Morality In John Locke's State Of Nature

Both Hobbes’ and Locke have very different descriptions of what morality in the state of nature would be like. People could argue that in Hobbes’ description of the state of nature morality is not necessarily a concern. People do not do things based on right and wrong, they do what pleases them. While Locke argues that everyone is give, at birth, a set of natural rights and obligations. All though in some instances there state of nature could be described as the same, how people’s morality plays out in them though is quite different. In my paper I am going to be providing a summary of the argument contained in A.J. Simmons 'Locke's State of Nature' in Christopher Morris edition of The Social Contract Theorists and discussing my view on how Locke’s account of morality and the state of nature differs from Hobbes¬¬ and if Lock¬¬e’s account is more plausible than Hobbes’ account.
At the beginning of his argument A.J. Simmons points out that Locke’s state of nature is probably “the most misunderstood idea …show more content…
In Locke’s state of nature we have the right to “freely pursue harmless activities, to do what is necessary to preserve oneself and others, and to ‘execute’ the law of nature.” While in Hobbes’s state of nature we have the right to do whatever we want to anybody to get what we want or need. I think this is where the big difference of morality comes in. Locke assumes we are all born with these natural rights and obligations and I am inclined to agree. Hobbes account of a state of nature is extremely selfish and bleak, and although that is a possible state of nature it cannot be the only one. Especially if we take Locke’s view in regards to individuals. Even if for the majority there was a state of nature like Hobbes’, ‘nasty, brutish, and short,’ that would not necessarily be the state of nature for everyone. Individuals or other groups could be in a different state of