Comparing Philosophers Hobbes And Locke Philosophy Essay

canvass Philosophers Hobbes And Locke Philosophy EssaySocial contract is an essential principle applied in most societies in the universe of discourse. Many nations deal elected g overnmental relations which are tasked with maintaining rule of law. Sovereignty of countries is indeed given to governments in stand in of maintaining order. Social contract so trunks the legitimacy of governments since they require consent from the governed pot in order to be considered legitimate. This is seen as important principle which advertises individual and tender order. some of the most important philosophers who advanced arguments for genial contract take Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. They however held different masss on cordial contract with Locke living magnanimous monarchy and Hobbes supporting dictator monarchy.Their arguments sport set the framework for development of theories such as liberal democracy, constitutional monarchy, republicanism and others. Their theories n ominate also been implemented in many democracies across the world. This paper will evaluate Lockes and Hobbes arguments on neighborly contract with specific focus on the remainders in their approach to the topic. The paper will then offspring one viewpoint from among the two discussed and explain why it is superior to the other. The discussed issues will be summarized at the end.Hobbes view of social contractHobbes was of the opinion that authoritarian monarchy is the most good form of social order in society. In this form of organization, the people submit to the trust or leadership. Hobbes supported leadership where exclusive office staff was given to leaders or a political fellowship (Adams 2003). This form of leadership has several characteristics which include the concentration of former among leaders and the manipulation of strategies such as exclusion of ch altogetherengers and political repression to maintain authority. In this form of leadership, Hobbes was of the view that mass organizations and political parties are sound in mobilizing the population around the goals of a political administration. He supported this political system since he viewed men as equal and therefore preventing conflict amongst them was impossible. Man fought for basic necessities and material possession which would ultimately lead to social collapse. The authoritarian monarchy was viewed as most effective in stemming this chaos in society. Hobbes supported monarchy since it was difficult for monarchs to disagree with themselves.However, this system of brass instrument features unpopular leadership strategies such as rigging of elections, making of political decisions by the minority as well as presence of bureaucracy. Leaders are appointed by the political class without involvement of citizens and there is unregulated and informal pulmonary tuberculosis of power. This system also features intolerance for the opposition and deprivation of civilized liberties. I n order to control political power, the military is oftentimes used in states which exercise authoritarian forms of power. Social control is kept up(p) by regulating the civil society and establishing allegiance through use of socialization processes. These forms of leadership are usually weakened by light performance of the political class with regards to peoples needs. Many collapse referable to transition by the population against leadership. During the Cold War, the USSR disposal system is an specimen of the authoritarian rule in society. ongoingly, countries such as Chad and North Korea adhere to this governance system.Lockes view of social contractLocke supported liberal monarchy which supports equal rights and liberty in governance. This leadership social structure supports liberal democracy, constitutions, benevolent rights, free elections, free trade, capitalism and religious freedom (Arnold 2006). It is also known as constitutional monarchy. In this political sys tem, a monarch acts as head of state and derives power from the constitution. In many liberal monarchies, parliamentary systems are applied and these serve the purpose of checking excesses by the executive. In the past, liberal monarchy co-existed with quasi-fascist, fascist or military dictatorship. Liberal monarchy systems believe in going to war in cases of aggression although use of coloured force is non supported as it encourages cycles of violence. Locke believed that liberal monarchy would surmount protect private property and encourage liberty two of the most important amenities enjoyed by kinds (Locke 2003). He viewed the human reputation as being compulsive by self preservation and survival instincts, which made it necessary to commence a supreme power in order to maintain social order. The social contract among people being governed and the sovereign authority achieved this objective.There are various weaknesses which are associated with the liberal monarchy govern ance system. The first is that although representatives are elected, these are few individuals who make decisions on behalf of the whole system. In essence, power is therefore held by few individuals who absorb a similar ability to misuse it as is seen in the exacting governance system. Some critics, especially those who have Marxist roots, argue that this governance system is controlled by the bountiful as distant to the majority. It is therefore not parliamentary as it is class based. The rich have the power and resources to ensure they are elected into power, which defeats the objectives of the system. In such systems, religious and ethnic conflicts are also often seen and this is viewed as a weakness of the system. In authoritarian rule, the government would stem such conflicts and restore social order. Finally, these governance systems are seen to focus on short terminal figure objectives as opposed to long term ones. Since the election of government is held regularly, le gislators focus on short term goals which would make them popular with the electorate as opposed to long term ones which may not be visible within short term durations. Current liberal monarchies include Bahrain, Bahamas, Australia, Denmark, Canada, Cambodia, Lesotho, Monaco, Malaysia, Norway, Sweden, UK, Thailand and others.Differences between Hobbes and Lockes approach to social contract theoryA major difference between Hobbes and Lockes views on social contract is that Hobbes believes in authoritarian rule where the political power yields autocratic power while Locke believes in the power of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights (Hegel 2001). Locke believed in defend private property and liberty while Hobbes believed that human beings were incapable of living without conflict unless an authoritarian authority restored order. Another difference between these theories is that Locke views society as possessing power to overthrow governments. Locke viewed society as c reators of the government which gave them power to overthrow it. However, Hobbes views the government as a powerful monarch which the people cannot overthrow. Locke is of the opinion that abolishing a government and replacing it with another as upholding the social contract.Unlike Hobbes who viewed the human nature as driven to fight for basic necessities and material possession which would ultimately lead to social collapse, Locke believed that God had created human beings with scholarship which could prevent their greedy nature from taking over. Locke also believed that the social contract between the authoritative monarch and the people would not be fair as two distinctive groups would emerge property owners and the poor. The poor would then have different contracts from the rich and they would suffer under this rule.Personal opinion on the best social contract approachI believe that Lockes social contract approach is the most effective in maintaining social order in society. Li beral monarchy advocates for equal rights and liberty in governance. This leadership structure supports liberal democracy, constitutions, human rights, free elections, free trade, capitalism and religious freedom. There are several reasons which I will advance for support of Lockes liberal monarchy political system and these arguments will be contrasted against Hobbes theories to prove that the latter(prenominal) is inferior in achieving stable political and social unit.The first reason for support of Lockes approach is political and economic stability. Many countries across the world have enjoyed economic and political stability from democracy over centuries. In fact, most countries of the world follow a structure similar to liberal monarchy which supports equal rights and democratic election of government officials. These countries have enjoyed stability since they make decisions based on the rule of the majority. Democracy is followed in making political decisions and the people participate in political systems through the officials they elect. Due to this, most people support democratic regimes since they stand for what the majority advocates for. However, countries which have followed Hobbes authoritative leadership styles have experienced conflicts and revolutions. This is collect to the reason that the leadership goals are not in line with what the people stand for. The fact that oppression and intolerance for opposition strategies are used also reduces public confidence in the political class. Governments which have been overthrown as a result of using this system include Tunisia, USSR, Uganda, Cuba, Germany, France and others.. Another reason why I support Lockes social contract approach is that it upholds human rights. Human rights are the basic freedoms which people enjoy. Some of the rights upheld by this system include the right to own property, right to religious freedom, right of expression and others. Locke supports safeguarding of rights har monize to the constitution. He advocates for protection of property and justice. However, Hobbes vests power in a few people who make all political decisions. These people in power hold the rights of the society and they make unilateral decisions of what is acceptable or not. This can be seen to be infringement of human rights which everyone should have access to. This makes Hobbes leadership approach impossible in the new-fangled society.Finally, history has proven that countries which have practiced Lockes approach have prospered while those which have applied Hobbes approach have collapsed in the long run. Many revolutions such as the French revolution and Cuban revolution as well as the collapse of countries such as the USSR can be attributed to the use of Hobbes authoritarian monarchy leadership system. Current revolutions against countries such as Tunisia and Egypt can also be traced to the use of a similar approach. On the other hand, economically and politically stable cou ntries in the modern world such as UK, US and others have applied the democratic governance system. This shows that Lockes approach is more effective in maintaining social order than Hobbes approach.Summary and conclusionSocial contract has been discussed to be a form of gaining government legitimacy through giving governments sovereignty in exchange for maintaining order. Locke and Hobbes are important philosophers who canvass social contract theories. However, their approaches were different with Locke supporting liberal monarchy and Hobbes supporting authoritarian monarchy. Both approaches have weaknesses and strengths which have been discussed in the paper. The most effective approach to apply in leadership especially in the modern world is Lockes approach which supports liberal democracy, constitutions, human rights, free elections, free trade, capitalism and religious freedom. This approach is concordant with the needs of several societies and it has been successfully implem ented in many states. Hobbes approach has failed in several countries due to revolution against the political class which practices authoritarian rule.It is important for leaders to underwrite leadership which supports respect for human rights, democracy and protection of property. History has proven that this is the most effective leadership style. Leaders who have failed to embrace democracy have faced revolutions and the current ones in Tunisia and Egypt can be traced to the weaknesses in Hobbes leadership style. When leaders impose their will on the people, there is likely to be resistance since the majority will not have their way. Although strategies such as repression work in the short term, eventually the people lose cartel in leadership and a revolution is born. Leaders should therefore follow Lockes liberal monarchy political system and embrace democracy. Once democracy is embraced, human rights protected and the constitution is adhered to, the leadership gains support f rom the people. This ensures that order is maintained within states and that people live in harmony and peace.