of justice and equality. It offers a state of contentment for the people, and when the people are happy they are also compliant. Overall, Locke gives a much more optimistic view of society. Both are agreeing that because the state of nature is unacceptable, and that a government must be formed. But, the resulting systems are entirely different. Hobbes feels a single authority is needed to limit the inherent self-interest. Locke attests that interest is on the basis of the whole society, not on individuals. He feels that because the betterment of the society due to justice and equality is a fundamental factor at hand, a representative government offers to be much more suitable. The people allow the ruler to govern, and it is with their consent that he is able to do so. As it’s clearly evident, the need for government isn’t questioned. Hobbes gives a strong cause and effect relationship based on the evil of man. Locke gives a more logical solution of government. Regardless or right or wrong, both philosophies have played an in important role in the formation of our judicial system and our governmental structure—both coinciding with one another.Leaving with one last question to ponder, revert back to the original concept of “the science of man”. The philosophies of many great thinkers have been studied and used. By understanding why men act the way they do, it has proved to be much easier to come to a conclusion as to how a society should be structured. However, if the idea that the existence of a science of man can be questioned or is false—where does that leave the theories that were constructed upon it. Without the “science of man”, all the theories who use it has their basis are in turn questioned and can’t be viably supported or be deemed valid reasons for constructing the very government we live by. Perhaps ‘man’ as a whole really can’t be conclude...
