Locke's State Of Nature example essay topic

Among political philosophers "The State of Nature" appears to be one of the most disputed and fought over definitions peculiar to their science. Two modern political thinkers who seem to have differing views on the "original" condition of man are Hobbes and Locke. While Hobbes and Locke do agree in certain aspects of their study of nature (such as men being equal and a right to self preservation) they claim to be very different from each other. This claim is best shown by Locke's statement regarding the difference between the state of nature and the state of war. "And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war; which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another" (Modern Reader, 317). When Locke mentions that some men have confounded this difference between the state of nature and the state of war he is clearly referring to Hobbes.

Maybe it was simply because he wanted to avoid the negative consequences that Hobbes faced (having his books burned and his life put in danger) or maybe it was simply because he perceived his ideas to be of a higher caliber, there is no way to be absolutely certain. It is the goal of this paper to examine both the similarities and the differences between the definitions proposed by these two writers, and to show that while they claim to be different, the two ideas of the state of nature presented are really more alike than not. Hobbes begins his account of the state of nature by explaining to us the equality of all men. "Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he" (Modern Reader, 169). The former quote makes it very clear that although men may have different levels of ability in varying areas, men when taken as a whole and considering all of their abilities, physical, mental, etc. are equal. Hobbes also says that because each man thinks he has greater wisdom than other "inferior" members of the species, this is yet another sign of equality for, "there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of any thing, than that every man is contented with his share" (Modern Reader, 170).

Locke starts out his writing on the state of nature in the same way by stating that it is "a state also of equality... [where everyone is] promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties... ". (Modern Reader, 312). The two views of Hobbes and Locke with regard to this state of equality in the state of nature are thus shown to be essentially the same.

Hobbes and Locke also agree upon the right of individuals to defend themselves in this the first of all states. Hobbes specifically mentions the right to self preservation (Modern Reader, 172) while Locke talks about two "two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence... the other of taking reparation" (Modern Reader, 314). From these two statements it shown that both of these men believe that mankind, in the state of nature, has a right to defend himself So far we have examined obvious similarities between Hobbes and Locke, however now we will take a look at some of the purported differences. In Hobbseian political theory the state of war is perfectly equivalent to the state of nature. To prove this, Hobbes definition of the state of war is important. While commenting on the state of war Hobbes said, "For WAR, consist eth not in battle only, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known...

". (Modern Reader, 171). This quote shows that the mere will to contend or fight creates a state of war. Hobbes also says that in the nature of man there are three principal causes of quarrel, which are competition, diffidence, and glory. Competition would lead men to always be contending in order to obtain more, or something that someone else had that he wanted. Diffidence would cause men to contend with each other, solely because someone else existed, and was therefore a threat to their safety and well being.

Finally, glory would lead to always fight over their image, or for a smile, or for some other perceived aspect of their image. Clearly with these three causes always to be found in men, men would perpetually be in a state of war, always having a reason and a will to contend with each other. This is how the state of nature is the state of war for Hobbes. Locke's take on the state of nature is best summed up in his statement already quoted at the beginning of this paper, that it is a "state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation" while he says the state of war is a "state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction" (Modern Reader 317). Here we see the large proclaimed difference between their two accounts that Locke makes. Before showing how Locke's state of nature really is a state of war, we need to examine his own definition of the state of war, which is "force or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief...

". (Modern Reader, 317). This definition is remarkably similar to the definition for the state of war that Hobbes gives. There are many elements in Locke's own writing that make it quite apparent that his state of nature would essentially be the same thing as his state of war. Locke's first claim is that everyone in the state of nature has a right to punish those who the offend the law of nature (that will eth the peace of nature).