The debate between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes regarding the natural state of humanity has been a topic of discussion for centuries. Both philosophers have distinct views on human nature and the state of society without government control. In this paper, I will explore the arguments of both Locke and Hobbes and argue in favor of Locke's perspective.
John Locke believed that people are born with natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. He argued that in a natural state, people would form a social contract to protect their rights and ensure their safety. Locke believed that the government's primary function is to protect individual rights, and if it failed to do so, it could be overthrown. In other words, Locke's view of the natural
…show more content…
He argued that in a natural state, people would be in a constant state of war, and life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes believed that a strong government was necessary to maintain social order and prevent people from acting on their violent impulses. In Hobbes' view, the government's primary function is to maintain order and protect people from each other.
From my perspective, I support John Locke's view of the natural state. I believe that people are inherently good and that they possess natural rights. In a state without government control, people would form a social contract to protect their rights and ensure their safety. The government's role should be to protect individual rights, and if it failed to do so, it could be overthrown. This view aligns with the idea of democracy, where the people hold the power, and the government is accountable to them.
Locke's view of the natural state is appealing to me because it emphasizes individual freedom and equality. In a society where people have equal rights and opportunities, there is more room for creativity and innovation. The government's role should be to provide a level playing field and ensure that no one is left