Final answer:
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes differed in their views on human nature, government, and the social contract. Locke believed in a government that protects inherent natural rights through a social contract based on consent, while Hobbes advocated for a strong, authoritarian government to ensure security and prevent a state of anarchy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The philosophical differences between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes revolve around their views on the natural state of humans, the role of government, and the nature of the social contract. Hobbes, in his work Leviathan, proposed that humans in their natural state are in a 'war of all against all', leading to a life that is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'. Consequently, he believed in a powerful, authoritarian government headed by a Leviathan to maintain peace and security.
In contrast, John Locke believed that people are born with inherent natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property, and that governments exist to protect these rights. Locke's view of the state of nature is more optimistic, seeing individuals as essentially reasonable and moral beings capable of self-governance. Therefore, the government should be representative, limited, and based on the consent of the governed, functioning primarily to ensure the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
Both thinkers agreed on the necessity of a social contract, but while Hobbes saw it as a collective surrender to an absolute monarch for security, Locke viewed it as an agreement to form a government that would respect and protect individual rights, thereby allowing people to live together in a civil society.