Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) wrote one of the masterpieces of philosophy politics, published in 1651 under the title Leviatn, or matter, form and power of an ecclesiastic and civil republic . Some have summarized his work by saying that preaches morality and utilitarianism in despotism in politics. The Leviatn is a monster, composed of human beings, endowed with a life whose origin stems from human reason, but under the pressure of circumstances and needs fell through the work of the passions, in civil war and the disintegration, which is death. The book is a criticism of the Church and its politics. According to the proposal of Hobbes, the new state English
Must eliminate obscurantism and firmly supersticiny should exclude all the defects of the previous church system, to become a true kingdom of light and science through a secular and rationalist.
The social and political, in which Hobbes wrote his book, is that of a civil confrontation that pits supporters of the Absolute monarchy in England and those who defend the parliamentary monarchy. John Locke as the advocate of parliamentary monarchy, against Hobbes. But it is also interesting to remember that this is little product, in large part on the development of the fighting between Protestants and Catholics, which led to the Reformation of Luther and his expressions Calvinists, but no less important was the influence Counter-call, which are mainly responsible for the Jesuits. Let me highlight one issue that I consider relevant to our study of morality, sealed by Salvador Giner, on these considerations:
“Apart from his achievements in the field of social ideas, Vitoria, along with Erasmus of Rotterdam, the founder of so-called Christian humanism, which holds, against the dark ideas of Ockham, Luther and Calvin, the human mind, however est upset that sin – can know moral truth. ” 24
The concept of freedom of Hobbes is based on one’s own strength, contrary to Locke, for whom there is a natural right, which is constitutive of human freedom. Hobbesian Leviatn defines freedom in the following terms: “that man is free, in what they can do for their strength and ingenuity, are not obstacles to do what he wants.”
But this freedom is not given in the “state of nature” in which, for Hobbes, man is a wolf to man. For this freedom is in, the authoritarian state is necessary to protect the men of war and civil strife.
John Locke (1632-1704), by contrast, argues that man is free in the natural state, and its two basic principles or natural rights, for freedom will mean the right of property and the right to security.
The crucial difference between the conception of freedom between the two British philosophers, is that, for Hobbes, man is free when the state allows, as in the previous state, the state of nature, there is no chance of being free. Locke argued that man is free because it already has certain rights in the state of nature, that is, before joining the State POLITICAL basis already exists for the freedom and rights, which are “natural.” Locke defines freedom in the following terms: “the Freedom of men under government is to have a stable and permanent rge to adjust his life to l, common all members of that society and made by the legislative power erected in it. ”
John Locke, considered the “father” of liberal politicians and Economic, means that for the fundamental rights derived from the need we all have to preserve life itself, guarantee freedom, it must be a social pact in which men organize travs of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, as private property to ensure the safety of individual citizens who have held the social pact, in which case the State liberalism theory.