Final answer:
Thomas Hobbes believed that an authoritarian ruler was necessary to prevent the naturally chaotic state of human affairs, while John Locke saw individuals as inherently possessing natural rights and believed in a government that is accountable to its people and protects their rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
Differences in Political Philosophies of Hobbes and Locke Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had starkly different views on human nature and the role of government, which fundamentally influenced their political philosophies. Hobbes viewed human nature pessimistically, arguing that in a state of nature, life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,' leading to a war of all against all. Hence, Hobbes believed in a strong authoritarian ruler, or Leviathan, to ensure peace and security through a social contract that awarded almost absolute power to the sovereign.
Conversely, John Locke had a more optimistic view of human nature, emphasizing natural laws and rights that predated government. In Locke's state of nature, individuals are free, equal, and possess inherent rights, such as life, liberty, and property. Locke's social contract favored a government that protects these natural rights, with people having the ultimate authority to govern themselves. In essence, Locke's philosophy laid the foundation for modern democratic principles by underscoring the importance of consent of the governed and the right to rebellion against oppressive rulers.
While both philosophers shared the concept of a social contract and a state of nature, their outcomes were decidedly different. Hobbes promoted a monarchy or a strong centralized authority to control the chaos of human instincts, while Locke advocated for a government that had to be responsible to its citizens, who retained the right to overthrow it if it failed to protect their rights.