Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were revolutionary political thinkers, and both of them explored what they described to be the state of nature: the state we existed in before inventing our own civil laws and governments. Their descriptions and analyses of the state of nature and the rights individuals have help us better understand their overall political theories, and also give us insights into what these thinkers valued the most. Even though they do disagree in some aspects as to what exactly the state of nature is, they do generally agree in the implications of such a state on the rights on an individual and how such a state evolves over time. They differ mostly in their theories of the state of nature when it comes to the details, and what
…show more content…
Hobbes claims that it is only after we create our covenants that the concept of right and wrong even comes into existence, because as he claims, in the natural state, “The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place,” (Hobbes 188). Despite this Hobbes still believes certain things to be Laws of Nature, which are true even before the formation of covenants, and he defines such as Law as “a Precept, or generall rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same,” (Hobbes 189). Here once again we see that theme of fear of violence and death. For Hobbes, preserving life, especially one’s own, is the ultimate Law of Nature, and is also what he defines as the Right of Nature, which he defines as “the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature,” (Hobbes 189). All of Hobbes Laws of Nature revolve around this same Right of Nature. They all aim to establish peace amongst the parties entering into a covenant, setting forth rules such as why one should stay true to a covenant, what should happen if a covenant is broken, showing gratitude when a covenant is respected, etc. It is important to note that most of Hobbes’s Laws do not apply until after individuals have entered into covenants with each other, but his third law does imply that such covenants are necessary and prescribed by those same Laws of
Hobbes claims that it is only after we create our covenants that the concept of right and wrong even comes into existence, because as he claims, in the natural state, “The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place,” (Hobbes 188). Despite this Hobbes still believes certain things to be Laws of Nature, which are true even before the formation of covenants, and he defines such as Law as “a Precept, or generall rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same,” (Hobbes 189). Here once again we see that theme of fear of violence and death. For Hobbes, preserving life, especially one’s own, is the ultimate Law of Nature, and is also what he defines as the Right of Nature, which he defines as “the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature,” (Hobbes 189). All of Hobbes Laws of Nature revolve around this same Right of Nature. They all aim to establish peace amongst the parties entering into a covenant, setting forth rules such as why one should stay true to a covenant, what should happen if a covenant is broken, showing gratitude when a covenant is respected, etc. It is important to note that most of Hobbes’s Laws do not apply until after individuals have entered into covenants with each other, but his third law does imply that such covenants are necessary and prescribed by those same Laws of