Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are infamous philosophers that shaped modern political theory, philosophy, ethics, etc. This essay seeks to analyze the differences and similarities between the states of nature each philosopher believes to exist. In this context, the term “state of nature” will mean the natural state of human relations without political or societal applications. It will be extremely important to keep in mind that “state of nature refers not to a specific place or time, but to a certain sort of relationship between individuals,” in order to better understand what is meant by Hobbes and Locke . This is the answer to the common question of “when did the state of nature exist in history?” The idea of the state of nature in terms of the lack of societal constructs has never existed, and neither Hobbes nor Locke claim it to have ever existed in that sense. However, every single person is in the state of nature all the time despite the presence of societal constructs. State of nature is really human nature at its core, which cannot be tamed nor extinguished,, though it can be hidden, through societal constructs.
Historical Context: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a tutor to King Charles II
…show more content…
He believes man to be in “a war of every man against every man,” in which everyone is fighting for their own survival . In this state of nature, man is competitive, distrustful, and obligated to only fight for their self-preservation. Because of this, individual morality is subjective according to one’s own empirical environment. If a man believes himself to be in danger within the environment around him, the “individual is obligated to perform actions he thinks necessary to preserve his life,” which can include killing those that threaten him . For those that are weaker in physical strength than the threatening force, through cunning, the man can strike first at surprise of the threat