According to Locke, in the state of nature the human beings are able to keep their promises and conform to their obligations. Human beings are also considered to know what is right or wrong. This being the case they are therefore capable of distinguishing between lawful and unlawful. This however means that they are capable of resolving conflicts. Hobbies on the contrary believe that people through their knowledge of objectives have weak resolution to such answers as to what is bad or wrong. Therefore human beings in their state of nature are not able to differentiate what is theirs and what is someone else’s.
Both philosophers share some political views on the way of ending all conflict. They both believed that bad happening should be prevented. In this case, Hobbes supported unlimited power for the state with the aim of resolving the conflict. Similarly, Locke argues that if people whereabouts are not controlled, this will lead to conflict. Therefore he says that it is the duty of the state to curb such related conflicts. Even in modern world it the duty of the government to enact rules, policies to control conflicts in the society. This is because conflict is inevitable and to reduce its impact bad people should be punished by being subjected to justice. (Fridlund, 2014).
References
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (2003). Voices of modernity: Language ideologies and the politics of inequality (No. 21). Cambridge University Press.
Fridlund, A. J. (2014). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. Academic Press.
mstaybteetease
topic.docx
0
