• State of Nature: Locke vs
  • The State of Nature | John Locke | Natural Law
  • Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, State of Nature by James ..

In the state of nature, whatever one's vulnerabilities, right and wrong would already exist.

Locke vs. Hobbes:Faith and the State of Nature | Intro …

03/12/2011 · Locke accounts for the State of Nature ..

First of all, Hobbes is taken to task because his state of nature consists of .
Do the other assumptions of Hobbes's philosophy license the existenceof this imagined state of isolated individuals pursuing their privatejudgments? Probably not, since, as feminist critics among others havenoted, children are by Hobbes's theory assumed to have undertaken anobligation of obedience to their parents in exchange for nurturing,and so the primitive units in the state of nature will includefamilies ordered by internal obligations, as well as individuals. Thebonds of affection, sexual affinity, and friendship—as well asof clan membership and shared religious belief—may furtherdecrease the accuracy of any purely individualistic model of the stateof nature. This concession need not impugn Hobbes's analysis ofconflict in the state of nature, since it may turn out thatcompetition, diffidence and glory-seeking are disastrous sources ofconflicts among small groups just as much as they are amongindividuals. Still, commentators seeking to answer the question howprecisely we should understand Hobbes's state of nature areinvestigating the degree to which Hobbes imagines that to be acondition of interaction among isolated individuals.

The state of nature of locke and hobbes

However, the smoke conceals the particularly modern and sophisticated development of the old state of nature predation: Political .
Macpherson's understanding of Locke has been criticized from severaldifferent directions. Alan Ryan argued that since property for Lockeincludes life and liberty as well as estate (Two Treatises2.87), even those without land could still be members of politicalsociety. The dispute between the two would then turn on whether Lockewas using property in the more expansive sense in some of the crucialpassages. James Tully attacked Macpherson's interpretation by pointingout that the First Treatise specifically includes a duty ofcharity toward those who have no other means of subsistence (1.42).While this duty is consistent with requiring the poor to work for lowwages, it does undermine the claim that those who have wealth haveno social duties to others.

 

The State of Nature According to Locke and Hobbes …




This is a Christian view - based on Aquinas and others.

What would life be like in Locke's SoN?

Is his view more or less realistic than Hobbes?
Rousseau - the rebel...
Read the text and answer the Questions!

Rousseau more agrees with Locke than Hobbes on what the SoN is like, but he thinks we're much better off once we agree together to become a society...


Similarly, to impose limitation on the authority of the governmentis to invite irresoluble disputes over whether it has overstepped thoselimits. If each person is to decide for herself whether the governmentshould be obeyed, factional disagreement—and war to settle theissue, or at least paralysis of effective government—are quitepossible. To refer resolution of the question to some furtherauthority, itself also limited and so open to challenge foroverstepping its bounds, would be to initiate an infinite regress ofnon-authoritative ‘authorities’ (where the buck neverstops). To refer it to a further authority itself unlimited, would bejust to relocate the seat of absolute sovereignty, a position entirelyconsistent with Hobbes's insistence on absolutism. To avoid thehorrible prospect of governmental collapse and return to the state ofnature, people should treat their sovereign as having absoluteauthority.


“The state of nature” in John Locke, Thomas Hobbes …

Hobbes' Argument:

In SoN, everyone has a right to everything ---> War of all against all ---> No one bothers to make or manufacture anything

---> So to have a good economy and society you need government to limit our 'natural' rights
Locke's view
In a State of Nature we are 'free within the bounds of the law of nature'.

This Law of Nature is REASON.

12/07/2013 · Hobbes’ “State of Nature Game” or ..

Locke's theory of the state of nature will thus be tied closely to histheory of natural law, since the latter defines the rights of personsand their status as free and equal persons. The stronger the groundsfor accepting Locke's characterization of people as free, equal, andindependent, the more helpful the state of nature becomes as a devicefor representing people. Still, it is important to remember that noneof these interpretations claims that Locke's state of nature isonly a thought experiment, in the way Kant and Rawls arenormally thought to use the concept. Locke did not respond to theargument “where have there ever been people in such astate” by saying it did not matter since it was only a thoughtexperiment. Instead, he argued that there are and have been people inthe state of nature. (Two Treatises 2.14) It seems importantto him that at least some governments have actually been formed in theway he suggests. How much it matters whether they have been or notwill be discussed below under the topic of consent, since the centralquestion is whether a good government can be legitimate even if itdoes not have the actual consent of the people who live under it;hypothetical contract and actual contract theories will tend to answerthis question differently.

Issue Locke Hobbes Human nature Man is by nature a social animal

While Hobbes insists that we should regard our governments as havingabsolute authority, he reserves to subjects the liberty of disobeyingsome of their government's commands. He argues that subjects retain aright of self-defense against the sovereign power, giving them theright to disobey or resist when their lives are in danger. He alsogives them seemingly broad resistance rights in cases in which theirfamilies or even their honor are at stake. These exceptions haveunderstandably intrigued those who study Hobbes. His ascription ofapparently inalienable rights—what he calls the “trueliberties of subjects”—seems incompatible with his defenseof absolute sovereignty. Moreover, if the sovereign's failure toprovide adequate protection to subjects extinguishes their obligationto obey, and if it is left to each subject to judge for herself theadequacy of that protection, it seems that people have never reallyexited the fearsome state of nature. This aspect of Hobbes's politicalphilosophy has been hotly debated ever since Hobbes's time. BishopBramhall, one of Hobbes's contemporaries, famouslyaccused Leviathan of being a “Rebell'sCatechism.” More recently, some commentators have argued thatHobbes's discussion of the limits of political obligation is theAchilles' heel of his theory. It is not clear whether or not thischarge can stand up to scrutiny, but it will surely be the subject ofmuch continued discussion.