Chapters two and three regard Locke on the state of nature and the state of war of man. According to Locke, the original state that all men are in is a state of perfect freedom and also in a state of equality. According to Locke, no one man is born with advantages or powers “unless the Lord and Master of them all should by any manifest declaration of his will set one above another” (Locke 269). To support his own ideas, Locke quotes the judicious Hooker, who the equality of men the basis of his ideas on mutual love amongst men. Hookers ideas basically state that if one wants his own needs to be satisfied by others, he must first satisfy their needs. Locke then moves on to explain that it is imperative to respect the life, health, liberty, …show more content…
This includes slavery, in which the attempt to take away one’s freedom is an action that places the two in a state of war. Next he informs readers that it is lawful to kill a thief because already taken away the victim’s liberty, so why should he not next take his life? Therefore, one who decides to steal from another has in return placed the two in a state of war. Locke argues that there is a clear difference between the state of nature and the state of war. The state of nature is living peacefully with the authority to judge actions of others. The state of war, on the other hand, occurs when one man uses force to destroy the life, health, liberty, and/or possessions of a peer. The two coincide because the “want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war” (Locke 281). Due to the lack of a common judge, the state of war will only end when the victim destroys the aggressor, or the aggressor offers peace and desires reconciliation. He concludes chapter three with a biblical reference of Jephtha and the Ammonites to prove that above situations involving the state of war can be resolved by the presence of government and a common judge showing no