Thomas Hobbes looked to the past to observe a primitive “ State of Nature ” in which there is no such thing as morality , and that this self-interested human nature was " nasty , brutish , and short " -- a kind of perpetual state of warfare
John Locke disagreed , and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens . When governments fail in that task , citizens have the right — and sometimes the duty — to withdraw their support and even to rebel . Listen to Locke ' s audio on the lecture tab and read his lecturette to be able to answer this thread .
Locke addressed Hobbes ' s claim that the state of nature was the state of war , though he attribute this claim to " some men " not to Hobbes . He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature . For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes , people who may legitimately take action to themselves punish wrong doers , as in a state of nature .
Which philosophy do you espouse ?
In coming to grips with the two and considering your experience of society as it is today , think out loud about what you experiences as the State of Nature , and tell us what you would be willing to give up in exchange for civil order and personal security ?
You might consider what you have already given up in exchange for security as well as what might be required in coming days .