The competing accounts of the state of nature given by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are extremely contrasting, but both provide persuasive arguments for the transition to the state. In this essay I will compare and contrast the Hobbesian State of Nature and Lockean State of Nature, however, I argue that Locke’s account is preferred as it provides greater security for its inhabitants.
Part 1
The State of Nature, as Professor Lynne Fox describes it is, “A hypothetical account of what life would be like in a “natural state” with no government and no laws” (Hobbes PP) which provides an assessment to the sources, purposes, and limits of government authority. From this hypothetical, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke determined two contrasting accounts of the natural state. When analyzing their accounts on the state of nature, it appears that both philosophers agree that all men are equal, have natural liberty, and endeavor peace, however, their interpretation are acutely dissimilar. This leads to the differing accounts of the same hypothetical. Although for different reasons, both philosophers come to the common conclusion to advocate for the transition from living in the natural state to a civil society …show more content…
Hobbes provides a brutal and pessimistic account of the state of nature by proclaiming that without government, inhabitants are living in a state of war with constant fear of a violent death and competition. As Hobbes described it, it was “war of every man against every man,” and “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (ch 13). Locke on the other hand provides a much more pleasant and peaceful account by stating it is “..a state of perfect freedom to order their actions..” (Locke, ch 2 sec 4) and it is possible to live an acceptable life despite the absence of government, however it lacks impartial
Part 1
The State of Nature, as Professor Lynne Fox describes it is, “A hypothetical account of what life would be like in a “natural state” with no government and no laws” (Hobbes PP) which provides an assessment to the sources, purposes, and limits of government authority. From this hypothetical, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke determined two contrasting accounts of the natural state. When analyzing their accounts on the state of nature, it appears that both philosophers agree that all men are equal, have natural liberty, and endeavor peace, however, their interpretation are acutely dissimilar. This leads to the differing accounts of the same hypothetical. Although for different reasons, both philosophers come to the common conclusion to advocate for the transition from living in the natural state to a civil society …show more content…
Hobbes provides a brutal and pessimistic account of the state of nature by proclaiming that without government, inhabitants are living in a state of war with constant fear of a violent death and competition. As Hobbes described it, it was “war of every man against every man,” and “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (ch 13). Locke on the other hand provides a much more pleasant and peaceful account by stating it is “..a state of perfect freedom to order their actions..” (Locke, ch 2 sec 4) and it is possible to live an acceptable life despite the absence of government, however it lacks impartial