Who would I pick?

Who would I pick?

The European Enlightenment was a time of emerging new ideas. Many thinkers including Thomas Hobbes and John Locke wanted to prioritize making human conditions during one's life better. In contrast to past philosophers whose would predominantly talk about topics such as religion and afterlife. They had different interest including science, religious tolerance and natural rights. This was a new age where people became more open minded and accepting. Although the philosophies from both philosophers were from long ago they are still applicable to today. In my perspective I think that John Locke's ideas would be more useful than Thomas Hobbes in modern day society. There are certain concepts of Hobbes that are far to barbaric for modern day society that he discussed in The Leviathan which was originally published in 1651. Locke's approach to government on the other hand was more realistic and had was more likely to ensure a peaceful happy society not only in England but in society today.

As mentioned prior in 1651 Thomas Hobbes published The Leviathan, where he defended the absolute power of kings. Hobbes believed that government was supposed to be a power that could impose order. Which seems to make sense because some form of government is needed to domesticate the community, this has been proved time and time again throughout history. Yet he also described the state of nature where every person was free to do what it took to survive. Almost describing the concept of “Survival of the Fittest” a phrase the originated from Darwinian Evolutionary theory. It's a way of explaining that only the strong survive as a process of natural selection, In my perspective I understand why this concept may have seemed fitting to the time period to a country at war, but if one were to use this idea in modern day government it would lead to a world war and a countless amount of bloodshed. Hobbes concept that every person was free to do what it took to survive would lead to anarchy and an increase in crime rates. Making it obviously not suitable or in anyway helpful to today's world.

Both Hobbes and Locke referenced to natural rights and the limitations of them. A person's natural rights include life, liberty, and property. Hobbes thought that in order for a sovereign to have overall power that would allow them to impose order, the people should give up their natural rights and freedom to the sovereign. This concept was borrowed from the English contract law: An implied agreement. An implied law in English terms means making a contractual agreement that is beneficial for both parties. Yet the people giving up their natural rights seems counterproductive. A person shouldn't give up their power for their sovereign but rather have their power represented by the sovereign. Which is exactly what John Locke said in his philosophy. Locke believed that a person's natural rights could never be taken away over voluntarily given up. Making them therefore “inalienable” which is defined as something that is  unable to be taken away from or given to another. In Locke's perspective a person's natural rights is what would limit the power of the king. The king should use his power to protect the rights of the people not take them away. Locke's view actually has been applied to modern day life including the Declaration of Independence, in the Bill of Rights which are the first ten amendments of the Declaration of Independence life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned or at least connected to almost all ten amendments. Its most obvious  connected is to the fifth amendment which states “ Nor be denied of life, liberty, or property.”

Conclusively when comparing John Locke's and Thomas Hobbes views and factoring the positive and negative of both to determine which would be most useful in modern day life. Evidence has shown that John Locke's philosophy would be more useful, applicable, and subsequently following it would be the most beneficial.