John Locke's State Of War

Hobbes states that the proper form of civil government must have a supreme ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. He believes that the goal of the people is to escape the state of war, and that they are willing to transfer their rights in order to leave it. “Whensoever a man transfers his right, or renounces it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself; or for some other good he hopes for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.”3 He believes that all men are equal in the state of nature despite any preexisting differences between them because they are ultimately powerful enough to defend themselves and their resources. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; so that though there be found one man sometime manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet

While reading the “The Second Treatise of Government,” you can notice and see that John Locke has a strong standing for civil rights as well as helping with the development of the Constitution of the United States. He states that the “consent of the governed,” is basically saying that communities are not put together by the divine right or ruled by. Paternal, familial, and political are types of powers that John Locke mentions that have all have unlike characteristics. He inspired others to believe in and want equal rights and democracy. John Locke talks about the state of nature, which basically states that no one has the power to be ruler of someone, as well as they are able to do what they want in a freely matter. In other words people are born just like anyone else that is born, and should have equally rights to property, health, and liberty, and that no one should have the power over anyone. Everyone should be able to live and enjoy his or her own freedom and wellbeing. However, the state of nature is not a guarantee to have natural laws, which could help with the protecting of one’s property. According to him having your own personal freedom was the true meaning of state of nature. John Locke thought that people were following his faith in human rationality through the declaration of Locke. John Locke states that if the government takes away from others for them to empower them then the people have right and opportunity to go against

John Locke’s views on rebellion and civil disobedience puts emphasis on the “state of nature” of man. He determines that man is naturally in this state of nature, meaning man has the power to resolve his issues himself. The only way for a man to execute his personal justice is for his personal property to be damaged by another man. Retaliating only to the extent of the crime committed. When brought together, these men formed a community and the only way for them to function was to implement restrictions on this state of nature in exchange for the protection by the Executive and peace provided by the Legislative. If any of these rules were to be broken it would be punished by the executive and not the person the crime was committed against. Locke stated that if the legislature was to overturned due to a portion of the community rebeling, then a new legislature implicated. This exposes the people to the danger of a naturally state of mind but in a large body. The rest of the people have no other choice but to protect their property themselves, creating a civil war.

John Adams once said, “Fear is the foundation of most governments.” Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Karl Marx all grew up in a time of war and witnessed the same events that caused them to create their idea of government. Hobbes learned that people are naturally wicked, Locke learned that people all had natural rights. Karl Marx thought that the social order did not matter. All of them concluded that their governmental plan was the most reliable form of governing. They all had great ideas for government, but John Locke’s ideas would best fit today’s societies, and would best fit in with Adam’s Smith’s ideas.

Locke begins his “Of the State of War” by defining “enmity and destruction” as a state of war that is brought about by a person’s deliberate attempt on another person’s life. The person invading or challenging another person’s freedom maybe killed in an act of defense. He then compared this situation with killing wild beasts when they possess threat to a person, because the oppressor or attacker “are not under the ties of the common law of reason” and so they “may be treated as beasts of prey.” The attacker will certainly kill the person if fallen under his power. Locke then continues to explain his claim that killing someone who possesses threat to one’s freedom is justified. He does so by stating that if someone wants to subdue another person, it can be concluded that the attacker could enslave the person. So, the attacker or oppressor puts himself in a state of war with the oppressed. According to that logic, it is justifiable to take away the life of a thief who has not done any harm, because he threatens the freedom of the innocent.

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

Without a strong sovereign power, people would resort back to what he refers to as the “state of nature.” This state puts everyone against each other and is fueled by the unlimited desires of a human among scarcity. Another condition in the state of nature is that everyone is equal, allowing even the weakest person to kill the strongest. There is also a disagreement on good and evil among the people, however everyone searches for a way to protect oneself, which leads to the establishment of a social contract backed up by a great power. The self-serving and dangerous conditions of life in the state of nature now shift to the right of nature, which is self-preservation. This right comes with three laws, consisting of seeking peace when others do, creating a contract for peace, and obeying the contract. Hobbes defines a contract as a mutual transfer of right and should lead to peace, security, and stability as long as each party obeys. Once again, the sovereign is not a party to the contract, and is only there to make sure citizens keep the peace or else face the risk of being back in the state of

Firstly, Locke believed in a system of justice that was based on freedom, self-governing, and the ideology that all people are naturally good. Hobbes would explain that Locke’s arguments are inherently flawed in that he doesn’t recognize that we are constantly in a state of war. This natural state of humanity or state of war is

A fundamental principle of Locke’s book is that of liberty, where he defines it as “man being free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule” (§22). Evidently, Locke dubbed liberty as a dominant notion which should be bestowed on every individual, seeing as it is a right. Moreover, Locke highlighted the way in which humans should be free, which he refers to as “the law of nature”, a state where humans are permitted to determine their moral code. All in all, Locke’s concept of liberty has shaped much of society today, reinforcing why he is referred to as the “father of Classical Liberalism”.

Hobbes reasons that because all men are created equal and all men have perpetual, restless desire for power they will “endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another, if one possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive hime of his life, or liberty. And the invader is in like danger of another” (ch. 13¶3). Locke strongly disagrees with this principle claiming that we should well use force and violence to destroy “those dangerous and noxious creatures” (sec. 16), who threaten our rights, but because reason governs men in this state, reason would rather have them want “the peace and preservation of all mankind” (sec. 7.)

Hobbes suggests three causes of the nature of man. First, competition; Second, Diffidence; third, glory. Human exercise violence first to gain their desire, and secondly to defend their gains, and lastly for one’s own reputation. On the ground that we are all in a state of war, Hobbes states, “In such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain…no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, NO SOCIETY, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death…” (Leviathan, XIII). Therefore, the idea of justice or injustice cannot have a place in our society where there is no power.

While Hobbes and Locke both talk about a lot of the same things in their breakdown of governmental theory, they do it in very different ways. Hobbes, being known for having a pessimistic view of humans in the natural state describes the ideal politic as an absolute monarchy that consistently puts its constituents’ safety first. Locke sees potential benefits that the state of nature is able to offer but concedes that the state of nature has the ability to also be a state of war.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

According to Hobbes, the absence of authority delineates the state of nature. Hobbes believes that all men are equal in spite of the fact that some may appear smarter or tougher than others. In addition, humans are in perpetual state of war as they are self-centered and will often be willing to do anything that is at their personal interests (Hobbes, 1994). Locke however maintains that in the state of nature, humans live in accordance with reason and that there is no “superior” to act as the judge. Locke is of the view that the state of nature differs from the state of war, and that it contains equality and each person has identical powers (Locke, 2005).

Where Hobbes’ believed the state of nature and a state of war to be one and the same, Locke saw them as two separate entities, and sees the state of war as a smaller occurrence. Locke believed that nature is at peace until one man attacks another. In this state of war it is suitable for the person being attacked to defend themselves from the transgressor.