John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both 17th century philosophers. Both men studied and graduated successfully albeit from different schools. For both men, the main study was on human nature. Specifically, Nature of Law. In the realm of their nature of law studies is the state of nature, and an unwritten social contract. Locke and Hobbes wrote so eloquently and intelligently that their words are still held in high regard today. However, the study of such a controversial subject that resounds still today gives more questions than answers. One would say that wisdom comes with age and if that is the case, who is closer to the truth with ethical and moral precision: Locke or Hobbes? Having a government is important but the most important way …show more content…
Locke was under the idea that all men are born with the same abilities and can coexist in one area with peace as long as their lives were not in any danger. Whereas Hobbes believed that in a state of nature, a man is always in a state of war. Very simply put in Hobbes’s view, a man may have the ability to do what is right according to their morals, values, and ethics but will not do so simply because they will be greedy and self-seeking of all things. As for Locke, he believed that if man used his God-given ethical “compass”, he could prosper and give back by helping others that require it. In both men’s ideas, there is no actual need of government because it would serve little to no purpose as men would either ignore it or live by it yet fight it. Yet, with one agreement of thought between their theories, more disagreements arise. The state of nature is the thought of a world with or without a government, state, or laws. The nature of law is the theory of how individuals behave whether they agree with Locke or Hobbes as to how it turns out. A social contract is actually an unwritten contract where individuals use their common sense to stay peaceful if you agree with Locke or begin wars based on your needs and wants according to