John Stuart Mill vs. Thomas Hobbes

Paper Summary:

This paper compares and contrasts the ideas on ethical theory of two great thinkers, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes. The paper discusses Mill's concept of utilitarianism and Hobbes' views on the social contract and the two states of human existence, i.e. nature vs. society. The paper defines Mill's principle of utility as the most happiness (pleasure) and the least amount of pain for the majority of people involved. Humans are motivated by their pursuit of pleasure. The paper states that Mill believes human beings and beasts are separated by their pleasure capacity, whereas Hobbes would argue that it is the state of society that makes humans different from the beasts. In conclusion, the paper maintains that both men, though different in almost every way, present profound ideas that cannot and are not ignored by people around the world whether they are living as beasts with every pleasure fulfilled or as civilized being struggling to relieve themselves of pain.

From the Paper:

"The social contract theory is defined and redefined by several philosophers. One of the more noted of these is Thomas Hobbes. In his Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes attempts to clearly define the two states of human beings, nature and society, as well as prove that the social contract is necessary in order to allay the chaos created by the natural state of men. According to Hobbes, humans would live in a cut throat existence if it were not for the social contract. He believes that man needs a ruler, a monarchy, in order to control their natural, beast like, behaviors."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Pojman, Louis P., and Lewis Vaughn, comps. The Moral Life. New York: Oxford UP, 2007.

More papers on John Stuart Mill vs. Thomas Hobbes:

• Comparison Essay # 101915 : "Mill vs. Hobbes"
• Argumentative Essay # 134487 : "John Stuart Mill and the Subjection of Women"
• Analytical Essay # 133680 : "John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: