Hobbes Vs Locke

During the enlightenment period of political philosophy, the State-of-Nature was a theory devised to portray the nature of man before society. In both Hobbes’ and Locke’s arguments, they explain how a transition into society changes man as well as how this transition comes about. While they both agree with the theory of the existence of the State-of-Nature and that man transitions from the State-of-Nature into society through a covenant, their arguments on what is the State-of-Nature, differ greatly. While Locke’s Second Treatise is not a response to Hobbes, it inadvertently analyzes some of Hobbes’ arguments. Locke’s latent yet thorough critique of Hobbes’ State-of-Nature is particularly clear in the following subjects: the nature of man,

According to Hobbes, only a sovereign can guarantee the respect of the laws of nature (Carrabregu). For him, there is no such thing as an extra-legal morality as one can see when he makes the claim that, “The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place [in the state of nature]. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice,” (Hobbes 90). Thus, injustice can only be gauged once there are laws and people to enforce the laws. A sovereign is what is needed to enforce covenants between two people because, as Hobbes claims, “…if there be a common Power set over them both, with right and force sufficient to compel performance, it is not Voyd,” where the fear of breaking a covenant is a force sufficient to compel them (Hobbes 96). It is this Power that creates justice since Hobbes defines injustice as the violation of a covenant. For example, on page 101, he explains that, “…where there is no Common-wealth, there is nothing Unjust. So that the nature of Justice, consisteth in keeping of valid Covenants.” Liberty of the subjects of a commonwealth is a result of the liberty from their covenants (Hobbes 147). Hobbes explains this by saying that,

“If we take Liberty, for an exemption from Laws, it is no less absurd for men to demand as they doe, that Liberty, by which all other man may be masters of their lives. And yet as absurd as it is, this is it they demand; not knowing that the Lawes are of no power to protect them without a sword in the hands of the man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution,”