lleth the preservation of all mankind" (Locke 9).
Hpbbes, on the other hand, seems top indicate that man has every right to defend himself as a means of self-preservation. There is no talk here of reciprocity. "aevery man has a right to everything except another man's body" (Hobbes 86). Hobbes sees this as a form of "preservation of his own nature" (86). If one reads the difference here between the two men it might be that Hobbes sees man's life and security as "his own castle" worth defending at any cost, while Locke is more kindly disposed toward the nature of man by claiming that he gets back as good as he gives. In modern idiom we might consider this a sort of "what goes around comes around" form of philosophy.
Hobbes invokes the Golden Rule in his understanding of liberty: that the liberty one man desires for himself should also serve as the sort of liberty someone else can claim for himself and no one has a right, by definition of the laws of nature, for anyone to take away that personal liberty, UNLESS (so I understand it) an action is initiated that tries to take away one's liberty first.
Hobbes also refers to covenants. They are promises made which are to be kept unless released from such obligations. In a sense, this is closer to Locke's theory of reciprocity. However, when it comes to applying justice, the two men have a distinctly different approach. Hobbes seems more akin to current systems of justice when he writes about finding a sort of arbitrator for disputes: "if he perform his trusta.a
...