Search results
The difference between a state of war and a state of nature, Locke says, is that nature is a state of peace and preservation. A state of war, on the other hand, is a state of violence and destruction. People living in harmony under mutual assistance with a mutual understanding of preservation is a proper state of nature.
- State of War Analysis in Second Treatise of Government ...
State of War. A state of “ enmity and destruction,” as...
- Nature, War, and Civil Society Theme Analysis - LitCharts
While Locke maintains that the state of nature is “perfect...
- State of War Analysis in Second Treatise of Government ...
Locke then outlines the differences between the state of nature and the state of war, noting that the two are NOT the same. The state of nature involves people living together, governed by reason, without a common superior, whereas the state of war occurs when people make designs of force upon other people, without a common authority.
State of War. A state of “ enmity and destruction,” as defined by Locke, in which one may kill another. Anyone who attempts to exert absolute power over another—such as in an absolute monarchy—is in a state of war with that person, as being free from absolute power is essential for self-preservation. According to Locke, any use of force ...
- Chapter 2: Of the State of Nature Quotes. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.
- Chapter 3: Of the State of War Quotes. And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another.
- Chapter 4: Of Slavery Quotes. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.
- Chapter 5: Of Property Quotes. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.
Locke strongly differentiates between a state of nature and a state of war. In a state of nature, men live peaceably without a government or earthly authority. Since there is no authority to judge, when one man uses force to deprive another of his life, health, possessions, or property, it is now a state of war.
The state of nature, for Rousseau, is a morally neutral and peaceful condition in which (mainly) solitary individuals act according to their basic urges (for instance, hunger) as well as their natural desire for self-preservation. This latter instinct, however, is tempered by an equally natural sense of compassion.
People also ask
How does Locke differentiate between a state of nature and a war?
What does Locke say about war?
What is the difference between Locke and Hobbes?
What does Locke mean by state of nature?
What is the difference between state of nature and state of war?
What does Locke say about absolute monarchies?
The notion of a state of nature was an essential element of the social-contract theories of the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78). Visions of the state of nature differed sharply between social-contract theorists, though most associated it ...
