The magnificent state of nature: the Leviathan
How and why, Hobbes and Locke see the state of nature so different, is what we are going to analyze. The postulated thesis is as follows: on the one hand, this state in "El Leviatán" talks about that all human beings are even and equal by nature, and that it is in a state of war of "all against all" constant ". Since man is not a social animal, and needs to survive. Hobbes believes that man is guided, although rather subjugated, for his passions and ardores.
The state of nature is basically a state where everyone has the right to do whatever their wishes, because these are considered a route to the right actions, or protectors of life. It is a state where instability, together with the impetus of souls take control of society. And nothing would be fair, much less unfair, as long as there is no sovereign whose work is to order those who constitute it (the people who delivers their sovereignty to the monarch).
On the other hand, in "the second treaty of government", the state of nature is defined as: "Perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their persons and property as they have it well, within the limits of natural law."Therefore, it is recognized as a perfect and sublime condition, which is sustained on the pillars installed by a founding and creative God, and in turn, on the existence of its creation, humanity. And in disparity with hobbes, this state of nature should not be identified as a war state. But this state of combat means, for locke, transgression and, at the same time, the aberration itself on the state of nature. Since this would be incurred by force, which would attempt against natural law.
What would life be like without a civil order? For Hobbes it would be a life disturbed by violence, anarchy and social traphagus, where revolts and chaos would dominate. In addition, we must consider that men’s passions would end up consuming the acts of these, and anyone would please be saved or satisfied.
What can be reinforced with the following appointment about what natural law would be: “It is the freedom that each man has to use his own power as he wants, for the conservation of his own nature, that is, of his own life;And therefore, to do everything that his own judgment and reason considers as the most apt means to achieve that end.”Within this context, natural law translates as the prohibition of the destructive actions of life, or those that deprive man of conserving it. That is why, according to Hobbes, they are all individualistic and are in a constant battle (where each side is each individual) to survive. Therefore, it must be said that natural law is immutable and eternal, whose purpose is the search and conservation of peace, where war or renunciation of rights are purposes that, if necessary to take care of this peace, will be taken.
While for Locke it would be completely the opposite, one could live in peace, thanks to the ability to reason people, and the ability to carry out their duties, honor their pacts and, therefore, assert their promises. This until the moment when someone comes up violently against another, there would be a state of war. The right to life, the protection of belongings and freedom are those natural rights to which men would be subject. Natural law is a divine decree, which seeks "the peace and preservation of humanity". Where the reason, which is the basis of this law, teaches that "no one should damage another in their life, health, freedom or possessions". And about the property, Locke says: “Every man, however, has a‘ property ’in his same‘ person ’. No one has any right, except himself."
So Locke faithfully believes that property is something that will always go with the person. As Hobbes believes that property is something impossible without sovereign power, which is reflected in this event: “It is also natural that in this condition there are no property or domain, or distinction between your and mine;only what he can take, and only as long as he can keep it. All this can be affirmed by this miserable condition in which man is found by the work of simple nature."
From this discrepancy around the state of nature it can be said that the conceptual difference between the two authors makes us understand how reality treated reality, either more raw or peaceful, and from there how they see the worldAnd to the people. Of course Hobbes observes and describes humanity in a hopeless and negative, individualistic and self-destructive way, which translates into the suffering caused by humanity (to Hobbes), and therefore the bad judgment on it, determining its perdition withoutA sovereign power.
While Locke has faith to men, he observes intelligent, with skill and mind, honest and loyal, complete and straight, with full rationalism, which explains optimism, and admiration for the ability of man by thissame (John Locke). So high are your expectations that this believes it possible even without civil order.
Leave feedback