The Locke’s philosophy

Locke’s philosophy on the state of nature compared to Hobbes’

Locke’s philosophy on the state of nature provides more security than Hobbes’ conclusions. The discrepancies in conclusions emerge from different understandings of human nature, a scenario that creates hostility between the two ideological ideas. Hobbes defines man as a creature of desire with innate skills and sophisticated awareness of nature in various cultures. The nature of human rights also contributes to the discrepancies in findings found in Locke’s and Hobbes’ views. Locke perceived specific rights as independent of the state or the government and on the other hand, Hobbes saw them as the product of the state (Locke 2017, 1, 7). Both the conclusions made by John Locke and Hobbes attribute the laws of nature which tend to guide the behavior of mankind in the state of nature. Consequently, the Hobbes laws are more secure as compared to Locke’s. The paper, therefore, elaborates the differences that exist between the Thomas Hobbes and the John Locke’s conception of nature.

Thomas Hobbes’s Conception of the State of Nature

Hobbes had a dark perception of the nature of human being in the society, a scenario that originated from Thucydides classical history of the Peloponnesian Wars (Hobbes 2000, 6, 14). Thomas Hobbes accounts for all the psychological scenario of human life and the nature of existence in the society and concludes that human motivations are egotistical and they are meant to increase pleasure and reduce pain. The self-centered people live amidst the fear of death and destructions as well as the conflicts brought about by the human activities. Human beings are always in constant conflicts, a situation that usually undermines the peaceful coexistence in different societies. Leviathan described the society and the human beings in a mechanical and thorough materialistic approach; this means that human beings are continuously in conflicts due to the competitions of natural resources that nobody has authority over (Hobbes 2000, 6, 18). Hobbes also describes the state of nature as “war of mankind against mankind.” The above scenario describes the overall perception of the Hobbes towards human nature and it also describes why the life of human beings has to be brutish, short, and nasty. The above description represents they systematic approaches stipulated by the Thomas Hobbes, his scenarios have made him be recognized as the father political science, his approaches can only be compared to the Galileo’s theories of the motion that disapproved the conventional approaches that were stipulated by the earlier scientists. Hobbes advocated for the absolute rule that can either be legislative or monarch.

John Lock’s Conception of the State of Nature

According to John Locke, human beings are creatures of basic goodwill and their intention is to advocate for harmony in the entire society (Locke 2017, 3, 9). Lock condemned abolitionism of a government that should be responsible for the people, listen to the concerns of the governed, and accept to preserve the rights to life, property, and liberty. According to the above scenario, people have the rights to overthrow the governments that do not perform its roles. The Locke’s perception of nature is a pleasant principle that supports the understanding of the positive nature of life (Locke 2017, 4, 11). Locke stated that mankind should be preserved since they contribute to the positive course of life. The above idea is borrowed from the biblical perception of human beings. All people are bone equal and that they are not meant to harm one another. Everybody has a responsibility to protect other people and to obey the laws that protect the peaceful existence. Lock argues that the above laws do not require an enforcer. Just like Hobbes, John Lock considers all human beings as equal and they are all entitled to enforce the law of nature (Locke 2017, 5, 12). Following the above scenario, Locke’s and Hobbes philosophies start at the same point of equality and take different directions to different conclusions, with Locke’s ideas leading to the positive conclusion while Hobbes’ ideas to the negative direction. According to John Locke, when applying the natural laws, man must achieve restraint and reparation.

Part Two

People perceive natural life in different ways. The diversity that exists in different societies is an advantage to the people. The continuous relationships and understandings among the people lead to the invention of new human perception that helps in triggering the state of sanity. In some societies, there should be no absolute rights given to an individual or stage, every individual has the right to protect the social behaviors by ensuring the positive coexistence among the people. People should have the freedom to interact and respect one another, they should be able to show positivity in their relationship and understand the situations as they occur. The societies existed before the political state and therefore human life should not be centered on the political powers, consequently, it is the society that imposed the idea about the government, this therefore means that the political powers should work within the needs of the people. On the other hand, there are social contracts that impose restrictions on the people that take away the natural rights. In some other instances, the ruler can limit the natural human pursuit as well as the free exercises that are of interest to all the potential conflicts that are usually attributed to human behaviors and practices in the society. The above position is arrived at in a systematic approach that perhaps leads to sanity among the people. As a result of the urgency portrayed by human beings, the interactions in the society can be viewed as a situation that leads to the displeasure or the delight.

Human beings are equal and they should be entitled to equal rights and freedoms. Before civilization, the natural resources belonged to every individual and every human being had an absolute responsibility of ensuring protection of the environment and everything that it is in it. God created human being in a special way and gave them power over all other creatures to continue with the work of creation. Following the above scenario, the societies should therefore advocate for equality. Even though some people may appear stronger or smarter than others, the differences may not elaborate any sort of natural hierarchy because the stronger man may overpower the weaker man, but at the same time, the weaker man may decide to collaborate with other people in confederacy to overcome the stronger man. Consequently, one man can be wiser than others and there is no way many men can combine their wisdom to overcome a wise man. Thus, if one man considers himself to be wiser, then he must be contented with his contribution to the society.

Conclusion

The state of nature is hypothetical; it sometimes leads to a contradictory. The political state naturally exists due to people’s differences in life. Although people naturally exist in the state of nature, there are some individuals who usually tend to adopt the negative behaviors that may affect the society in a negative way. The emergence of leadership is therefore attributed to the differences in the human nature that tend to spread evil or righteous. The society naturally perceives the righteous as the individuals who can lead the people to the right direction, a situation that makes them to be naturally isolated as the cream of the society. If there is a section of the society that advocate for the positive change in behavior of the people and the relationships that exist between different individuals, then such people should be preserved and used as leaders.

References

Hobbes, T. (2000). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes. Intelex Past Masters Full Text Humanities, Vol. 03. Retrieved from: http://crkn.nlx.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/xtf/view?docId=hobbes/hobbes.03.xml;chunk.id=div.britphil.v4.7;toc.depth=1;toc.id=div.britphil.v4.7;brand=default

Locke, J. (2017). Locke-Berkeley-Hume: Philosophical Texts. Electronic edition. Intelex Past Masters Full Text Humanities, Vol.02. Retrieved: from http://crkn.nlx.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/xtf/view?docId=lbh/lbh.02.xml;chunk.id=div.britphil.v28.19;toc.depth=1;toc.id=div.britphil.v28.18;brand=default