What is wrong with the state of nature according to Locke? To what extent would Hobbes agree?
The state of nature relates to the theories of social contract used in political philosophy. This
describes the theoretical state of humans before the foundation of the society. In broader face, it is
the condition of life prior to the existence of positive law. Locke (1988), argues that the state of
nature operates under the natural law and that limited power should be given to the sovereign
authority, this is contrary to Hobbes (1651) war of humans against humans in the state of nature and
hence absolute power is required to promote peace by a common power. Firstly, this essay will
explore the concept of the state of nature. Secondly, it will depict Locke’s ideology about the state of
nature. Finally, it will examine Hobbes contradiction and ideology with regards to the state of
nature.
Locke disagrees with the obligation of individuals principles as in the case of the king’s divine
right for the acceptance of the state authority. Compared to Hobbes, Locke argued contrary to the
concept of absolute sovereignty but rather emphasized that the power of Government should be as
such that is limited over individuals. The state of nature, for Locke, is the situation whereby humans
because we are created by God benefits from natural rights (Locke, 1988), for example, pre-political
and pre-social rights before the creation of Government and civil society. Therefore, in such a state,
according to Locke, man has a right to property and liberty. This gives them also freedom from death
through violence and restrictions of people against the theft of his property. Furthermore, Locke
argued that the state of nature is administered or ruled by reason which is the law of nature.
Therefore, all mankind being autonomous and equal ought not to destroy one another for the sake
of assets (Locke, 1988). In Locke’s view, human beings are competent to discern some moral truths
of what is bad and good or what is wrong or right, therefore subsequently adhering to the system of
moral conduct when interacting with each other. And hence, they ought to treat one another with
equality; because human beings are interested in protecting their property and lives in the state of
nature (Locke, 1988).
1|Page
, On the other hand, Hobbes argued that the state of nature forces humans to renounce all their right
of judgement in the account of cases that are dubious, and agree to common authority judgement.
This common authority is formulated based on the acceptance of people in the state of nature to
submit their wills (Hobbes, 1651). In addition, the subject of conflict arises as a result of different
judgement by different people with regard to what is or what is not a danger to them and fighting
against the enemy presumably. He also argues that what we think that we see are the qualities our
senses make us believe, which are false appearance. However, there are some external forces which
are subjects of motions and sovereignty (Hobbes, 1651). In the state of nature says Hobbes, creates
the right for an individual’s self-preservation and total freedom. Ironically, the state of nature which
seems to be the land of freedom, developed into a challenge for individual interests. When humans
are liberated by the laws conditioned; this transformed into a war of humans against humans. He
explains that, humans have equal power in the state of nature, therefore promoting insecurity
among themselves. Furthermore, the state of nature lies subsequently in great fear of death. This
sense aggravates human reason. According to Hobbes, this fear of self preservation leads to civil
society by the means of the laws of nature. This is triggered by the frequent competition between
humans in the state of nature (Hobbes, 1651).
We have authority over our environment as a result of human’s capacity to make property and
the motivation by our action. These are represented in the political order of life and individual
correlation with each other. He explores the interaction of humans in the state of nature. As a result,
this prompt individual to change nature for their own ends, through exploitation into private
property. Therefore, human behaviour would exploit each other as they do in the state of nature
(Locke 1988 cited in Sparks and Isaacs, 2004). Unlike Hobbes War of humans against humans, Locke
describes the state of nature as a state of equality whereby power is shared among humans. Locke
argues that, the understanding of each other’s objectives in life creates an avenue to exploit other
individuals for their own personal satisfaction or benefits for survival (Locke 1988 cited in Sparks and
Isaacs, 2004). Therefore, using their environment to satisfy their needs, we are creatures of the
2|Page
The state of nature relates to the theories of social contract used in political philosophy. This
describes the theoretical state of humans before the foundation of the society. In broader face, it is
the condition of life prior to the existence of positive law. Locke (1988), argues that the state of
nature operates under the natural law and that limited power should be given to the sovereign
authority, this is contrary to Hobbes (1651) war of humans against humans in the state of nature and
hence absolute power is required to promote peace by a common power. Firstly, this essay will
explore the concept of the state of nature. Secondly, it will depict Locke’s ideology about the state of
nature. Finally, it will examine Hobbes contradiction and ideology with regards to the state of
nature.
Locke disagrees with the obligation of individuals principles as in the case of the king’s divine
right for the acceptance of the state authority. Compared to Hobbes, Locke argued contrary to the
concept of absolute sovereignty but rather emphasized that the power of Government should be as
such that is limited over individuals. The state of nature, for Locke, is the situation whereby humans
because we are created by God benefits from natural rights (Locke, 1988), for example, pre-political
and pre-social rights before the creation of Government and civil society. Therefore, in such a state,
according to Locke, man has a right to property and liberty. This gives them also freedom from death
through violence and restrictions of people against the theft of his property. Furthermore, Locke
argued that the state of nature is administered or ruled by reason which is the law of nature.
Therefore, all mankind being autonomous and equal ought not to destroy one another for the sake
of assets (Locke, 1988). In Locke’s view, human beings are competent to discern some moral truths
of what is bad and good or what is wrong or right, therefore subsequently adhering to the system of
moral conduct when interacting with each other. And hence, they ought to treat one another with
equality; because human beings are interested in protecting their property and lives in the state of
nature (Locke, 1988).
1|Page
, On the other hand, Hobbes argued that the state of nature forces humans to renounce all their right
of judgement in the account of cases that are dubious, and agree to common authority judgement.
This common authority is formulated based on the acceptance of people in the state of nature to
submit their wills (Hobbes, 1651). In addition, the subject of conflict arises as a result of different
judgement by different people with regard to what is or what is not a danger to them and fighting
against the enemy presumably. He also argues that what we think that we see are the qualities our
senses make us believe, which are false appearance. However, there are some external forces which
are subjects of motions and sovereignty (Hobbes, 1651). In the state of nature says Hobbes, creates
the right for an individual’s self-preservation and total freedom. Ironically, the state of nature which
seems to be the land of freedom, developed into a challenge for individual interests. When humans
are liberated by the laws conditioned; this transformed into a war of humans against humans. He
explains that, humans have equal power in the state of nature, therefore promoting insecurity
among themselves. Furthermore, the state of nature lies subsequently in great fear of death. This
sense aggravates human reason. According to Hobbes, this fear of self preservation leads to civil
society by the means of the laws of nature. This is triggered by the frequent competition between
humans in the state of nature (Hobbes, 1651).
We have authority over our environment as a result of human’s capacity to make property and
the motivation by our action. These are represented in the political order of life and individual
correlation with each other. He explores the interaction of humans in the state of nature. As a result,
this prompt individual to change nature for their own ends, through exploitation into private
property. Therefore, human behaviour would exploit each other as they do in the state of nature
(Locke 1988 cited in Sparks and Isaacs, 2004). Unlike Hobbes War of humans against humans, Locke
describes the state of nature as a state of equality whereby power is shared among humans. Locke
argues that, the understanding of each other’s objectives in life creates an avenue to exploit other
individuals for their own personal satisfaction or benefits for survival (Locke 1988 cited in Sparks and
Isaacs, 2004). Therefore, using their environment to satisfy their needs, we are creatures of the
2|Page
