Exploring Equality in Hobbes' and Locke's State of Nature

It is uncontroversial to declare complete equality is a basic feature of most (if not all) accounts of the state of nature. Not only that, but that this complete equality is what the state of natural ultimately comes down to. Like Hobbes, Locke agrees with this point in his Second Treatise of Government:

“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom…” (2.8).

Although Locke’s description of the state of nature won’t turn out to be as dire as Hobbes’, it rests on the same notion that humans are born equal in the state of nature. Where their views diverge is what this total equality entails. Whereas for Hobbes, the depravity

However, once “the actual force is over, the state of war ceases,” (15) and both sides are once again bound by natural law. For Locke, the entire body of people is not the problem; rather the problem occurs when a “degenerate” violates natural law. Because natural law is the law of reason, for someone to break natural law is to “[declare] himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity…and so he becomes dangerous to mankind” (10). Unlike Hobbes, Locke gives more weight to man as a social being within the state of nature. For Locke, a big part of why natural law obliges even within the state of nature is because it is enforceable. An instrumental feature of Locke’s state of nature is that everyone has executive right to punish one another for transgressing natural law. Since everyone is held accountable for his or her actions in this way, it is simply not rational to break natural law. Because this does call into question issues of “self-love,” partiality, “passion and revenge” (12) the eventual establishment of government remedies these “inconveniences of the state of nature” (12). In this way, government is not so much a contract out of the state of nature, but a check against the “inconveniences” and free riders within the state of

Not only does this lend to more balanced distribution of power, but likely also a more efficient and fair government. While I’m not specifically concerned with whose form of government (Hobbes’ monarchy versus Locke’s democracy) is “right,” one of the reasons Locke’s ideas about natural law are more desirable is because they lend to a less overpowering government. Much of Hobbes’ justification for an absolute sovereign lies in the depravity of the state of nature. Yet, if the state of nature isn’t as dire as he supposes, there is little to no reason why an overpowering sovereign is necessary at