The State of Nature vs. The State of War
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government explains God’s desires for man to such a personal degree, one must first get past this obvious limitation in order to view the document as serious philosophy. For one who believes in religious tolerance because “we cannot know perfectly the truth about all differences of religious opinion,” Locke seems to have a direct line of communication with the Almighty (Locke: Government 2). Nonetheless, the philosophical tract argues that there is a distinct difference between the State of Nature and the State of War. Locke contends that the state of nature and the state of war “are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are one from another” (Locke 5). In the state of nature Locke contends that man is without a common superior who acts as a common judge. However, even though this situation places all men in the state of nature the state of war is the use of force upon others where there may be or may not be a common judge. It is only social law that grants the right to use force upon others because that force will be judged by those invested with power by all men, but a man’s individual actions used against others can only be judged in the natural state by God.
Many argue that Locke’s view of human nature and mankind in the state of nature is positive, certainly more so than Hobbe’s view of the original state of nature as being “nasty, brutish and short” (Locke (1632-1704) 2). Locke took the point of view that man’s state of nature was a happy and tolerant one. However, as he progresses in his essay we see that the social contract man enters into with other men when he willingly departs his state of nature for the protection of life, liberty and property contradicts Locke’s rosy view of man’s natural state. For...