The state of nature serves as a portrayal of the human being prior to the contemporary state or society, being utilized by social contract theorists to present their understanding of both human nature and the development of government. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two iconic seventeenth-century writers, are among many to have submitted versions of such conditions in their works, Two Treatises of Government, and Leviathan. Although there may appear to be points of similarity, their differing accounts of pre-societal man is largely responsible for their contrasting stances on the emergence of the modern state and its sources of legitimate power. Each writer provides a separate lens through which readers can investigate their understandings of man, not just in terms of desire or rationality, but also in the scope of their inherent rights and obligations within a commonwealth. Whether the two writers consider their concepts to be historical facts or merely hypothetical claims, Locke separates the notion of a state of nature from that of a state of war, while Hobbes identifies the two as being the same entity.
The primary parallel between the ideologies of the two authors concerns the fact that in both of their states of nature Hobbes and Locke address the dangers of the primordial world. Both writers describe man as being intrinsically equal in this state, with Hobbes stating that “nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind…. the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable” (183). In a similar fashion, in his Two Treatises of Government, Locke depicts the state of nature as, “a state also of Equality, whererin all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another…” (269). Regardless, however, both men describe the danger of living in this crude condition, perhaps due to this very equality that exists. In the eyes of Hobbes, the state of nature is the equivalent of a state of war, building on the premise that, “if any two men desire the same thin, which neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (158). Later in his work, Locke further articulates these risks, saying that without the “law of nature” that humans are bound to, everyone may act at their own discretion, leading to a state of persistent conflict (289). To summarize, both refer to the dangers of a state of nature, and describe states of war existing in this primeval state.
At the beginning of his second, and most striking Treatise, Locke introduces the state of nature, going on to describe it by saying that this is a condition where men reside in,
a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man (269).
From the onset of his work, it is clear that Locke adheres to a tradition of natural law which states that men abide by a moral sense. Ultimately, by being the children of God, we are able to differentiate from what is morally “right” and “wrong”, and by extension, what is lawful, thus having the capability of justly resolving disputes. Locke goes on to make an important distinction, however, stating that,
this be a State of Liberty, yet it is not a State of License, though Man in that State have an uncontrollable Liberty, to dispose of his Person or Possessions, yet he has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession… (271).
In the eyes of the philosopher, reason is the ultimately law, preaching that “ …being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions” (271). Conversely, Locke argues that, “in the state of nature, every Man hath a Right to… be Executioner of the Law of Nature”, holding the right, and duty, to punish those who defy the fundamental Law of Nature (272). Although man would contaminate this system through personal bias, Locke endorses a system based around accountability by a community of individuals rather than a monarchical one. This interpretation of the State of Nature proves to be characterized by tolerance, reason and equality, while simultaneously denouncing any forms of corruption.
When compared to Locke, Hobbes’ vision of the state of nature is far more pessimistic and grim. In his work, Leviathan, he argues against the idea that man has an innate moral compass guiding his actions, suggesting instead that man is a collection of passions that he is either drawn to or repelled from. It is this interpretation of the human condition that pins him directly against Locke. In his state of nature, Hobbes’ man is undeniably self-interested, with his ultimate objectives being the acquisition of as many “passions” as possible, his overall self-preservation, and to avoid pain, while simultaneously maintaining little to no regard for others (187). Additionally, there is no conception of right and wrong, no clear existence of private property, and, most importantly, no justice, thus requiring an external arbiter to dictate. In the Hobbesian state of nature, man is left to rely solely on reason to progress through life, yet man can never reap the fruit of his labor. The one thing that is guaranteed in this pre-societal condition is absolute liberty, where “every man has a Right to every thing; even one anothers body. And therefore, as long as this naturall Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man…” (190). Why would anyone go through the difficulty of cultivating agriculture, industry, commerce, science or arts if there is no security to guarantee its survival? It is for this reason, and this reason only, that Hobbes describes this state of nature as being “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short” (186).
Perhaps the most insightful point of all is made when Hobbes seeks to uncover the motives behind interpersonal conflict. Hobbes proclaims that “in the nature of man, we find three principall causes of quarrell. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Third, Glory. The first maketh men invade for Gain; the Second, for Safety; and the Third, for Repuation” (185). When taking into account that felicity is man’s upmost desire, it is clear to see why conflict is inevitable. In the Hobbesian state of nature, humans are forward thinkers, always concerned with their ability to satisfy their future desires. Man is constantly on a quest for more power relative to others, forever slipping into “a warre, as is of every man, against every man” (185). In principle, humans are prone to abide by the natural law, but in practice the need for self-preservation is the upmost priority. Due to his natural equality, man lives in perpetual fear in the state of nature, and, in contrast to Locke, we are unable to form civil community, remaining a collection of separate irreconcilable, wills. The state of nature is thus, in the eyes of Thomas Hobbes, a dangerous, uncooperative condition that requires a third-party enforcer to maintain stability.
The most telling difference between the two thinkers lies in how their diverging interpretations of the state of nature justify the erection of government, thus allocating different capabilities and obligations to the state. Locke hypothesizes that man moves past the state of nature in search of an impartial community to apply and protect the law of nature. When making the transition into a political society man agrees with others to sacrifice their executive power of the law of nature, in order to maintain life, liberty and property. Seeing as the community is already in mutual agreement, and the primary goal is stability, all that is needed is someone to maintain, rather than create the law. The law of nature lies at the heart of the government, with absolute peace not being necessarily desirable. As far as Locke is concerned, peace may be overridden by rebellion in order to maintain a just implementation of the law of nature, indicating that it is possible for someone to be better reverting back into the state of nature before electing a new government. For Locke, an absolute monarch with the authority to infringe on the law of nature is unfitting to elevate the people past the state of nature. Instead, all that is required is a bureaucratic mechanism to responsibly implement the law in accordance with the will of the people.
Conversely, Hobbes’ interpretation of human nature would only make way for a coercive government control the populace and apply the law of nature as they deem fit. For Hobbes, the transition to a governmental society is initiated by delegating man’s personal autonomy and right of nature to a Sovereign. “The finall Cause, End, or Designe of men, in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby…” (223). By doing so, a group of individuals is instantaneously made into a singular entity by reinforcing the acts of their sovereign. Due to the fact that the individuals partake in the creation of the Sovereign, they adopt any political actions as their own, offering no resistance, since that we would be contradictory to their own will. There is no fear that there will be an abuse of power, for that is the price to pay for the maintenance of peace. These conditions will allow subjects carry out the law of nature, as is their natural inclination in the state of war. Contrary to Locke’s beliefs, force makes up the framework of this system, hoping to ensure the long term prosperity of the state and its sovereign. Subjects are under the absolute jurisdiction of this leader, with their only freedom lying where the law is absent. Moreover, when compared with Locke, the subjects in this Hobbesian system of government have no political obligations or duties aside from loyalty to the sovereign. Due to man’s passions, lack of a moral sense, and perpetual self-interest in the state of nature, a third party enforcer with absolute power is necessary to maintain peace in the chaotic state of war.
Although some superficial similarities may exist between the ideologies of the two philosophers, the above analysis displays that Locke and Hobbes disagree on the very core nature of human beings. On one hand, John Locke describes man in his Two Treatise as being inherently good, with an innate desire to adhere to a moral code. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes renders man to be a self-interested, unrestrained creature in his Leviathan. Aside from these strikingly different assumptions, the implications on the system of governments each theorist recommends leads to even further dissimilarities. Locke calls for a mutual agreement between citizens that would ultimately protect the people, while Hobbes believes the state’s security deserves the upmost priority. Not stopping there, Hobbes goes on to defend his view that his leviathan should have absolute power and control over his subjects. In the eyes of Locke, law serves the purpose of enforcing the dictates of nature, whereas Hobbes looks to use it as a means of enforcing legal and political actions. Nonetheless, each thinker does utilize the state of nature as a way of justifying of the creation of government, no matter how different their interpretations might be.