Thesis: Does John Locke sufficiently refute the claims and arguments put forth by Hobbes?
Questions to maybe consider: How is Locke’s State of Nature different than Hobbes’ State of Nature? Do you think these differences are sufficient to lead to conflicting forms of government (leviathan vs. limited government)?
John Locke’s theories promote social and political stability (e.g., talk amongst yourselves, people are unlikely to revolt). Is that stability sufficient in itself to refute the necessity of the Hobbesian leviathan? Or do we need assurance that the Lockean stability is based on “knowledge” of Natural Law?
If Locke’s stability is not based on philosophical reason or understanding Natural Law but on the will of the majority, has he re-introduced a leviathan in a different form? Or has he succeeded in providing the stability necessary for continued discussion between human-reasoning people without requiring a king?
Welcome to Legit Writing
