The State of Nature as envisioned by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

The State of Nature

The state of nature is a hypothetical scenario that describes people’s lives in society. It is related to a variety of topics in various areas, including law, morality, religion, and social contract. Furthermore, the state of nature entails the role of international law in the establishment of a peaceful society. As a result, the state of nature conception models analyze life prior to the establishment of civil society and government. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have opposing views on the concept of the state of nature (Hobbes, 2002, 6, 1).

Hobbes’ View

Hobbes argues that the state of nature makes human beings equal in the faculties of the body and mind. The condition of the equality of humanity makes them fight one another in the struggle for power (Hobbes 2002, 1, 2).

Locke’s View

Conversely, John Locke analyzes the state of nature in a community characterized by civil activism. In particular, Locke explains the state of nature in his book, Second Treatise on Civil Government which he wrote during the England inclusion crisis (Lock 2017, 1, 2). He noted that men are free to order their actions in the state of nature and they can dispose of their possessions. Hobbes and Locke conception of the state of nature serve a distinct purpose in civil society and government, thus, showing varied significance in the society.

Hobbes’ State of Nature: Warre

According to Hobbes, the states of nature allow human beings to acquire the state of warre. To emphasize, a warre is a condition in which men and women do not live under a common power which gives specific guidelines (Hobbes 2002, 18, 200). The individuals in the society have equal right and liberty to do anything they consider preservative to their personal life. The people in the community focus on protecting their properties and life which is the only essential thing to them. Hobbes describes the states of nature in Latin words, bellum omnium contra omnes, which means war of men against men. The state of nature is characterized by poor, short, and nasty life. The government structures in the state of nature are fragmented. For instance, the natural property does not belong to anyone and cases of injustices do not exist. However, through varied natural precepts established by the law of nature, Hobbes describes how the state of nature can as well result in the existence of government and political society. The mutual contract to establish government is founded under the two basic law of nature. First, an individual must demonstrate peace when he wishes to live in harmonious society (Hobbes 2002, 19, 226). Second, a person must accept liberty against other men if he wants to achieve the same status.

Locke’s State of Nature: Natural Laws

Conversely, Locke argues that people are free to express their displeasure and command their action which they feel is suitable and appropriate for their survival within the bound of the law. Furthermore, he reasons that the state has the law to govern it from malpractices of persons living in the community. According to Locke, the laws of nature provide distinct guidelines regarding the relationship between people in the society (Locke 2017, 5, 12). For instance, the philosopher believes that an individual must not deprive his neighbor from life, property, and liberty. Unlike Hobbies’ philosophical ideas which do not base on the religious concept, Locke relates the state of nature to Christian belief and borrows some concepts from theology. For instance, he states that the transgressions against life, liberty, and property are punishable under the religious law of nature (Locke 2017, 14, 189). Furthermore, in the first chapter of Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke argues that Adam was not granted an absolute authority over the world and his heir did not have right to inherit the world’s property.

Divine Right and Political Power

Notably, Locke analyses the Filmer’s theory of divine right and sovereignty. For instance, he states that people cannot identify the descendants of Adam in the contemporary society; hence, nobody has the right to claim the ownership of the world. In the last paragraph of the first chapter, Locke explains the distinction between the familial, political and paternal power, and in particular, highlights the characteristics of different forms of authority (Lock, 2017, 1, 14). For instance, John states that political power is the ability of individuals to make laws which protect and regulate the ownership of property. The laws are supported by the people who promote peaceful coexistence in the public. In chapter two of the Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke explains that, in a community guided by the law of nature, nobody has power over another person and everyone conduct his or her activities as they please (Lock, 2017, 2, 6). Although people may have the authority over their conducts, they do not have the right to abuse another person. Notably, natural laws which regulate the behavior of individuals exist in the state of nature. Moreover, everyone has the authority to execute the law of nature in a community.

Critiques and Comparisons

While explaining the state of nature, Hobbes argues that learners must understand people and agreements of the society, the component of the community which resides in the state of nature. The philosopher views the society in the state of nature as a place of war. According to Hobbes, the fundamental desire in the state of nature is self-preservation (Hobbes, 2002, 7, 88). In the state of nature, an individual cannot exercise power or authority against the desire of people in the society. Therefore, everybody has the right to choose between life and death. However, the natural right of people in the society consistently conflicts with other people’s desires resulting in persistence war. Hobbies conception of the state of nature has number limitations. For example, the author explains that individuals only rely on their personal attributes such as strength and intelligent (Hobbes 2002, 7, 94). Furthermore, the philosopher argues that if an individual has the right to live in the society, then another person has the duty to kill him. Therefore, the conception of the state of nature does not support development. To elaborate, in the Hobbies theory, people will not study, engage in industrial activities, and spread the cultural practices. Lastly, the theory advocates for persistence war because human desires cannot end. As a result, people will always fight to attain their persistence desires.

Although the two scholars agree that the state of nature is characterized by perfect freedom and equality, Locke bases his argument of moral interpretation of the freedom. Furthermore, he explains that the right to self-preservation is controlled by the law of nature which limits the activities of people in the society (Lock 2017, 3, 9). Consequently, individuals must only do things which they can as well comfortably accept in their lifestyle. The government which is responsible for making laws does not exist in states of nature. However, Locke argues that the laws which govern people in the state of nature come from God. Because God created human being, he has the responsibility to preserve life, property, and possessions (Lock 2017, 3, 15). Therefore, Locke conception of the state of nature is widely accepted by a large number of scholars across the world.

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