ENGL 298 B: Intermediate Writing Social Sciences   Autumn 2011, University of Washington

In chapter 3 (Page 14-16) Locke talks about his perspective of state of war. He asserts that his view of the state of war is one of enmity and destruction and occurs when a someone tries to take away ones natural law to self preservation. If a thief tries to take away your natural freedom and liberties and cause harm then the victim has a right to retaliate. This is a state of war according to Locke. He then goes on to show that the state of war and state of nature are different. He shows the state of nature as “men living together according to reason, without a common superior, with authority to judge between them..” (15). He goes on to compare that “force, or declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal for relief, is the state of war” (15). Locke shows that the state of nature is a state where men can operate and be in community with one another, whereas the state of war is one in which passions reign and revenge causes tribulation. Although Locke shows the state of nature as not necessarily a bad thing, he uses the state of war to show its potential to get out of hand. This leads him to come up with a solution to stay out of the state of war. On page 16, Locke states that “To avoid the state of war…is one great reason of men’s putting themseles into society, and quitting the state of nature…” Locke shows that the state of nature is functional, yet flawed as there is still a possibility for a state of war.