I decided to look at Locke’s ideas on the state of war and how it influences man’s behavior – because this is a point where Locke differs on a fundamental and significant level in comparison to Hobbes. The section is Chapter III, which is on pages 14-16.
In a state of nature people try to coexist in peace while there is no higher authority. However, one of the problems with the state of nature is that it allows for a continued state of war. When one person attacks another, steals from another or in general tries to put another person (or people) under his absolute power, that person initiates a state of war. The reason this is a state of war rather than just an attack is because the victim has every right to defend themselves since their liberties are being violated. In order to defend their liberties, the innocent are obligated to respond by any means necessary, meaning they can and will try to kill thieves and other initiators of a state of war. The state of war interrupts the state of nature for the people involved in the conflict, and it is the resolution of this conflict and the desire to end to the state of nature that is the issue that is resolved by society. People desire to end the state of war, and this will never happen until either the initiator or the innocent have either killed the other or received satisfactory reparation. In order to end a state of nature, you either have to end the other person, retrieve your stolen property yourself, or die trying.
By exiting the state of nature and entering the confines of society, people exit the state of nature immediately once the attacker stops. After this point, the innocent is able to appeal to the higher authority in society to judge, mediate, and dole out justice and reparation. The value of society is that it allows us to quickly and safely end states of war with others by relying on the higher authority in society to assure that they’re natural rights are maintained.
Pingback: Sid
Pingback: Jerri
Pingback: passionatefighter17
Pingback: asplph6a17