Hobbes Leviathan And Locke's Second Treatise Of Government

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government are considered prevalent political writings, posing crucial theories, particularly the concept of a social contract; both philosophers reiterate the importance of transitioning from differing States of Nature to governed societies, but essentially vary as to the reason of ‘escaping’ the State of Nature. I argue the basis of the disparities between some of their theories lie in their definitions of human nature, which attributes to their descriptions of the State of Nature (and its compositions), which ultimately forms the foundations of their respective social contracts. This progressive effect stimulates the identification of key differences to which this response will discuss.

This thus explains how Locke acknowledges that a State of War is still possible, as mutual assistance can easily alter into mutual destruction, due to mans overarching, innate desires. Locke later continues to reinforce how due to the absence of authority in the State of Nature, a State of War will continue since there is no possibility of man being able to appeal. It is here where one can identify a key contrast between the two modern thinkers; Hobbes urges the rational man to ‘escape’ the egotistical State of Nature in order to procure “the safety of his own Body” (394), and the fear attached with its disturbance. Nevertheless, Locke postulates that by having “One Body Politick under one Government” (332), where life, liberty and property are secure, is the only fathomable way to avoid a State of War, “To avoid this State of War […] where there is no Authority to decide between the Contenders […] is one great reason of Mens putting themselves into Society, and quitting the State of Nature” (Locke