and the availability that there was good and enough for others and that he would not appropriate more than he can use." Locke's argument is good so far, but greedy.

Locke argues that man would use the good of his labour to exchange with others and appropriate different goods. No man was allowed to appropriate more than he could trade or use. Some...