Hobbes And Locke State Of Nature Essay

In their individual bodies of work, Hobbes and Locke both advocate for their own solutions to escaping the state of nature. Through the use of a collective social contract amongst the population, citizens now find themselves in a society governed by some common arbitrator and leadership. However, the two philosophers approach the concepts of the state of nature and social contract from opposing viewpoints - a contrast which is reflected throughout the majority of their philosophies. The foundational difference throughout their pieces rests on how they view human nature and the innate will of people - be it corrupt and self-servicing or free and capable of reason. This divergence in thought is representative in the way they define key principles, argue for certain stances,

Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution. He limits himself one exception - anything that would fall under someone acting out of self defense. If a subject were to feel that the actions of the sovereign put their lives in danger or served as threats towards their livelihoods, they retain the right to