Hobbes' Account on the State of Nature vs. Locke's Account of the State of Nature

Attribute	Hobbes' Account on the State of Nature	Locke's Account of the State of Nature
Natural Rights	Believed in the right to self-preservation as the fundamental natural right	Believed in the natural rights to life, liberty, and property
Human Nature	Believed humans are naturally selfish and competitive	Believed humans are naturally rational and cooperative
Role of Government	Advocated for a strong central authority to maintain order and prevent chaos	Advocated for a limited government to protect natural rights and promote the common good
Social Contract	Believed in a social contract where individuals give up some freedoms in exchange for security and order	Believed in a social contract where individuals retain their natural rights and consent to be governed

Hobbes' Account of the State of Nature

Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, believed that the state of nature was a state of war and chaos. In his famous work, Leviathan, Hobbes argued that in the absence of a strong central authority, individuals would be in a constant state of conflict with one another. According to Hobbes, human nature is inherently selfish and competitive, leading to a "war of all against all" in the state of nature. In this state, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Hobbes believed that the only way to escape this state of nature was to establish a social contract, where individuals would give up some of their freedoms in exchange for protection and security from a sovereign authority. This sovereign authority, or Leviathan, would have absolute power to maintain order and prevent individuals from reverting back to the state of nature.

Overall, Hobbes' account of the state of nature is characterized by a pessimistic view of human nature and the need for a strong central authority to prevent chaos and conflict.

Locke's Account of the State of Nature

John Locke, another influential philosopher of the 17th century, had a more optimistic view of the state of nature compared to Hobbes. Locke believed that in the state of nature, individuals were rational and capable of living peacefully together. Unlike Hobbes, Locke argued that human nature was not inherently selfish or competitive, but rather individuals had natural rights to life, liberty, and property.

Locke believed that individuals in the state of nature would form a social contract to protect their natural rights and establish a government to enforce laws and protect property. However, unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that individuals had the right to overthrow a government that violated their natural rights, emphasizing the importance of consent and limited government.

Overall, Locke's account of the state of nature is characterized by a more optimistic view of human nature and the belief in natural rights and limited government.

Comparing Attributes of Hobbes' and Locke's Accounts

• Human Nature: Hobbes believed that human nature was inherently selfish and competitive, leading to conflict in the state of nature. Locke, on the other hand, believed that individuals were rational and capable of living peacefully together.
• Social Contract: Both philosophers believed in the concept of a social contract to escape the state of nature. However, Hobbes believed in a strong central authority to maintain order, while Locke emphasized consent and limited government.
• Natural Rights: Locke believed in natural rights to life, liberty, and property, which individuals had in the state of nature. Hobbes did not emphasize natural rights but focused on the need for a sovereign authority to prevent chaos.
• Government: Hobbes believed in an absolute sovereign authority to maintain order, while Locke believed in a government that protected natural rights and could be overthrown if it violated those rights.

In conclusion, while both Hobbes and Locke presented accounts of the state of nature and the need for a social contract, they differed in their views on human nature, the role of government, and the protection of natural rights. Hobbes' pessimistic view of human nature led to his belief in a strong central authority, while Locke's more optimistic view emphasized natural rights and limited government.