Master of Arts (MA), Ohio University, 2014, Philosophy (Arts and Sciences)

The focus of this thesis is to identify the differences and incompatibilities that exist between John Locke's and Thomas Hobbes' particular conceptions of liberty. When the incompatibilities are assessed, it becomes clear that they offer converse logical directions for their arguments. I contend that the Lockean position holds that the existence of law precedes the justification for liberties; while the Hobbesian position holds that liberties are justified antecedent to the existence of law. Once the logical directions of the arguments from Locke and Hobbes are clear, I apply this distinction to a contemporary case. The contemporary case is John Tomasi on one hand and Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel on the other. I claim that these contemporary philosophers have fallen into an irresolvable dispute due to a lack of consideration for the logical direction and conception of liberty they each employ. In conclusion, I attempt to offer a remedy that each side of this contemporary debate could, perhaps, accept.

Committee: John Bender PHD (Advisor); Alyssa Bernstein PHD (Committee Member); Alfred Lent PHD (Committee Member) Subjects: Philosophy