The ideas of nature and human nature posited by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are radically different. In the state of nature Hobbes believes humans are ego-driven, that is completely selfish in the pursuit of their needs. Locke argues that in the state of nature human beings have natural, God-given rights. This analysis will compare and contrast the views of these two philosophers with respect to nature and human nature. Also included in the analysis will be a discussion of how each individual might have been influenced in his writings by the era in which he lived.
The philosophy of Thomas Hobbes is riddled with loyalty to the crown and filled with references to Christian scripture. Despite this, in Leviathan Hobbes describes human existence as “nasty, brutish, and short” (133). In the state of nature Hobbes finds man to be in constant conflict with other human beings. In an environment with no manmade laws, each to his own. As Hobbes writes, life in nature is a “warre...of every man against every man” (232). Hobbes argued that in the state of nature there are three primary forces that keep men in a perpetual state of war. As he notes in Leviathan, “In the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel, First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory. The first maketh men invade for Gain; the second for Safety; and the third, for Reputation” (345).
The environment during which Hobbes lived had a profound impact on his writings and his views of nature and human nature. Hobbes lived through the English Civil War and was particularly disturbed by the execution of Charles I. Further, his lifetime was one which witnessed a series of deadly religious war that took place throughout the European continent. Because of this, Hobbes attitude toward man viewed humans as basically wicked, passion-led animals with little capacity for self-restraint. Using ration, Hobbes argued that humans willingl...