Natural Law In John Locke's State Of Nature

1429 Words 6 Pages
And following this is a second law. When others are willing, a man shouldn't limit his liberty against other man, again, in his words, as he would allow other men against himself in order to promote peace and self-preservation. But Hobbes accepted these natural laws were not going to be effective in the state of nature. And, thus, he argued we would agree to establish a state that would govern over us. So to create a government, everyone must agree to pass on their rights to absolute liberty to a sovereign or a state. In his words, he called it the Leviathan . Now, the state has the authority to bring about security for all by punishing anyone disobeying the laws of that society.
And so the primary benefit of the social contract is social stability. So the law and the state, as its enforcer,
…show more content…
In Locke's state of nature, men were morally equal, rational, and independent. For him, the original state of nature was anarchic, as was Hobbes. But natural laws existed in the state of nature to control the actions of men. And these laws restricted any tendencies of men to act purely out of self-interest. So, for Locke, natural laws were laws which govern the behaviour of beings possessing reason and free will. They governed us. And, through reason, we discovered that we ought to avoid evil and do well. So, for Locke, natural laws restrict what we are morally allowed to do. These laws, therefore, he would argue, are objective and universal.
Now, these natural laws are arrived at using our human reason. They encompass natural rights and duties. Each man,-- again, the gendered language-- has the rights to life, liberty, and property and the duty to not violate the rights of others. These natural rights come from a recognition of the equality of each other,-- well, at least the equality of men-- stemming from a belief that we should respect others as we also want to be

Related Documents