Comparison paper
...ion in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name. (Leviathan, chap. 13) These three causes apply to Hobbes・ nature of men, because they demonstrate men・s desire for benefits and personal gains through the use of violence on others, men・s nature of self-preservation by defending what they have obtained through violence, and every man・s egocentric expectation on others to value and consider him highly. Hobbes, overall, believes that men are equal in the state of nature due to men・s constant pursue of self-interests and self-preservation. However, Locke did not share Hobbes・ view on nature of men. Instead, Locke focuses the equality among men in the state of nature on men・s liberty and power. In Locke・s definition, the state where all men are naturally in is ：a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature; without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man； (Two Treatises, II, Sec. 4). This view, unlike Hobbes・ state of nature where men constantly battle one another for the pursuit of self-interest, Locke・s state of nature emphasizes individual freedom and liberty. In addition, although Locke was not clear on his feeling toward nature of men, his overall belief on men is that men follow the law of nature, which is ：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； (Two Treatises, II, Sec. 6). According to this view, every man is to oblige to the law of nature that acknowledges the equality among men・s lives, health, liberty and possessions. Further, every man is to have equal power in the state of nature as Locke wrote: A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection. (Two Treatises, II, Sec. 4) As one can see in Locke・s opinions, men not only have equal liberty and freedom in the state of nature, but also equal political power and authority to themselves. Locke did not rest his argument of the state of nature merely on the nature of men as Hobbes did; instead, Locke focuses on the issue of how the state of nature means to men and their rights. Hobbes and Locke have distinct ideas on the condition of war in the state of nature; Hobbes believes that condition of war is the state of nature, whereas, Locke distinguishes the condition of war and the state of nature. Since Hobbes holds the view that men are, by nature, self-interested and only care about self-preservation, men are always in conflicts with one another due to a lack of laws for regulation and the three principal causes of quarrel: competition, diffidence, and glory. Hence, Hobbes further argues that ：during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as it of every man, against every man； (Leviathan, chap. 13). By war, Hobbes means not the actual battle or act of fighting, but ：the notion of time；, which is ：the known disposition； of men・s constant need to defend their own lives against one another (Leviathan, chap. 13). The consequences of the war, as Hobbes explains, are that there are no industry, no culture, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and the endless fear and danger of violent death. The life of man, according to this view of Hobbes・ condition of war as the state of nature, is ：solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short； (Leviathan, chap.13). Locke, on the other hand, made a clear distinction between the state of nature and the state of war. The state of war defined by Locke is not the same as the condition of war in Hobbes・ writing: The state of was is a state of enmity and destruction: And therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another・s man life, put him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other・s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defense, and espouses his quarrel. (Two Treatises, III, Sec. 1...