Analysis of Philosophical Opinions on Law: Hobbes Vs. And Locke: Essay Example, 606 words GradesFixer

Haven't found the right essay?

Get an expert to write your essay!


Professional writers and researchers


Sources and citation are provided


3 hour delivery

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.

Analysis of Philosophical Opinions on Law: Hobbes Vs. And Locke

  • Category: Philosophy
  • Pages: 1
  • Words: 606
  • Published: 12 February 2019
  • Downloads: 12
Print Download now

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Any subject. Any type of essay.

We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

Get your price

121 writers online

Download PDF

Hobbes vs. Locke on Law

Throughout history, perhaps the most widely talked about philosophical pair has been that of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Due to their stark philosophical viewpoints, these men have been used as discussion points throughout classrooms to implement discussions on a variety of topics. Hobbes and Locke both had their own, greatly differing, viewpoints on a number of discussions ranging from society, the role of the state, and even basic human nature. However, perhaps there greatest contribution was their greatly differing viewpoints on how one should view the law. Both Hobbes and Locke are important to any discussion about the law as they provide the progression by which we understand the modern social contract.

While both of these men adhere to the idea of a social contract, governing what rights and privileges we give up for the good of society, they greatly disagree on what exactly this contract pertains. For Thomas Hobbes, in order to gain the advantages of society people must give up their own rights and liberties to a supreme sovereign. Thus, they maintain no individual rights but instead completely subject themselves to the whims of their ruler; according to Hobbes this creates the ideal society. In addition, according to Hobbes to rebel against the actions of your sovereign ruler would be to violate one’s social contract as a person forfeits all of their civil liberties in order to become a part of this system. According to Hobbes, this system of rights is one by which the giving up of one’s rights in totality ensures a society by which the maximum overall good is reached.

Though John Locke also believes people within a society have agreed upon a social contract, his idea of said contract greatly differs from that of Hobbes in that it allows for the retention of some basic human rights or principles. Locke states for example that when we accept the social contract we retain the right to life and liberty, and in addition gain the right to just, impartial protection of our property. This means to say, that under Locke’s philosophy, people are not only able to retain many of the rights and liberties they would have possessed before society, but due to their accepting of society’s social contract have actually received added liberties which would not have been available to them otherwise. The main liberty which Locke feels has been added by one’s adherence to the social contract is the right to impartial protection of one’s property. That is to say, under a pre-society system, one’s property could only be protected by one’s self; thereby creating a huge discrepancy in justice as those with more power could protect their property better. According to Locke, by adhering to the social contract people agree to a system of law in which all people’s property is equally protected.

While this pair of philosophers is often utilized in debates to provide two polar arguments, both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes subscribe to some version of social contract theory. In fact in many ways the ideas of John Locke, which many still interpret as the basis of modern government, are merely a progression of the more basic ideas of Thomas Hobbes. While Hobbes thought the social contract worked best when abolishing all pre-existing rights in favor of a sovereign authority, John Locke much more progressively realized that there are certain individual rights and liberties which should hold ultimate protection under a society’s legal system. For this reason, both Locke and Hobbes should hold a place in philosophical history as the precursors to the modern legal system.

Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student.

Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch

100% plagiarism free

Sources and citations are provided

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

GradesFixer. (2019, February, 12) Analysis of Philosophical Opinions on Law: Hobbes Vs. And Locke. Retrived May 25, 2019, from
"Analysis of Philosophical Opinions on Law: Hobbes Vs. And Locke." GradesFixer, 12 Feb. 2019, Accessed 25 May 2019.
GradesFixer. 2019. Analysis of Philosophical Opinions on Law: Hobbes Vs. And Locke., viewed 25 May 2019, <>
GradesFixer. Analysis of Philosophical Opinions on Law: Hobbes Vs. And Locke. [Internet]. February 2019. [Accessed May 25, 2019]. Available from:

Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.



Your essay sample has been sent.

Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.

thanks-icon Order now

Hi there!

Are you interested in getting a customized paper?

Check it out!
Having trouble finding the perfect essay? We’ve got you covered. Hire a writer uses cookies. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.