“The first and fundamental law of nature, which is, to seek peace and follow it.” This was stated by the notorious 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was an influential figurehead during the Enlightenment period, a timetable of ideas centered on reason as a form of understanding, which emphasized on liberty, progress, and separation of church and state. A contemporary of Hobbes, John Locke, also pioneered the Enlightenment period, which was proceeded by the scientific revolution. Though the two worked towards a philosophic development in modern political thought, their points of view are opposing on most accounts. In this paper, I will compare and contrast the viewpoints on state of nature of both Locke and Hobbes, which …show more content…
On a broad point of view, Hobbes takes on a more pessimistic point of view whereas Locke’s view envelopes a sense of optimism because of the established moral code. Locke believes that “where there is no law there is no freedom”, this creates a sense of coherence between people and thus makes for a cohesive community. The negative viewpoint of Hobbes is exemplified, when discussing the state of war. Hobbes believes that in a state of nature, man is everlastingly at a state of war. The only reason that man may give up their power is in order to seek peace during these times of war are “fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them.” Locke does not adhere to this notion, as he believes that even though war is part of the state of nature, it is only a component. He states that “men living together according to reason…is properly the state of nature,” whereas “force, upon the person of another…is the state of war”. This makes a note that when everyone in a society follows the rules, there is a sense of harmony, but when this is not done that is when a state of war