Introduction
The importance of the state of nature cannot be overstated because it is the foundation of both Hobbes and Locke’s views of political power, as well as their thoughts on such concepts as equality, liberty, and morality. Despite having the same foundation, Hobbes’ conception of the state of nature differs significantly from Locke’s. This distinction reveals their fundamentally contradictory thinking about the emergence of civil society and the mechanisms by which it might be realized. This essay argues that the perception of human nature exhibited by these two authors cannot be equated as it contains internal differences and even contradictions (Savonius-Wroth, 420). It also argues that human nature is neutral rather than inherently negative, with morality and law operating as restrictions that originated to achieve social survival by means of the social contract.
State of Nature
This section will discuss the idea of the state of nature as discussed by Locke and Hobbes. Conceptually, the state of nature philosophy can be characterized by an overwhelmingly negative perspective on the human condition. Hobbes emphasizes this by stating that if two men seek the same thing but are unable to enjoy it together, they become adversaries and are on their road to their End. This statement demonstrates Hobbes’ severely gloomy view of human nature. At first look, Locke’s portrayal of man in nature may appear to be similar to Hobbes’.
Hobbes and Locke utilized the state of nature as a hypothetical situation to show the need for a social compact. Their views on the condition of nature, on the other hand, lead them to different and competing conclusions about the type of government that should be constituted. Locke has a more positive attitude toward nature and believes that it is guided by natural law. He distinguishes between the state of nature and the state of war, in contrast to Hobbes, who considers the state of nature to be synonymous with the state of war. Hobbes argues that the qualities of the natural world compel humanity to strive for peace.
Contrasts between Locke and Hobbes
This section discusses Hobbes’ and Locke’s contrasting conceptions of human nature, as well as the motivations for their juxtaposition. Hobbes emphasizes man’s free and equal status in the natural world, saying, that nature of the mankind is equally influential with minds and bodies (Nicole, 170). However, early in the Leviathan, Hobbes makes it clear that equality’s consequences are exceedingly unfavorable. Hobbes argues that natural equality renders everyone inherently hazardous to one another. This concept stems from Hobbes’ belief that there is an inextricable relationship between equality and enmity, resulting in ongoing battles between men.
Locke also emphasizes the concept that man is endowed by nature with freedom and equality, resulting in a state of pure freedom and equality in which no one is subject to the other and no ultimate power exists. Because of his involvement with the seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution, Locke appears to rely on natural theology in his account of human nature in Second Treaties. This led him to assume that in nature, men are guided by Reason, which he also refers to as the Law of Nature (Barred, 349). Because, after all, persons are God’s property, the content of natural law, according to Locke, consists of God’s purposes. As a result, he claims that a person “has no Liberty to kill himself, or any Creature in his Possessions.” This is particularly crucial in Locke’s notion that the natural law guarantees not just every individual’s right to self-preservation, but that mutual preservation is also a moral responsibility.
Natural Theology
This section introduces the idea of “natural theology,” which is Locke’s idea of humans’ inner ability to distinguish between right and wrong. In light of Locke’s interpretation, it appears that Reason inherently develops a feeling of morality in mankind and equips them with the ability to distinguish between the righteous and the evil within the confines of natural law principles. In other words, people can recognize which behaviors are acceptable and which are not in the natural world. Thus, it is ‘a State of full Freedom to regulate their Actions and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they judge proper, within the confines of the Law of Nature,’ to use Locke’s precise words. That is to say, while men are equal and free in nature, there are binding rules in this state that serve to preserve one’s life and possessions.
Hobbes does not share his counterpart’s belief in natural theology, which has led to a divergent conception of Reason and natural law. In this way, Hobbes opposes Locke’s understanding of morality, which is derived from classical moral philosophy. Hobbes’ concept of nature might be seen of as inherently amoral, because he asserts that in the position of mankind who have no other law but their own appetites, there can be no general rule of evil and good. This demonstrates that Hobbes, as a supporter of New Science, rejects the notion that men are born with a conventional sense of morality. Individuals are incapable of selecting their actions and understanding what is good or wrong since these conceptions have no significance or value in nature. Hobbes sees man as the embodiment of his ‘passions, appetites, and aversions,’ implying that people would frequently behave in line with their own interests and pleasures, the most important of which is self-preservation.
In the state of nature, Hobbes continues, one’s freedoms of will and desire will always interfere with another’s security. This demonstrates that the state of nature has a terrifying meaning for Hobbes, leading him to regard it as fundamentally a state of war. It is, in his opinion, an unending condition of conflict, instability, and bloodshed since everyone may gain from unrestricted liberty, and hence no one can be certain of self-preservation (Sim, Stuart, and Walker, 96). The challenge emerges from the need to maintain peace in this situation, in which men are influenced by competence, diffidence, and grandeur to do whatever it takes to gain supremacy over others for the purpose of self-preservation.
Huemer’s View
This section briefly introduces Huemer’s idea of the state of nature. Huemer’s understanding of the state of nature is that all humans are approximately rational (Kling). This idea implies that humans can explain their actions rationally most of the time. For instance, a person would not rob a neighbor as benefits do not outweigh the possible drawbacks. In other words, humans are self-interestedly pacifists, which is against of both Locke’s and Hobbes’s ideas. While Huemer is positive about human nature similar to Locke, the foundation of this positive is rationalism rather than natural theology.
Conclusion
This section summarizes all the arguments to arrive to the conclusion. After examining how Locke and Hobbes see the state of nature, it is clear that, while some of their views are similar, they have a plethora of significant disparities in their understanding of the state of nature. For example, Locke believes that the law of nature governs the state of nature, in which persons and their property are not always under danger. Hobbes’ state of nature, on the other hand, is one of conflict, which leads mankind to believe that they must continually be seeking peace.
Social contract is, overall, the most effective and proactive way of achieving this peace and harmony, that provides necessary limitations for the human nature, which, in its initial form, is inherently amoral. When unleashed it exhibits lack of understanding of evil and good, and therefore cannot be inherently evil. If a man in its raw, unlimited form blindly follows his desires, the better sides of passions must be included together with the worse ones. It is not the innate negativity, but instead the predisposition to chaos that facilitates unpredictable and dangerous qualities of human nature, which is then tamed somewhat by existing social contracts.
Works Cited
Barrett, Jacob. “Punishment and disagreement in the state of nature.” Economics & Philosophy 36.3 2020, 334-354., Web.
Kling, Arnold. “Michael Huemer’s Challenge to the Legitimacy of Government.” Econlib, Web.
Nicole, Darat G. “Hobbes as a sociobiologist. Rethinking the state of nature.” Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 58.136, 2017, 163-183, Web.
Savonius-Wroth, S-J. “Locke on the state of nature.” The Lockean Mind. Routledge, 2021. 419-427.
Sim, Stuart, and David Walker. The discourse of sovereignty, Hobbes to Fielding: the state of nature and the nature of the state. Routledge, 2017.