Hobbes Vs Locke

offers no guarantee of personal safety, and paints a pessimistic view of human nature as savages. Leaving this state of war for any type of civil society is favorable according to Hobbes. Conversely, while the Lockean state of nature provides acceptable living, inhabitants have no way to punish individuals who violate the law of nature, therefore, there is a necessity to leave a state of injustice.

Part 2

Having provided simplified premises and conclusions of the two accounts of the state of nature, this portion of the paper is dedicated to further evaluating other specifics of each thinker. I argue that inhabitants in a Lockean state of nature enjoy greater individual security and protection in comparison to Hobbes’s account through assessing

Both thinkers believe the fundamental drive and right for all is self-preservation and no one has natural authority over another. In particular, Hobbes claimed that without government oversight, inhabitants have the liberty to exercise their right to stay alive by doing whatever it takes, whether it’s stealing, attacking or killing others. This is why the Hobbesian state of nature is in a constant perpetual state of war since everyone’s self-interest is always conflicted with everyone else’s. As Hobbes concludes, “there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live,” (ch 13). While it is not hard to defend Hobbes’s perspective, it’s too much of a pessimistic view of human nature. Are humans really as selfish and greedy that Hobbes claims them to be? I think not, even in a pre-societal/government oversight era. There are certainly individuals who have the ability to commit horrible acts of violence for their personal gain, but I don’t believe that occurs as frequently as Hobbes imagines it to be. Historically, while the traditional notion of survival is survival of the fittest, it can’t be done individually, it’s take a community to work together and watch out for each other. Furthermore, in the Hobbesian state of nature, morality

Although all men have liberty, as explained by Professor Fox, “inhabitants are governed by a law of nature that humans can ascertain from Christian doctrine, but equally through the use of reason” (Locke PP). In other words, the natural law originates from God, but the law is also deductible through reasoning if we choose not to accept the God argument. In addition, the natural law imposes a duty on inhabitants to “as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another” (Locke ch 2 sec 6) except in the case of self-defense. The account of the natural law also supplies a foundation for morality, which is to primarily pursue the preservation of self, first, and others second, if and when possible. Furthermore, this account of the state of nature is much more preferable to inhibit and possibly provides a more accurate account of human nature than Hobbes does. In essence, in the Lockean state of nature, all inhabitants are morally equal with the equal ability to judge and punish wrong