Hobbes and Lockes State of Nature

Hobbes and Lockers are two philosophers who had different views on state of nature and governance. This assignment will evaluate on the differences and similarities of their views in relation to support of strong kingship or the rule of nature (Catsambis, 2008). In their arguments on government and Leviathan arrived to different conclusions, Hobbes is for the support of strong kingship or governance of people while Lockers is for the idea that state of nature is good.

Hobbes supported his arguments on in accordance with English Revolution to the state of nature. The administration was brutal he therefore concluded that for such government to be successful and beneficial to the society there is need for a Strong King. While John Locke believed that state of nature was really good, he emphasized that if a government cannot be able to do much better that what people do for themselves in the state of nature there is no need for a government (Murray, 1977).

In Hobbes arguments he stated that life would be even worse if someone is not protected by the state as there would be very much unruly in their coexistence. He was in support of Galileo’s theory on the principle of conservation of motion. That any object can only be in motion if it has an external force pushing it. He related that to life in conservation of motion he explained that human beings are always in a state of seeking something but for such to happen in an orderly manner there must be having a strong kingship who ensure there is law and order.

Human being goes to war with an aim of getting security and the most appropriate body which can be able to guarantee security is a strong government which formulates policies with an aim of protecting its citizens. He further stated that fear of death is what makes people desire to create a state; his arguments are based on the fact that states are always in war to protect its citizens and search of felicity has made people to keep on increasing their power.

Hobbes stated that all human being are equal in relation to strength and skills or in terms of what they posses. The physical strengths does not matter as even those who are perceived to be weak can be able to kills those who are strong using different mechanisms or even by confederacy with others.  Hobbes based his arguments on the three main reasons which motivate human beings by the state of nature which makes it not the best way to live. Human beings are motivated to get safety, gain or even for glorification to get reputation such motivations requires a state to maintain law and order. With a state in place there is no room for immorality as state of nature is not tolerated because everything is justified in the natural right of liberty.

Hobbes did compare collective rationality and individual and concluded that it is not easy to achieve co-operation of both of them (Iun, 2011).  Because individual rational is the behavior which leads to attack each other, therefore it would only be possible to obey Law of Nature only if other obey is as well. But if we are insecure the level of fear in a state of nature is much high as they are not expected to obey any law as opposed to a state.

Locke has a different opinion as compared to Hobbes he is convinced that people could live in a state of nature much peaceful that when they are in a state and it’s possible to have a peaceful environment even without a government. According to his arguments Lockes states of nature is in place to provide a perfect freedom with a state of equality which is governed by the law of nature. He also added the theological aspect in his arguments that human beings like all other animals were created by God and we should coexist with each other without harming each other, expect on rare occasions of self defense (Quentin, 2002). In relation to concept of liberty human beings are given freedom for doing what is morally permitted. He does contradict with Hobbes argument what said that everyone has the right over everything including others people body.

However, both Locker and Hobbes agree that as long as Law of nature is there it is necessary to have a law enforcer otherwise it would seize to be of any essence (James, 2011). However, having a law enforcer in state of nature would mean to give power to someone on behalf of the rest to enforce the law. Therefore, although Locker disagrees with the reasoning of the necessity to have a law enforcer by giving power to somebody to enforce law is similar to creating a state (Thomas, 1994). When there is a law enforcer even though it is at a state of nature is giving   powers someone to rule over the others and in another interpretations would mean to create a governed system.

Locker therefore emphasized that everyone should be empowered to exercise power in control on law which need to be adhered to so that law of nature will be successful (Locke, 2005). He also advocates to creation of states as result of scarcity of resources due to pressure by mankind which resulted to creation of money which is a non-perishable means of exchange unlike in previous years where there were many resources (Giampietri, 2008). Hence, there were no competitions of resources as such hence state of nature without a state in place would have been able to survive.

Order now

Related essays