John Locke: State of Nature vs. State of War Explained
This paper examines John Locke's political philosophy as expressed in Two Treatises of Government, focusing on his distinction between the State of Nature and the State of War. Drawing on Natural Law theory, the paper explains how Locke views the natural human condition as one of peaceful freedom governed by reason, and how conflict arises only when individuals violate Natural Law. The paper also considers the Hobbesian counterargument — that human nature is inherently conflictual — and explores how Locke addresses this challenge, particularly in light of the introduction of money and resulting inequality. Ultimately, the paper argues that Locke's framework grounds legitimate government in the preservation, not merely the protection, of mankind's natural peaceful state.
- Introduction: Locke's Political Framework: Locke's claim that consent-based government promotes peace
- The State of Nature and Natural Law: Natural freedom, equality, and peaceful coexistence under reason
- The State of War as a Violation of Natural Law: Conflict as unnatural, arising from violations of Natural Law
- Civil Society, Property, and the Right to Revolt: Government formed to preserve property and natural peace
- The Hobbesian Challenge: Conflict as the Natural State: Hobbes's view that conflict is humanity's default condition
- Locke's Response: Money, Inequality, and Adaptation: Money introduces inequality but Natural Law still guides reason
- Conclusion: Natural Law and the Basis of Government: Natural Law grounds legitimate, consent-based government
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper closely engages with primary source quotations from Locke's Two Treatises of Government, grounding every claim in the text rather than relying on secondary paraphrase.
- It presents a genuine counterargument — the Hobbesian view of mankind as naturally conflictual — and then models how Locke might respond, giving the analysis intellectual depth.
- The discussion of money as a complicating factor shows nuanced reading: the student recognizes an apparent tension in Locke's own text and resolves it rather than ignoring it.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates dialectical argumentation: it establishes Locke's position, raises the strongest objection (the Hobbesian alternative), and then reconstructs a Lockean rebuttal. This "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" structure is a hallmark of rigorous philosophical essay writing and shows the student's ability to engage critically rather than merely summarize.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by introducing Locke's central claim about consent-based government, then defines the State of Nature and contrasts it with the State of War. A section on civil society and property connects political theory to practical governance. The paper then pivots to the Hobbesian objection, followed by an analysis of how money complicates Locke's categories. The conclusion synthesizes both threads, reaffirming the State of Nature–State of War distinction and the basis of legitimate government.
Introduction: Locke's Political Framework
In Two Treatises of Government, John Locke strives to present the notion that a government grounded in the consent of the populace does not necessarily "lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, Tumult, Sedition and Rebellion" (Book II, Ch. I, Sec. 25). Locke suggests that all of mankind operates under the Law of Nature, within which reason prevails. This Natural Law dictates that all people are equal and independent, and that an individual must never harm another in his "life, health, liberty or possessions" (Book II, Ch. II, Sec. 6). Natural Law wills the peace and preservation of mankind and, in essence, is justice.
The State of Nature and Natural Law
Locke argues that all people exist in a State of Nature under the influence of Natural Law. This implies that the natural condition of mankind is one of freedom. All people are free to direct their own affairs and property within the confines of Natural Law. The State of Nature embodies the Law of Nature and exists according to its principles. According to Locke, the State of Nature is one of harmonious peace, and this peacefulness is the direct result of Natural Law.
The State of Nature is a state of freedom, but it is not an absolute carte blanche. An individual existing in a State of Nature does not have the right to destroy the life or livelihood of another unless it is in punishment for an offence against mankind. Locke explains that when "his own preservation comes not in competition, … (an individual must) preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another" (Book II, Ch. II, Sec. 6).
In this state, the preservation of mankind is paramount, and all must be done to ensure the perpetuation of existence according to Natural Law. This preservation is achieved through the maintenance of a natural, peaceful state. Conflict, argues Locke, is unnatural and distinct from — and indeed opposite to — the State of Nature. When people in a State of Nature exercise their freedom against Natural Law, and hence against the preservation of mankind, conflict results, and thus a State of War comes into being.
Reference
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1960; reprint 1963.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.