Hobbes Vs. Locke

In Locke's state of nature, man is seen as being equal to all other men with no rights over any other man and the opportunity to better their own individual standing. These men are also capable of reason which supports Locke's theory that natural man will live according to the golden rule. That is, man will not violate another man or his property because he would not want the same thing done to him. In essence, Locke is contending that man in the state of nature will live relatively peacefully and uphold the natural laws of the right to life, liberty, and property. In stark contrast to Locke, Hobbes sees the state of nature as complete hell. Hobbes give much less credit to the nature of man than Locke and sees man's innate desire for competition as the root of this evil. Hobbes does argue that man is equal to all other men but sees this equality as negative for the state of nature. Every man will try to better his situation and this will lead to a constant state of war without the institution of common rule. The only natural law that governs men is the right to everything, including other people. Hobbes does concede that this does not mean there is continuous fighting, but there always lingers the potential and fear of fighting. Locke sees man as working toward a common good, peace. Hobbes sees this as the goal of the state of nature as well, but argues that one should not try to attain the unattainable. This is evident when Hobbes says "that every man, ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of war." (Hobbes 87). .
             Without the inception of laws into the state of nature, there can exist no right or wrong, no justice or injustice. There will be constant fear because since all men are equal, they all have an equal chance of being attacked. Thus, life in the state of nature is considered "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.