Preview

State of Nature: Hobbes and Locke

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
795 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
State of Nature: Hobbes and Locke
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, more Locke than Hobbes however, have been enormous influential political philosophers for the modern political thought and development of England and the Americas. The topic and phrase “state of nature” is used and discussed significantly throughout. The similarities are shown extensively, but there are many differing views of opinion as well. While they both discuss how the state of nature is dangerous, Hobbes is more pessimistic, where Locke, on the other hand, discusses the potential benefits. Furthermore, Hobbes speaks about the state of nature as a hypothetical and Locke demonstrates shows us examples of where it truly exists.

The one great and outstanding similarity between Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature and John Locke’s state of nature is that they both discuss how dangerous a state of nature can actually be. Both suggest that men are equals in this state with Hobbes stating “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body and mind, as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man is not so considerable.” Likewise, Locke describes this nature as a “state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another.” Despite thinking alike in this regard, however, Locke and Hobbes warn of the risk of the state of nature. As was thoroughly discussed in class and made very apparent, the entire time Hobbes has man in a state of nature, he (man) is in a state of war. Hobbes so states, “if any two men cannot enjoy the same thing, they become enemies and in the way to their end…endeavor to destroy or subdue one another.” Similarly, Locke points out these risks, saying that without the “law of nature,” man may make decisions that lead to a state of war. To review, both men mention the dangers of the state or nature, and the states of war that are

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    The social contract theory commences with the idea of a state of nature; the central idea that criminal justice systems are not in existence. The breakdown of effects result in the lack of protection provided; the inability to instill safety measures; and the neglect of civil rights pertaining to property and to individualized refuge. Public order is in disarray resulting in people relying on self-help methods to resolve differences of opinion. The individuality of existence within a state of nature is one of the primary areas under discussion that differences occur among social contract philosophers. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, John Locke’s colleague in philosophy, whom references a state of nature as a battle of everyone in opposition to one another, Locke references state of nature, not as a circumstance of warfare, but nevertheless a problem. Locke theorizes that a…

    • 1157 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    At first sight, Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government, seemed quite similar to Hobbes’s Leviathan. They both believed that a state of nature is a state that exist without government. They believe that men are created equal in this state, however Hobbes argues that because of self-preservation, man possessed the desire to control over other man. Locke, on the other hand, reasons with a more peaceful and pleasant place.…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    That men are sinister in the State of Nature could be promoted as a headline to Hobbes’s magnum opus, Leviathan. In the state of nature, men are not magnanimous beings. A notion similar to the first sin, yet different from a philosopher like Jean Jacque Rousseau. It has always been taken for granted that there are wicked and virtuous humans, yet for Hobbes, humans are innately wicked. These notions, however abstract and contradictory they may seem, are demonstrated in this short paper; Hobbes’s chapter 13 of Leviathan is abridged in this paper. First, the inclinations that drive men to behave in a wicked way are outlined step by step. Then Hobbes’s reason for having a common power is established. Generally, this paper is a reflection on Chapter 13 of Leviathan with explanation and commentary.…

    • 1395 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The idea of the natural human is a topic discussed for centuries. Philosophers for generations asked question regarding the form of government that human beings react best in. In class we examined both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's theory of the State of Nature which allowed us to see their viewpoints on humankind. Hobbes believes that humans are selfishly motivated and are constantly at war with one another. However, Locke has a more positive outlook. He believes that humans behaved based on the Law of Nature which is given to us by God (hobbeslockedocument). In Locke’s opinion, the State of Nature is free and has the right to life, liberty and property and if people want their rights respected, they should respect others. However, Locke is not delusional, he knows…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    For Hobbes, the need of an outright power, as a Sovereign, took after from the utter ruthlessness of the State of Nature. The State of Nature was totally grievous, thus objective men would will to submit themselves even to outright power with a specific end goal to escape it. For John Locke, 1632-1704, the State of Nature is an altogether different sort of spot, thus his contention concerning the social contract and the way of men's relationship to power are subsequently entirely distinctive. While Locke uses Hobbes' methodological gadget of the State of Nature, as do for all intents and purposes all social contract scholars, he utilizes it to a very distinctive end. Locke's contentions for the social contract, and for the privilege of residents…

    • 152 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    After analyzing how Locke and Hobbes understand the state of nature it is evident that they share many ideas but they also show essential differences in their ideas. Hobbes regards the state of nature as a state of war, in which natural law is established only after a process of reasoning. This process leads men to the conclusion that they must somehow find…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were to philosophers with opposing opinions on human nature and the state of nature. Locke saw humanity and life with optimism and community, whereas Hobbes only thought of humans as being capable of living a more violent, self-interested lifestyle which would lead to civil unrest. However, both can agree that in order for either way of life to achieve success there must be a sovereign.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes credits to each person in the state of nature a liberty right to preserve herself, which he terms “the right of nature”. This is the right to do whatsoever one sincerely judges requiring for one's protection; yet because it is at least possible that virtually anything might be judged necessary for one's protection, this hypothetically limited right of nature becomes in practice an unlimited right to potentially anything, or, as Hobbes puts it, a right “to all things”. Hobbes further assumes that people should accept what they see to be the necessary means to their most important ends.…

    • 214 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The State of Nature, a model that Locke follows to understand human nature, justifies peoples rights and how they attain them through a government. The second chapter, “On the State of Nature”, is one of the most important chapters in Locke’s Second Treatise. He puts the thought that we need to understand that we exist in a state of perfect freedom and equality and governed by reason. Locke defines the state of nature on the third page of this book as this,…

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The view Locke had on the state of nature is conceptually different. Locke's view of the state of nature says that humans have limits as to what we should or should not do, but he believed that humans are generally nice to one another, and we will not bother one another. Therefore, in Locke's state of nature, humans are peaceful. Hobbes, however, believes that humans live in a state of war and fight with each other constantly.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes’s perspective is the opposite extreme of what John Locke stood for. He characterized the natural state of people as that of a state of, “war of every man against every man.” He also portrays all men as being equal, but equal in the sense that anyone can kill anyone else, and as a result of this, they live in constant fear and anxiety. He argues that man uses logic to deduce that the only reasonable way to protect one’s life is to gain enough power to control a state and to protect those who live under that particular state, gaining allies (which eliminates enemies in the process).…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two main political philosophers during the seventeenth century. Hobbes is largely known for his writing of the “Leviathan”, and Locke for authoring "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Included in their essays, both men discuss the purpose and structure of government, natural law, and the characteristics of man in and out of the state of nature. The two men's opinion of man vary widely. Hobbes sees man as being evil, whereas Locke views man in a much more optimistic light. While in the state of nature and under natural law, they both agree that man is equal. However, their ideas of natural law differ greatly. Hobbes positions himself with the view that the state of nature is a state of war where every man is for himself and loyalty to another being will only bring dismay. Contrastingly, Locke sees natural law and the state of nature as a place of equality and freedom for all. Locke therefore believes that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law.…

    • 1028 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The argument presented by Thomas Hobbes in chapter 13 of Leviathan, is that the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Such a view had previously been discussed- earlier versions of the argument appear in other significant works- however it is Hobbes account of a state in “continuall feare of danger and violent death”1 upon which I will focus on and critique in this essay. There are many reasons why many seem to regard Hobbes argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised society, many believe it to be so straightforward and seemingly correct that to object it would be to ignore a necessary truth. Secondly, those who accept Hobbes’ view of a human nature that is so egotistical and unforgiving, would seemingly too agree to the assumption of a gloomy, unbearable state of nature. In this essay I shall argue that such opinions are not logically justified as Hobbes’s argument holds its foundations solidly in assumption alone, an assumption that was heavily moulded on his surroundings of a savage Civil War. Hobbes’s argument lies solely on the grounds that human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centred beings an argument that cannot be completely validated and therefore cannot be a ‘necessary truth’. Yet despite holding such a bleak outlook on the human condition and its simple invalidity the work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political word today2 and it continues to impact our understanding of human nature and interactions. In order to justify my critique of Hobbes I will begin by presenting both his original argument and a brief view of some modern interpretations before cross examining their conclusions against that of other social contract theorist such as Locke and Rousseau as well as rational logic to present the argument that the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The first being the state of nature as defined by Thomas Hobbes is that of a pre-societal state. In general terms this means there would be no government or any form of laws, leading citizens towards a constant state of war. As a result of this, people would be motivated solely by self interest, and would not have any regards towards others needs. This relates to a lecture on Zombies and Sociology given by Dr. Peters. Dr. Peter’s pointed out the fact that society begins to fail as a whole when its institutions breakdown. Government, the economy, religion, education, media and family are all institutions of society. In a Hobbesian state of nature it is likely that very few of these intuitions would continue to stand, the first to go being government and economy. It is also worth noting that in a Hobbesian state of nature, individuals are motivated to act out of fear, which Professor Gillard mentioned in his lecture. This explains why people act only to meet their personal needs, they are so blinded by fear that they fail to rationalize the needs of others. Locke takes a different approach when it comes to defining the state of nature, which places more emphasis on…

    • 2405 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    V for Vendetta

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Locke's theory was that man is by nature a social animal. In the state of nature men mostly kept their promises and honoured their obligations, and though insecure, it was mostly peaceful, good and pleasant. Humans know the difference between right and wrong, and are capable of knowing what is lawful and unlawful well enough to resolve conflicts. They are capable of telling the difference of whats theirs and what belongs someone else. Regrettably they do not always act appropriately. The gap between our ideas and words about the world, and the world itself, is large and difficult, but still if one man calls it evil, the man refereed to still has the qualities of good or evil. Peace is normal and we should be able to live together. While respecting each other. We retain the right to life and liberty, and gain the right to just, impartial protection of our property. If a ruler seeks absolute power, he puts himself in the state of war. Men have the right by nature. Hobbes theory was man is not by nature a social animal, society could not exist except by the power of state. Our knowledge of objective, true answers is so feeble, so slight and imperfect as to be mostly worthless in resolving practical disputes. In a state of nature people do not know what is theirs. Property exists solely by the will of the state, thus in a state of nature men are condemned to endless violent conflict. Men cannot know good and evil. If you shut up as you are as told, you have the right not to be killed.…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays