Tentative Response: Locke

How does Locke's 'state of nature' differ from Hobbes? Does it suggest a different view of human nature? Or just a different way of thinking about government?

For Hobbes, life in the state of nature is “nasty, brutish, and short.” In this brutal world, rational men will necessarily submit to a Sovereign with absolute authority. For Locke, the state of nature doesn’t have a government in place either, but it is a liberal and moral one, where people are equal. Thus people are equally capable of discovering and submitting to what Locke calls the Law of Nature, which says that people should not harm others with regards to their “life, health, liberty, or posessions.” In Locke’s Second Treatise, the state of nature is much more peaceful than Hobbe’s, if people abide by this Law. It’s also a “conjugal society,” rather than an individualistic one. I do think that Hobbes’ perspective has a more pessimistic view of human nature, because he thought that a “nasty” and “brutish” state of nature required governance, no matter what. For Locke, the state of nature—in other words, humans acting without civil governance—is moral and sometimes preferable to civil government, if that institution breaks the social contract and fails to protect the property and well-being of the people. In other words, Locke trusts humans enough to judge the actions of their tyrants, perhaps on a moral basis. These differing views are likely the product of the authors’ circumstances; Hobbe died before the end of the English Civil War, while Locke lived to see the Glorious Revolution.