Natural Inclination
This essay will attempt to take a critical look at two seminal scholars thoughts on the state of nature and assess the differences. The authors of both works that will be looked at in this text were Oxford educated,1 and were writing to the societies of their day who's aristocratic class was consistently either vehemently opposed to their works or propping them up as justification. Straddling the Treaty of Westphalia with their lives, their works both addressed the natural state of existence and what forces had the biggest role in mediating it. This analysis will put the role of God central to its' argument and from there digress to the methods of formulation utilized by each author in their creation of argument.
Laws are an essential tool in providing justification and fairness within a society, but formulation of laws is more challenging. Despite devoting an entire treatise to expelling the works of Sir Robert Filmer, Locke is a devout proponent of God's centrality when discussing the law of nature. Locke says about law: “The original and foundation of all Law is dependency.2” The claim being that any person dependent on another is thus under their power, “and must be for the ends appointed him by that superior being. If man were independent he could have no law but his own will no end but himself.3” This argument is consistently posited throughout John Locke's treatises and subsequently presented as the alteration to the natural state of things that allows the mitigation of Hobbes' assessment of the same. Locke claims that all men are inherently equal, unless by some deceleration of will issued by the supreme being.4 Coupled with equality, Locke asserts that in a state of nature men are also in a state of perfect freedom, which is superseded only by natural law.5 Natural law for Locke grants authority to harm another being only if that being needs to be punished.6 Punishment may only be administered in a proportionate amount to serve...