Locke vs Hobbes

The choice between Locke and Hobbe's premises is difficult because both bring important ideals to the table. For me Hobbes has the right idea when it comes to the true nature and morality of men. With no rule and no one to decree what is moral and what is not, there is much doubt and no control. This would lead to men doing only what benefits them at that point. A major part of this point is that God has been a huge part of the molding of men's morality in history, the right and wrongs in the bible have been obeyed and created the foundation long ago. While that part is true I do not believe one man should be in control of everyone's moralities because those ideas are not set in stone like the works of the bible, this leader whoever he might be could change his mind at any point. This could lead to extreme scenarios such as Hitler. This is where I think Locke becomes the front runner of the two theories because he would want to see the power to the, most of the time, good intent minded people. That leaves a lot less room for error by one man if a group of people can come to a consensus on moralities. For that reason and the fact that history has shown some horrible cases of absolute rule by dictators/kings I would have to side with Locke's ideals. Even in today's society we the people still have power even thought we have a president, there are also separation of powers, state, senate etc.


https://www.google.com/search?q=good+and+evil&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic8MH9gOfSAhUNxGMKHYyTATkQ_AUIBigB&biw=1536&bih=695#tbm=isch&q=devil+and+angel+on+shoulder&*&imgrc=UyKh30Gj3DBubM: