Comparing Thomas Hobbes And John Locke's State Of Nature

In their works, both Hobbes and Locke present the pre-political condition of man known as the state of nature, a time where men lived without a state or government to regulate their actions. Hobbes views the state of nature as a state of war, in which people's’ lives are nasty, brutish, and short. On the other hand, Locke makes a distinction between the state of nature and the state of war. The state of nature for Locke is essentially peaceful; it is not as violent as Hobbes believes it to be. Their distinction lies in their view of human nature. However, both philosophers share the view that the state of nature is something that cannot last due to the insecurity it infringes upon man. Secondly, they both believe the law of nature is the act

Locke mentions there are men who will transgress against the law of nature. The law of nature states man is bound to preserve his life, therefore he has the right to punish the person who threatens his self-preservation. Locke, just like Hobbes, mentions the state of war. “Whosoever uses force without right… puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it” (Locke §232). Those who choose to defy their moral reasoning and disobey the law of nature are viewed as inhumane. They are inhumane because they act more like beasts, who do not have the capacity of reason like men do (Locke §16). The state of war ceases when the act of force is over. However, what are the repercussions for such actions? As a result of the absence of a common judge, there is no all governing power men can appeal to. Instead, in the state of nature, each man act as their own judge of the law of nature. Nonetheless, the person being attacked then has the right to punish his attacker. Subsequently, the state of war continues. The person being attacked has the right to punish that person in one of two ways. Either the person being attacked attempts to kill the person who sought to gain power over them (Locke §21), or they have they can save the aggressor by making them their slave (Locke

Freedom in the state of nature is not always certain; by default man is not completely safe in the state of nature. The only way to resolve conflict in the state of nature is through fighting. However, this leads men to enter a state of war. Due to the desire of self-preservation, men find themselves wanting a common judge to escape the state of war and the insecurity created by it. Man will seek to join a society of individuals “who have already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates” (Locke §123). Locke considers these three things as property. Uniting together in a common-wealth will allow men to protect their property. There will be an established law they consent to follow. This is important, because men are biased when applying the law of nature in their own case (Locke §124). Secondly, in the common-wealth, there will be a judge who will unbiasedly apply the law of nature (Locke §125). Lastly, there will be a “power to back and support the sentence” (Locke §126) making the laws