Compare And Contrast John Locke And State Of Nature

Locke’s idea of the state of nature men had kept their promises and honoured their obligations. In locke’s first treatise he argued that there was no divine right for monarchs, because God didn't put men above others and therefore everyone was equal. In his second treatise he strikes Hobbes and speaks his thought on the state of nature “man is free and in this condition all men equal”. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the of the law of nature. This idea influenced him to believe that human nature is represented by reason and tolerance the reasoning was "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is the reason. Much different than Hobbes, who had believed people were selfish and needed to be

In the state of nature, natural law governs the behavior of each individual. This means that each person has the ability to implement that law

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.

Locke and Hobbes are both famed political philosophers whose writings have been greatly influential in the development of modern political thought. In addition, the two are similar in that both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes speaks of states of nature theoretically, whereas Locke points out examples where they exist.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

The state of nature is the idea of life without society, government, state, or laws. John Locke and Hobbes both agree that the state of nature is equivalent to a state of perfect freedom and equality, although they both understand these terms differently. Hobbes argues that equality leads to inequality in the state of nature. Inequality arises from the idea of man having the right to pursue their self-interest, with no duties to each other. Without duties to each other when, “Any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 184). In the Hobbesian natural state, man is made up of diffidence and lives with no security other than what he can provide himself (Hobbes 185). By virtue, men will enter a continuous state of war for self-preservation because it is man’s natural right to act on what he thinks is necessary to protect himself.

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

According to Hobbes the state of nature leads to a war of all against all. What Hobbes refers to when he discusses the state of nature is a state in which there are no civil powers. To reach his conclusion about how the world would be in the state of nature, Hobbes first explains what human nature is and then explains the relationship between man and civil government.

The state of nature can be characterized as the state before civil society, before government where all men agreed to enter into a social contract. Locke and Rousseau both believed that men were not savages as some might believe. The state of nature was in some cases even better than what we have become today. In fact, both Locke and Rousseau believed that in the state of nature all men had natural rights and followed natural God given or inherent laws that signified the freedom of men from tyranny.

In John Locke: Essays on the State of Nature, von Leyden suggests that Locke was influenced by Hobbes in that Hobbes' ideas caused Locke to explore the idea of Natural Law and Hobbes' extreme views.Both Locke and Hobbes define the State of Nature as the absence of a common superior on Earth.

Human nature signifies the set of principles that define how mankind operates on a daily basis. Generations have often debated the nature of man, with both optimistic and cynical views. Government represents the organized structure that controls man. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes advocates for an absolute monarchy to keep citizens well behaved because man is inherently self-interested. John Locke, on the other hand, depicts in Second Treatise of Government that a bipartite political society is the ideal form of government because we are in a state of nature and are free to do as we please. Hobbes ' theory that absolute monarchy is the best form of government because man is in a constant state of war is a sound assertion because humans have conflicting desires that create a state of war, humans form government to alleviate the state of war, and absolute monarchy provides the most efficient means of providing security that is absent in a state of war.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes paints a grim picture about man’s natural state. Famously characterized as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 89),” man’s life is chaotic. The state of nature, Hobbes insists, is a “state of warre(Hobbes 88)” which pits men against men. Man naturally aims for felicity, defined as “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desire, that is to say, continual prospering (Hobbes 46).” People think of their own interests and their pursuits of said interests may put them into conflict with another, in which violent war may emerge. Man, thus, lives in a state of constant fear.

In Philosophy the argument of the state of nature often comes into discussion. However, two mainstream philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean- Jacques Rousseau have similarities, but mostly have multiple different ideas on this theory. Although Hobbes makes valid points Rousseau 's view on state of nature is more realistic then Hobbes.

The state of nature is the state were humans existed before government was ever created. There once was a period were there were not any rules, or laws to obey. In a state of nature there are no social goods. No farming, housing, technology, or education. With a state of nature there must be guaranteed that no one will harm one another, and people must rely on other 's to keep their word, and not go back on what they say. Living in a state of nature was no way to live honestly. A state of nature was total anarchy. The human condition is something we can not help, equality of needs, and scarcity are a few examples of human needs that are not reversible. There were three theorist who had different views on the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Each theorist had some similar and different views