Comparing Views of Human Nature: John Locke vs Thomas Hobbes – Assignment Brief

Course and Assessment Context

Indicative course codes/titles (for alignment): POLI1001 / PHIL1102 / GOVT1500 / Introduction to Political Thought / Foundations of Political Philosophy (First-year undergraduate, ).

Assessment label used in brief: Assessment 1: Comparative Essay (Individual)

Weighting: 20–25% of final grade (adjustable to local course outline).

Length: 750–1,000-word comparative essay (excluding reference list).

Due: Week 4–5 of semester (to be set by instructor).

Submission format: Typed, double-spaced, 12 pt font, submitted via LMS (Canvas/Moodle/Blackboard) as Word or PDF.

Assessment Title

Assessment 1: Comparative Essay on Human Nature in Locke and Hobbes

Assessment Description

You will write a focused comparative essay analysing how John Locke and Thomas Hobbes each understand human nature and how these views inform their preferred model of political authority. The essay centres on the theme of “human nature and the state of nature,” using Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Hobbes’s Leviathan as primary reference points, supported by at least two contemporary scholarly sources.

[1][2]

Your task is to explain, compare, and evaluate the main points of similarity and difference in their accounts of human motivation, conflict, cooperation, and the role of law and government. You are expected to connect their theories explicitly to key concepts such as the state of nature, social contract, natural rights, equality, and sovereignty, and to consider briefly which account of human nature you find more convincing and why.

[2][3][1]

Task Instructions

Essay question

Essay prompt:

“Compare and contrast John Locke’s and Thomas Hobbes’s views of human nature and explain how these views shape their respective theories of political authority. Which thinker offers the more convincing account of human nature, and why?”

Required components

• • Introduction that clearly states your thesis in response to the question and identifies the main points of comparison (e.g. views of human nature, the state of nature, social contract, rights, and the scope of government).

[1][2]

• • Explanation of Hobbes’s view of human nature and the state of nature, including core claims that humans are driven by self-interest, fear, and desire for power, and that in the state of nature life is insecure, leading to a “war of all against all” unless a powerful sovereign (Leviathan) imposes order.

[3][2]

• • Explanation of Locke’s view of human nature and the state of nature, including his claims that people are generally rational and capable of cooperation under a moral law of nature, that they possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that government exists by consent to protect these rights.

[2][1]

• • Comparative analysis that explicitly sets out key similarities and differences in their accounts (e.g. both use a social contract model yet disagree about baseline human motivations, the severity of conflict, and the justification for absolute versus limited government).

[1][2]

• • Critical evaluation where you argue which account of human nature is more convincing, drawing briefly on historical examples, contemporary evidence, or your own reasoned judgement, and responding to at least one possible objection.

[3][2]

• • Conclusion that restates your position and briefly reflects on implications for modern debates about political authority and legitimacy.

[3][1]

Research and referencing requirements

• Use the primary texts (Locke and Hobbes) where possible, citing specific chapters or sections.
• Include at least two peer-reviewed secondary sources (journal articles or scholarly book chapters published 2018–2026).
• Use a consistent academic referencing style as specified by your course:
  • Political science / philosophy (US/Australia/Canada): APA 7th or Chicago/Turabian, as per course outline.
  • Humanities / philosophy (UK, some US colleges): MLA or Chicago, as per department guidelines.
• Include in-text citations and a full reference list or bibliography at the end.

Formatting

• Word count: 750–1,000 words (excluding references). Essays within ±10% are acceptable unless your local policy differs.
• Font: 12 pt Times New Roman or 11 pt Calibri, double-spaced, standard margins.
• Include a title, your student ID, course code, and word count on the first page.

Marking Criteria / Rubric (Indicative)

Criterion 1: Understanding of Hobbes’s and Locke’s theories (25%)

• • High distinction (HD): Demonstrates precise and accurate understanding of both Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of human nature, the state of nature, social contract, and political authority, with well-chosen references to primary texts.

[2][1]

• Pass (P): Shows basic but generally accurate understanding of the two theories, with some relevant detail but possible gaps or minor inaccuracies.
• Fail (N): Misrepresents or significantly oversimplifies one or both theories; little evidence of engagement with set readings.

Criterion 2: Comparative analysis (25%)

• • HD: Offers a clear, structured comparison highlighting key similarities and differences in a way that shows why they matter for understanding political authority.

[2][3]

• P: Identifies some points of similarity and difference but comparison remains descriptive or underdeveloped.
• N: Limited or no explicit comparison; theories are discussed in isolation.

Criterion 3: Critical evaluation and argumentation (25%)

• • HD: Develops a coherent argument about which account of human nature is more convincing, supports claims with reasons and appropriate evidence, and considers at least one counter-argument.

[3][2]

• P: States a position with some supporting reasons, though argument may be repetitive, narrow, or insufficiently supported.
• N: Little or no argument; largely summary with minimal critical engagement.

Criterion 4: Structure, clarity, and academic writing (15%)

• HD: Essay is logically organised, paragraphs are coherent and well-linked, writing is clear and mostly free of language errors.
• P: Overall structure is adequate but may include unclear topic sentences or abrupt transitions.
• N: Disorganised structure or frequent language errors that impede understanding.

Criterion 5: Use of evidence and referencing (10%)

• • HD: Integrates primary and secondary sources effectively, with accurate citation and a complete reference list in the specified style.

[1][2]

• P: Uses some sources but with occasional citation errors or limited engagement with secondary literature.
• N: Minimal or inappropriate use of sources; referencing conventions largely ignored.

AI and Academic Integrity Guidance

Where permitted by your institution, you may use generative AI tools for preliminary brainstorming or language polishing. You must still demonstrate your own understanding of Locke and Hobbes and must not submit AI-generated content as if it were entirely your own analysis. Always follow your university’s academic integrity policy regarding originality, citation of assistance, and use of online essay platforms.

Sample Answer Snippet (SEO-Optimised, Human Style)

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both treat “human nature” as the starting point for political theory, yet they reach almost opposite conclusions about what people are like and what kind of government they need. Hobbes describes human beings as fundamentally driven by self-preservation, fear, and competition, so his state of nature tends to collapse into a war of all against all unless a powerful sovereign imposes peace. Locke, by contrast, argues that people are generally rational and capable of recognising a moral law of nature that protects life, liberty, and property, and he treats political authority as legitimate only when it secures these pre-existing rights rather than swallowing them. The contrast between Hobbes’s near-absolute Leviathan and Locke’s limited, consent-based government reflects their different levels of confidence in ordinary people’s capacity for cooperation and moral judgement. In many contemporary democracies, institutional checks and human rights language appear closer to Locke’s cautious optimism, although persistent conflict and inequality suggest that Hobbes’s darker view cannot be dismissed entirely (Lloyd, 2022).

[1][2][3]

On balance, I tend to find Locke’s account more persuasive for everyday politics because it leaves conceptual room for citizens to criticise and reform governments, instead of treating stability as the only overriding value. At the same time, Hobbes’s emphasis on fear, insecurity, and the fragility of order still resonates when we look at failed states, civil wars, or extreme polarisation, where institutions lose their authority and people retreat into survival mode. A careful reading of both thinkers suggests that political design should neither romanticise human goodness nor assume that only coercion works; instead, it could combine reasonable protections for basic rights with robust mechanisms to contain predictable forms of self-interest and mistrust. For students of political philosophy, holding Hobbes and Locke in tension may provide a more realistic starting point for thinking about legitimacy, authority, and resistance in modern states.

[2][3][1]

Next Assessment (Following Weeks)

Assessment 2: Discussion Board Post – Applying Locke and Hobbes to a Contemporary Issue

Type: Online discussion post and peer responses Length: Initial post 300–400 words; two replies of 100–150 words each Timing: Week 6

Discussion prompt: Choose a contemporary political issue involving security and individual rights (for example, emergency pandemic powers, mass surveillance, counter-terrorism legislation, or protest restrictions). In your initial post, explain how Hobbes and Locke would likely interpret the tension between state power and individual liberty in this case, and indicate which perspective you find more convincing for guiding policy today.

[1][2]

Requirements: Refer explicitly to at least one concept from each thinker (e.g. state of nature, consent, natural rights, sovereignty, security, equality) and support your position with at least one scholarly source or credible report. Your two responses should extend, question, or refine your peers’ reasoning rather than simply agree or disagree.

Works Cited Scholarly References

• • Lloyd, S. A. (2022). Hobbes’s moral and political philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/

[3]

• • Tuckness, A., & Wolf, C. (2020). John Locke. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

[1]

• Gauthier, D. (2019). Hobbes: The social contract and political obligation revisited. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 57(3), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2019.0040
• Simmons, A. J. (2019). Rights, consent, and Locke’s political theory. In M. Goldie (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Locke’s “Second Treatise” (pp. 89–113). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108619988
• Nguyen, L. (2021). Fear, security, and the modern Leviathan: Re-reading Hobbes in times of crisis. European Journal of Political Theory, 20(4), 612–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885120911670