John Locke's State Of Nature

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. Locke believes that the laws of nature are to: preserve oneself and to preserve others with the exception that by doing so one would violate oneself. Hobbs holds true to his lack of morals theory in regards to the state of nature by believing …show more content…
I don’t believe that people in the state of nature are amoral and that there are not any moral codes to follow like Hobbes does. Even if morality doesn’t come from God, it has evolved in our brains as to what actions can harm others and what actions would be detrimental to us to do. For example, a study conducted by James Fallon(A neuroscientists) found that serial killers lack material in proportion to an average human’s part of the brain called the orbital cortex.(NPR, 2010) That means that the orbital cortex plays a role in how we think, and based off of many theories of evolution, our brains evolved from out brain stem outward, thus, there is some type of moral code embedded into our brains from generations past. To follow up my point, “ according to Fallon” the orbital cortex puts a brake on another part of the brain called the amygdala, which is involved with aggression and appetites.” (NPR, 2010). Also, I cannot agree with Hobbes on the issue of the government/sovereign being superior over the people in the social contract. I agree that Locke is right that the sovereign or government is subordinate to the people, especially in a democracy as theoretically the people make up the government so if the people are upset, it is most likely that the system has been corrupted, thus justifying a revolution using Locke’s theory, but not Hobbs. Obviously, the right to revolution is something that I agree in if the governmental system set up in place becomes corrupted. The only way that Hobbs would justify a revolution is if the sovereign/government ceases to function properly, not if the people are just unpleased with the system. In my mind, if the government finds itself to be superior to the people(like Hobbes), it justifies a revolution. If it didn’t justify a revolution, the United States would have been unjustified in becoming a sovereign country. Basically, I disagree with Hobbs on many key issues.

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 736 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights. The government is not to be used as a means to benefit from its subjects. No one man has any right over the rights of another be it by birth, power, or chance. Which is why Locke is so against the ideas of divine rights and absolute…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The article, “Regressive Reproduction and Throwaway Conscience” by Donald Kuspit, begins the author statement, “That a new kind of social realism/neo-revolutionary or would be revolutionary art, does not presume to be our conscience. Yet it certainly sounds like the voice of conscience, bluntly speaking paradoxical truths that are hard to bring to consciousness and troubling to hear”. The author first focuses on Barbara Kruger, who makes a political point addressed to men. Kruger is stating many social powers are corporations controlling our personal lives to guarantee their own profit. The artist symbolizes confrontational representation, meaning the artist is aware that this is wrong, but continues to forge ahead anyway.…

    • 1582 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Ones character can show whether or not this person lacks moral virtues. Piero Pinzauti, a philosopher who argued that your morals should not be based on religion, stated that, “God cannot make any moral demand on humans, and thus He cannot reward them with salvation…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Atheist's Argument Analysis

    • 2559 Words
    • 11 Pages

    If the possibility that natural evils stem from the free choice of an agent other than man is disregarded on these grounds, then neither man nor a free willed agent other than man can be held accountable for natural evil. Therefore, the theist must attribute natural evil to the direct action of…

    • 2559 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Holbach states that it is not free will that causes you to perform an action, but it is his desire or motive which decides to perform an action. Meaning, the reason you decided to perform an action was to convince your opponent. The desire to convince your opponent was what made you perform your action instead of free will where your desires were created from temperament which is out of your control. All motives and ideas originate from your temperament which was created by laws nature created that you must obey without your consent, therefore you cannot do not have any free will on your motives, ideas, and desires. People believe that they are a free agent because they fail to understand the true motive that causes one to perform an action.…

    • 1285 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This branch does not work to cooperate with the other branches to take over the United States and gain complete control of everyone inside the country. The anti federalists see the federal government as one that agree with each other and that will simply pass any law that they wish in order to make them richer and stronger, but in reality only truly necessary laws would be allowed to pass. They forget what happened back in the late 1700s when states and their governments power were greatly uneven. The states that could offer more economically would inevitably have more power leaving other states weak. The federal government helped fix this problem by creating a Union that helped every state.…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    It is not always possible to vote out a government every time a population disagrees with it. It is in these times of disagreement where it is up to the people to step up in protest. It becomes further justified when a government is not only incompetent, but when it actively oppresses its people from exercising their rights. This is where revolutionary thinkers like Karl Marx and Slavoj Zizek are important. Marx, for example, believed that the best way to re-balance society was through the ballot box.…

    • 1777 Words
    • 8 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
  • Improved Essays

    Jefferson wanted states to be independent within themselves, but united when dealing with foreign affairs. The federal government was only for dealing with foreign concerns. On the contrary, not only did Hamilton want to model the American economy after England’s, but he wanted to shape the government after them as well. Hamilton believed state power will be the enemy of the federal government. State governments will make it too difficult to maintain the national government, they are bias, and Americans should have a firm union in this new nation.…

    • 1205 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays