Contrary to Hobbes another English philosopher, John Locke, introduced in 1690 from his work, The second Treatise of Government, the idea that the State of Nature is actually "A state of perfect freedom" (The Second Treatise of Government Locke 8) as well as a "state of perfect equality" (Locke 10). The only thing limiting man in the State of Nature is that he is.
Comment [CB2]: That man is without government in the state of nature is a statement of fact, not of cause.
Comment [CB3]: Use a colon here.
Comment [CB4]: Awkwardly phrased.
Comment [CB5]: I would introduce Hobbes' notion of natural law here, too.
Comment [CB6]: But this, in itself, is not contrary to Hobbes.
naturally bound and governed by the "law of nature" (Locke 9). He explains as follows; "The State of Nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." (Locke 9) So we can already see from this quote that, similar to Hobbes natural man, Locke's also lives his life in a state of natural rationality. However, this quote simultaneously exposes a monumental difference between the two. Contrary to Hobbes depiction, Locke's belief is that within natural law all mankind possesses and is bound by a kind of natural morality; a natural moral code based off our own capacity to reason (a trait we know to be isolated from Hobbes depiction). In Locke's terms even though man has the complete liberty to conduct himself however he likes, he is not free to frivolously harm another because he is bound by reason and the law of nature. Locke's natural man is also similar to Hobbes in that he is given "the right of nature." This states how natural man again may execute another man in defense of his natural rights of "life, health, liberty, and possession" (Locke 9).
