Compare and Contrast: John Locke and Thomas Hobbes' Views on Governance

In this essay, we will compare and contrast John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two renowned philosophers, who provided valuable insights into the principles of effective governance. These political theorists have made significant contributions to our understanding of how a society should be governed. Through the examination of their philosophies, we will explore the necessity and feasibility of living in a society without contracts. 

Firstly, let us examine John Locke's conceptualization of the state of nature. According to Locke, while individuals have certain limitations on their actions, they generally coexist harmoniously, showing goodwill towards one another. On the other hand, Hobbes posits that people exist in a state of perpetual conflict and strife. Hobbes contends that a ruler should possess all the land, whereas Locke argues for private property rights, asserting that such rights are bestowed upon us by God, and thus, we should be able to use and enjoy our property.

From my perspective, living in a contract-less society is not a viable option. Every human being desires a well-ordered and peaceful environment, rather than one characterized by chaos. What would be the consequences for both society and individuals, including future generations, if we were to abandon the concept of contracts?

Despite the contrasting viewpoints of Hobbes and Locke, one common thread that runs through their theories is the need for order within a society. Hobbes argues that authority is necessary to ensure our security, while Locke advocates for government rules based on the consent of the people, with the aim of protecting life, liberty, and property. These perspectives highlight the interdependence of individuals and the importance of engaging in discussions to address ethical issues and reach mutually agreeable solutions. This is the foundation upon which society, governance, and justice are built.

Considering all aspects, the concept of the social contract in government aligns closely with the ideas of Hobbes and Locke. It establishes a connection between the public and the governing authority. Hobbes maintains that citizens should relinquish all rights to the ruler, as the ruler knows what is best for them. From Hobbes' viewpoint, social contracts resemble more of a transactional agreement. However, citizens can refuse to comply only when the ruler poses a threat to their self-preservation.

Examining both sides of the argument, while Hobbes and Locke have notable differences in their perspectives, they also share some common beliefs. Both philosophers exhibited a fervent interest in politics and sought to promote the common good. They both acknowledged the existence of a state of nature and recognized the importance of laws and governance, albeit with divergent interpretations. Additionally, both Hobbes and Locke agreed that people are inherently free and equal in the state of nature, and they viewed the government's fundamental role as safeguarding the well-being of individuals.

In conclusion, living in a society without contracts is impractical and counterproductive. The insights of philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke underscore the significance of establishing social contracts for maintaining order and ensuring the welfare of individuals. While they may have divergent views, their contributions shed light on the interdependent nature of society and the vital role of governance and justice in our collective existence.