John Locke's State Of Nature

Improved Essays
What is the state of nature?
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    To start off, Both Locke and Hobbes believe in the state of nature, but their views of the state of nature are different. The state of nature is the nature of men before giving up any rights and or liberties to a sovereign power(government). First off, Thomas Hobbes believes that there is not a moral law in the state of nature. Basically, in the state of nature , we are free to do what we please because we lack giving up power to a sovereign entity to hold us accountable as a whole. John Locke disagrees.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In an excerpt from Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, he describes his theory about the conditions of a society which has no governing body to control it. When there is no government, we live in a state of nature; a state of total freedom where we can do whatever we want at any time. If there is no government, there are no set laws, and therefore no limits on human actions. There are also no formal consequences for actions that may cause harm to others. You could do anything you want if it will benefit you since there is no sure punishment.…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Wollstonecraft believes that they are slaves to the oppressive monarchy because they have no rights to anything, not even their own lives. People deserve to practice their natural rights. Wollstonecraft writes, “ The only security that nature authorizes and reason sanctions is, the right a man has to enjoy the acquisitions which his talents and industry have acquired; and to bequeath them to whom he chooses” (Wollstonecraft 5). The…

    • 1365 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Paul’s premise, he argues that if we have determinism, then there isn’t any free will and determinism is outright true and free will does not exist. Holbach believes that free will is controlled by nature itself. If outside sources contribute to our behaviors, how can we be responsible for our own actions. Holbach believes that if something isn’t in our control, then there is something, whether internal or external that is forcing us to do the things we do. Morally speaking, we don’t dictate any decisions, we don’t make up what comes to our minds nor are we free due to these things.…

    • 1628 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In this paper I will be assessing Hobbes view of man in a state of nature and why it is not possible to agree with life in the state of nature if one disagrees with the all-powerful sovereign. Due to the many factors associated with the state of nature and the social contract, if one agrees with such it makes it nearly impossible to disagree with the need for a government with limitless powers. I will argue that if one agrees with life in the state of nature, then they must as well agree with Hobbes in regards to the necessity of an all powerful sovereign. One cannot agree with life in the state of nature and disagree with the all powerful sovereign simply because an all powerful sovereign is needed due to the way life functions in the state…

    • 1240 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the Leviathan, Hobbes introduces the state of nature as one locked in fear and uncertainty because the resources that the earth provides are mutually attainable. In this state of nature, Hobbes explains that there is only possession but no ownership because one can only possess an item for as long as their neighbor doesn’t desire the item enough to exact force and take it for themselves. To survive, people acquire many of those resources but without a common authority there is no way to establish a sense of property, or permanent possession. On a common earth, Hobbes reasons that the resources of the earth belong to everyone, therefore no one really has a secure personal right to anything. To escape from that world of uncertainties, Hobbes claims that the contract is the only path towards peace.…

    • 1291 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Man has no sense of good or evil, a Sovereign needs to be the guide by which man remains grounded in morality. There is no law and there is no property rights in Hobbes state of nature, only self-preservation. Man can use reasoning in the State of nature in order to achieve self-preservation, but this does not guarantee outstanding safety for him from others. In contrast to Locke, man has both License and positive liberty over his peers and as Hobbes’ famously states life under this system is, “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short. ” The laws of nature do not regulate or restrain man in Hobbes’ State of Nature as they do in Locke’s.…

    • 1448 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Because there is no God, there is no one there to help him make his choice. Sartre realizes that because of the limitations and because nothing is predetermined, the boy cannot change his situation, he can only chose one or the other. Similarly, this freedom of choice affects the relationship between the self and the world. Because mankind can choose, mankind can determine the future of the world. This is not to say, that to be a self requires the reliance of others, only that we do all interact in one way or another.…

    • 1049 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Because it doesn’t matter how much we complain about poor management of the state’ dealings and/or regulations imposed to us. There are no excuses for resisting power because it is the only thing between us and what we most want to avoid, the State of Nature. John Locke had a different approach as to the kind of place the State of Nature is, and consequently his argument concerning the Social Contract and the relationship between men and authority varies. According to Locke, the State of Nature is the natural condition of mankind. In it men have perfect and complete liberty to conduct their life as they best determine, free from the interference of others.…

    • 1284 Words
    • 6 Pages
    • 3 Works Cited
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Nagel tends to point out that there is no meaning in life, but not much about what to do about this realization. Existentialists argue that life’s authentic existence has to start with the recognition of the nothingness that is life. This point is were they separate from Camus and Nagel, because existentialists from life, one is at complete liberty to make the free choices that will dictate and define the meaning of an individual life. Sartre importantly argues, that first, comes man’s existence, then (after), through life he defines himself. Sartre argues that nothing is a result of built in human nature, or nothing is predetermined for a person, essentially it is all up to what a person decides to make of his or her life.…

    • 1182 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays