Locke and Human Nature

Both Hobbes and Locke see compassionate nature differently, Hobbes sees people as universe run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. In our call down of nature, Hobbes says we take up no rights but Locke suggests that we have natural rights Hobbes shows that adult male are naturally evil that lays down the groundwork for his form of government. Hobbes and Lockes theories differ greatly beginning with their views of human nature.Hobbes suggests that people are naturally, solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish. He also says that without authority mankind is selfish and egotistical. John Locke, on the other hand, sees people as being peaceful in their nature state. These different points of show how they formed their theory of the state of nature Hobbes theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Lockes theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other.As we see in the news daily, peopl e are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who reach out 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 one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society.It is plain to see that some(prenominal) 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 guide 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 idea of fortune and Lockes state of nature concept both shaped the theorists arguments about the purpose of p olitical life.It has been posited that for Machiavelli, politics is an unpredictable arena in which ambition, deception and violence render the idea of the common good meaningless, time Locke would argue that political or civil 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 delicious selfish ends.