John Locke vs Thomas Hobbes: Comparison of Two Giants of Political Philosophy

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both wrote in the shadow of political upheaval—Hobbes during and after the English Civil War, Locke in the run-up to the Glorious Revolution. Each used a state of nature and a social contract to explain why political authority exists. They reached opposite conclusions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is a war of all against all; only an absolute sovereign can end it. For Locke, the state of nature is a condition of freedom and equality, though inconvenient; we form government to protect natural rights and may resist when it betrays that trust. That contrast—order through absolute power versus liberty through limited, accountable government—still shapes how we argue about security, rights, and revolution.

State of nature

The state of nature is the situation of human beings in the absence of political authority. Hobbes and Locke both start there, but their descriptions diverge sharply.

For Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is a war of all against all. Life without a common power to overawe everyone is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." We compete for resources and security. We cannot rely on others, so we strike or defend first. In that condition there is no justice or injustice, only force and fear. Escape requires a sovereign strong enough to keep the peace.

John Locke disagrees. In his view, the state of nature is not a state of war. People can live together without a political superior. They have natural rights to life, liberty, and property and can use reason to grasp the law of nature. The trouble is inconvenience: we are partial in our own case, enforcement is uneven, and disputes are hard to resolve. So the state of nature is one of freedom and equality under moral constraints, but without a neutral judge and enforcer it is unstable. We leave it to gain security and impartial justice, not to flee total war.

That disagreement drives everything else. Hobbes sees the state of nature as war; Locke sees it as freedom with inconveniences. For more on these concepts in context, see political philosophy vs theory and learning paths or the philosophy map.

Social contract

Both thinkers say we leave the state of nature by agreement—a social contract. What we agree to differs.

Hobbes: we hand over our natural right to do whatever we think necessary for self-preservation to a sovereign (one person or assembly). The sovereign is not a party to the contract; we contract with one another to obey. We trade our right to judge and enforce for peace. The sovereign's task is to keep us safe. We do not get to pick and choose when to obey.

Locke: we form a political society and set up a government as trustee to protect our natural rights. Government is under the law and answerable to the people. If it violates the trust—for example by taking property without consent or destroying liberty—we may resist. The contract is conditional. We consent to be governed in order to secure our rights; if government attacks those rights, the trust is broken and we may act.

So Hobbes gives us submission to an absolute sovereign in exchange for security. Locke gives us limited government and the right to revoke the trust when it fails. Further reading: introduction to ethics and political philosophy vs theory.

Government: absolute sovereign vs limited

Hobbes insists the sovereign must have absolute power—legislative, judicial, and executive—to keep the peace. Any division of power or resistance by subjects risks sliding back toward the state of nature. He favors a single, undivided sovereign. We have no right to rebel; rebellion would undo the solution to the war of all against all.

Locke holds that government should be limited. It exists to preserve life, liberty, and property and must rule by standing laws, known judges, and the consent of the governed. He separates power (legislative, executive, federative) to curb abuse. We keep the right to judge when the trust has been violated and to resist tyranny.

One view gives a strong sovereign and no right to rebel. The other gives limited, accountable government and a right to resist when it betrays its trust. For paths on political thought, see learning paths and the path quiz.

Natural rights

Both Hobbes and Locke speak of what we have "by nature." They fill that out differently.

For Hobbes, in the state of nature we have a right to everything we think necessary for self-preservation—and so does everyone else, which is why it is war. We give up that right (except to defend our life if directly attacked) when we create the sovereign. His "natural right" is effectively a liberty to preserve ourselves. There are no natural duties to others until the sovereign makes law.

For Locke, in the state of nature we have natural rights to life, liberty, and property and are under a law of nature that forbids harming others and requires preserving mankind. We have rights and duties before any government. Government is created to secure those rights and to apply the law of nature impartially.

Hobbes emphasizes security and submission to the sovereign. Locke emphasizes life, liberty, and property and the right to resist when government threatens them. More on ethics and rights: introduction to ethics and Aristotle and the golden mean.

Revolution

On resisting authority they are opposed.

Hobbes: we have no right to rebel. To authorize the sovereign and then refuse obedience when we disagree is to return to the state of nature. The sovereign may do wrong, but only God can judge. Our only right is not to be killed when we are not resisting. He rules out a right of revolution.

Locke: when government invades our rights—taking property without consent, destroying liberty, or acting without authority—it has broken the trust. The people may then resist and replace it. He grants a right of revolution not for minor grievances but when government systematically betrays its purpose.

That difference influenced the American and French revolutions and modern constitutionalism. For more on political philosophy, see political philosophy vs theory.

Why the contrast still matters

The questions they raise still structure debate: How bad is life without government? What do we give up when we enter society? What are the limits of authority? When may we resist? Hobbes and Locke offer two classic poles—order and authority versus liberty and limited government. Most actual positions sit somewhere between or mix elements of both. For a broader map of political thought, see political philosophy vs theory, learning paths, and the philosophy map.

Where to go deeper

On schrodingers.cat you can read political philosophy vs theory for context, browse learning paths for Hobbes, Locke, or social contract theory, use the path quiz to get a path that fits you, or try Socratic dialogue on authority, rights, or revolution.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between Locke and Hobbes?

The main difference is their view of the state of nature and what government is for. Hobbes thinks the state of nature is a war of all against all and we need an absolute sovereign for security. Locke thinks the state of nature is freer but inconvenient; we create limited government to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property) and may resist when it fails. In short: absolutism versus limited government and a right of revolution.

Did Locke agree with Hobbes?

They share the state-of-nature and social-contract framework but disagree on almost everything else: how bad the state of nature is, whether we have robust natural rights, whether government should be absolute or limited, and whether we may rebel. The contrast is central to social contract theory; they are not in agreement.

Why is Hobbes against revolution?

Hobbes holds that without a single, powerful sovereign we fall back into the war of all against all. To authorize the sovereign and then refuse obedience is to undo the solution to that war. He denies a right to rebel; Locke allows resistance when government betrays its trust.

Conclusion

Locke and Hobbes give a classic contrast: state of nature as war versus state of nature as freedom with inconveniences; absolute sovereign versus limited government; no right to rebel versus right of revolution when trust is broken. The comparison still frames how we think about security, liberty, and authority. Go deeper with political philosophy vs theory, learning paths, and the philosophy map on schrodingers.cat.

Political philosophy vs theory → · Learning paths → · Philosophy map → · Path quiz →