Discuss the differences between Hobbes’ and Locke’s views of the “state of nature.” Whom do you think gave the more correct interpretation?
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke presented the concept of the state of nature that is still being used in political philosophy. The state of nature represents human nature and its existence above the existence of a society.
Hobbes holds a pessimistic view of the state of nature. He believes that men are in a constant state of war. First, he states that all individuals are equal, but everybody is trying to dominate others. Every individual wants the same things. Their greed is undying, and they want to take what others have. Human beings are in a permanent state of competition: competition for profit, competition for status, and competition for pride and fear for security. Hobbes believes that only government and law can save us from this war. When people are given absolute freedom, and there are no rules to bind them, they give a sight of a jungle. There then exists no concept of justice and ownership.
According to Locke, the state of nature is basically a state of equality and the state of freedom. He believes that certain laws are independent of the government. He agrees with Hobbes that all human beings are equal. He states that it’s the law of nature to obey God and not to harm others. Anyone who does not abide by this law is the enemy of all humanity. Any individual can punish the offender. But he still agrees that impartiality and interpretation of the law are two problems that exist in the state of nature.
I support Locke’s view of the state of nature because although he accepts there exists some flaws in the state of nature, he does not declare it a war. Men are much rational than Hobbes believes. Locke holds a positive opinion about the state of nature and thus, leads to an optimistic conclusion.
+447462439809