Compare And Contrast Hobbes And Theorie State Of Nature

1013 Words5 Pages
Humans have lived in a world of political governance where law and order is distributed and administered upon us for hundreds of years, and if we were ever caught disobeying the law we would be punished. Social and political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke referred to this authority as the state, and in their separate accounts wished not to argue whether humans have lived in a state of nature (without a state), but that whether it is possible and what it would be like. In general, the state of nature is a hypothetical state that existed prior to the development of societies, or humans in a more contemporary state. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes roughly originate from the same era (mid 1600’s), however their views and arguments with regards to the state of nature differ greatly. In this paper, I will compare and contrast differences in the…show more content…
Hobbes has a more pessimistic conception of the state of nature, whereas Locke believed humans living in a state of nature could be relatively peaceful and have many benefits, this is the first and most notable difference in their versions. The extremity of Hobbes’ state of nature is characterized as a state of war. He proclaimed that life within the State of Nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 186), because of three main principles: equality, scarcity, and uncertainty. Equality means that all people are roughly equal in power, and those who suffer a weakness in one respect can make up for it in another. However, we are all equal with respect to our pursuit of resources and those resources are scarce, so people will do whatever it takes to get those resources for themselves. Since resources are limited we are in a constant state of

More about Compare And Contrast Hobbes And Theorie State Of Nature

Open Document