Hobbes and Locke, both English philosophers, recognized the concept of a "social contract" — that governmental authority stems from the people's consent. However, their perspectives on why individuals seek governance greatly diverged.
Thomas Hobbes articulated his political philosophy in Leviathan in 1651, a period marked by the turmoil of the English Civil War. He perceived humans as inherently distrustful, engaged in competition, and capable of malign behavior towards one another. Establishing a government, in his view, required sacrificing personal freedoms in exchange for protection against what would otherwise devolve into a state of constant conflict among individuals.
Conversely, John Locke released his Two Treatises on Civil Government in 1690, in the aftermath of the relatively peaceful power transition known as the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke posited that individuals are born as tabula rasa—without any prior knowledge or moral inclinations. As they experience life, they acquire knowledge about the optimal existence and thus choose to form governments to enhance societal conditions.
In my classroom discussions, I often explain their differing philosophies through an analogy to playground basketball. Hobbes argues that a referee is essential to prevent the players from descending into fierce arguments and violence, given the competitive nature of individuals. On the other hand, Locke believes that while a referee can improve the game by ensuring fair conflict resolution, it is possible to enjoy a match without one. It's important to note that both philosophers never referenced basketball, a sport invented in 1891 by James Naismith, but this analogy helps illustrate their contrasting ideas.
Instead of merely counting wins and losses, it’s more beneficial to observe the quality of a team's performance. Emphasizing improvement over win totals is key, and pushing oneself is of greater significance than focusing solely on the record.
