Equality: The Foundation for Defining the State of War and the State of Nature

While Hobbes views the state of nature as identical to the state of war, Locke considers a distinction between the two. These contrasting interpretations emerge due to their conflicting definitions of equality.

Hobbes contends that the state of nature is equivalent to the state of war predominantly because the state of nature inevitably evolves into the state of war. Conversely, Locke argues that there is a “plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war” (15). He defines the ideal state of nature as, “Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them” and characterizes the state of war as, “force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief” (Locke 15). According to Locke, in the state of nature, reason is the guiding principle that not only compels men to coexist, but also provides humans with the ability to live without the need for “a common superior on earth” to arbitrate their actions. In the state of war, men disregard reason as they attempt to infringe on one another through “force, or a declared design of force” (Locke 15). Furthermore, the state of nature’s relationship to “peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation” and the state of war’s affiliation to “enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction” originate from the need to seek a collective higher power (Locke 15).  Since men base their actions on reason in the state of nature, there is no requirement for a “common superior.” However, in the state of war, the disorder calls for a “common superior on earth to appeal to for relief” (Locke 15).

            Even though Hobbes and Locke view equality as a foundation for the state of nature, they differ on the development of inequality.  Hobbes regards equality as a key underpinning in the state of nature, writing, “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind” (74). Locke, correspondingly, defines men as naturally equal with “no one having more than another” (8). While both philosophers consider inequality, Locke and Hobbes hold opposing views as to how the contrary arises. Locke argues that inequality emerges through the assertion of a dominant individual, writing, “The lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another” (Locke 8). Hobbes, on the other hand, contends that inequality arises in a more natural manner. Even though one person is innately physically stronger or smarter, this variance is not substantial enough to justify the ability for, “one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he” (Hobbes 74). According to Hobbes, although some discrepancies exist, all men are inherently equal. Based on Locke’s argument for the emergence of inequality, he views it as appropriate for a “lord or master” to distinguish himself above the rest. As opposed to Locke, who is more tolerant of inequality, Hobbes considers the existing inequality as an insignificant reason to validate a person’s power over others.

         Additionally, Locke and Hobbes hold contrasting opinions on the equality of men. While Locke considers the equality of men as progressive, Hobbes views it as unfavorable. Locke cites Hooker’s definition of equality of men as “foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity” (8). Locke argues that the equality of men set forth by the state of nature as a unifying factor to foster a community. Hobbes, alternatively, views the equality of men as a separating and potentially destructive quality. He argues that equality causes the state of war, writing, “From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore, if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (75). With the same body and mind, men expect to achieve the same goals. However, in the event that this prospect fails, competition emerges. Competition is a key underpinning behind the state of war because the two men now “become enemies” (Hobbes 75). While Hobbes argues that the state of war naturally evolves from competition, Locke claims that a man enters a state of war through a declaration “by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life” (14). According to Locke, the state of war does not develop from a series of events, but from man’s assertion. The different foundations for the state of war explicate Locke’s and Hobbes’ contrary definitions for the state of nature.