There are many definitions on what is “state of nature, some encyclopedias consider the state of nature as "uncivilized and uncultured condition", others described it also as a condition before the introduction of the rule of law, and as a state where there are no rights but only freedoms. In such a world where there are no laws, government, and power the people are in a natural condition of humankind. (munro, 2015). In addition, the state of nature is a concept in moral and political philosophy used in religion, social contract theories and international law to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people might have been like before societies came into existence. This essay will view the points …show more content…
He believes that people could live in a state of nature, and life would be possible even without the legally established government. The state of nature for him is "pre - political, but not pre - moral". Furthermore, this state of nature for him is a state of complete freedom where all people are equal and only "bond by the law of nature”. Locke’s state of nature is where humans exist without an established government or a social contract. It is a state of anarchy where there is completely no order or rules that guide human behavior. There are no laws to govern us and we are guided by our own instincts on what is right and wrong.
In addition to the above points, Hobbes is the opponent of the state of nature. His opinion is that man could not survive in the state of nature - therefore there is the need of creating a State, by people engaging in social contract and the necessity of people giving up their rights to the Sovereign. On the other hand, Locke is more liberal when talking about the state of nature. For him people can indeed, live in this state in peace with each other. He does not support the State that limits the rights of humans and the absolute power of the Sovereign (as Hobbes