Locke and Human Nature

Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature take issueently, Hobbes sees multitude as macrocosm run by selfishness whereas Locke says that race ar naturally kind. In our produce of nature, Hobbes says we pick out no rights but Locke suggests that we have natural rights Hobbes plants that humans atomic number 18 naturally evil that lays d have the groundwork for his form of organization. Hobbes and Lockes theories differ greatly beginning with their views of human nature.Hobbes suggests that spate ar naturally, solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish. He similarly says that without authority mankind is selfish and egotistical. John Locke, on the other hand, sees people as being peaceful in their nature assign. These different points of show how they formed their theory of the reconcile of nature Hobbes theory is a bearish look at human being and the way they act just about each other but Lockes theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other.As w e see in the intelligence operation daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness Acording to Machiavelli and Locke Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli shared hotshot conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society.It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is how a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions. Machiavelli and Locke both considered the nature of government and mans individual interests as they relate to governmental structures. Machievellis topic of fortune and Lockes state of nature concept both shaped the theorist s arguments about the purpose of semipolitical life.It has been posited that for Machiavelli, government is an unpredictable arena in which ambition, deception and violence render the idea of the common good meaningless, while Locke would argue that political or well-behaved society exists only to preserve the rights of the individual. It can be argued that for both Machiavelli and Lock, political activity, then, becomes merely a means of satisfying selfish ends.