The renowned modern philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, revolutionized the understanding of political philosophy through their interpretation of the state of nature. They compiled their arguments through a position that was relative to their individual thoughts, societal position, and struggle. They looked to express the transition of man, preceding the structure of society more commonly known as the State. Thus, by constructing a comparative analysis on the state of nature respectively for each of the author's interpretation provides the reader invaluable knowledge regarding the structure of modern political thought.
Thomas Hobbes formulates his treatise on the state of nature through negative connotations since the state of being is forever at war, which represses man. The use of knowledge and physical strength are two attributes that Hobbes identifies, and that he argues provides man with success on an individual level within the state of nature. The state of nature is designed in the context that all men are
…show more content…
The consent of men creates the general will; therefore, natural rights provide justice and peace for the state. The act of man sacrificing individual rights over the benefit of shared consent presents legitimacy in organizing a civil government. Civil government, to survive, requires man to transfer his rights to the government. The lack of established law and impartial judges, and the authority to punish a violator, are the needs of the state of nature. Men will leave the state of nature to maintain what they possess if those three conditions are not met. Thomas Hobbes requires established authority only to end a potential state of injustice. This latest authority received the impartial justice that was lacking in the natural state. Therefore, the state is not conclusively certain because the three conditions of the state of nature and not to continue beyond the public