英语论文网

One of the fundamental differences between Hobbes and Locke is their views on man, his actions whilst in and his departure from the state of nature. Hobbes first suggested the state of nature in his book Leviathan and believed that during this time when, “men live without a common power to keep them all in awe” (Ch.13), man experiences continual fear, the danger of violence and death, living a life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Ch. 13). In De Cive he uses the Latin phrase “Bellum omnium contra omnes”, meaning "the war of all against all", to describe it.In his Second Treatise on Civil Government Locke considers the state of nature and in contrast to Hobbes sees it to be a peaceful, good, and pleasant time in which, although sometimes insecure, men keep their promises and honour their obligations.
Hobbes says that Because men are all equal, physically but not morally, they all have the right of nature, which is, according to Hobbes: the liberty each man has to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life a desire to survive, this justifies violence against any other in order to survive. As well as this men also possess to some extent the capacity to reason.
This combination, Hobbes said, would lead to a social contract in which there is a formation of a civil society as a balance between these competing, destructive forces. The reasoning behind this is, because of the validation of violence against others for survival it is beneficial for personal survival if man agrees to renounce their right to said violence. Nonetheless, this only produces a nervous and unstable equilibrium that relies on every member upholding their promise.
The remedy Hobbes gives for this is the agreement that a sovereign who possesses absolute power of authority, a Leviathan, becomes part of their social contract. This Leviathan, or the State, is granted this absolute authority in return for it using said power to sustain a state of peace. According to Hobbes the State, whatever its form, is, by definition, always right, as long as it is able to maintain civil peace.
Locke believes that in the state of nature there is no law but men are subject to moral law which is the law of God. Man is born with his freedom, is equal in rights and innately identifies what is right and wrong, and has the capacity to discern what is lawful and unlawful adequately enough. In particular, and most importantly, man is capable of discerning between property belonging to him and property belonging to someone else; unfortunately man does not always follow this knowledge.
With this in mind, Locke says of property that whatever a man mixes his labour with is his to use, this though could only be said of the earlier humans in the state of nature who had plenty to go around. Once populations have expanded and sources have become limited, the set of laws provided by nature is surpassed and laws beyond these are required.
The combination of these two situations is from where civil society originates, man signs the figurative social contract and in doing so gives up his right to resolve conflicts exact retribution himself whilst gaining the right to life, liberty and property through just, impartial protection from the sovereign.
Hobbes deems the existence of a sovereign pointless unless they have absolute power, only once this has happened and it本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。