As would call being bias or in
As we all know, Thomas Hobbes has such a brutal theory in his view of a state of nature, stating that in his image, humans would be able to have complete freedom. Not only have freedom but live in a world with ‘no laws, police, courts, and prisons”(Hobbes, Reader 59), in other worlds what Hobbes called it, “a perfect liberty and equality”(Hobbes, Reader 59). On the other hand, John Locke who also made a theory towards the state of nature has a view of it being equal, followed by rules and laws to keep everything civil and allowing them to have their natural rights as well to follow those rules. That being said, in his theory, everyone would have the same powers as one or another which implies everyone to have freedom, due to everyone not being about to depend on each other. On that note, you could get a view of why people would definitely choose Hobbes theory instead of Locke’s theory. After that being said, it would only make sense on why the people would choose Hobbes theory in oppose to Locke’s theory due to more freedom, which people love. Although it could be brutal throughout the “war of every man”, wise words said by Thomas Hobbes. Going into more depth to why people might leave Locke’s state of nature is that most people would look at Locke as a bias person due to how he explains his theory. He states that “men are allowed to be the judges in their own case and everyone has executive powers”(Locke, Reader 74). That being said, most people, including myself, view that statement as a bias person. For an example, if you would want men to be the judge to their own case, they would be more lenient towards themselves versus giving themselves what they deserve. Which we would call being bias or in other words unfair, because if it was someone else being judged we would not be as merciful, which would cause us to punish an individual what they deserve or even worse. Which would cause a sense of inequality, because we would punish others worse than ourselves causing an unstable society. In opposing to Locke’s theory, Hobbes is very different. Hobbes is such a man that is huge on freedom, whereas in Locke’s theory it goes in a completely different direction of freedom of each man, leaving the natural laws in exposure in general because of it. As it says in the book, “The right of nature is the liberty each man has, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature”(Hobbes, Reader 62), that gives the people a brief understanding that natural rights exist with the understanding that you have to protect yourself, due to there being no laws or rules. And that is where Hobbes gets his famous statement that the state of nature is like a war. With all this being said, Hobbes explains more and have more of a brilliant idea than Locke does in regards of having natural rights as well as freedom which is convincing more and more people to lean more towards Hobbes than Lockes. I know just by living in this world, freedom is key to living in a peaceful world because it causes so much chaos and destruction when there is not much freedom. The big problem that arises in Locke’s state of nature that necessitates human beings quitting the state of nature and forming a government is human reasoning, which cause one or another to not be wrong in any shape or form to themselves or another.In conclusion, people would start to leave Locke’s state of nature due to such a bias thought towards the whole man can be the judge in their own case theory and that basically a man can kill for only one purpose and that is to punish an offender who violates the law or laws to peace. Which was stated in reader page 74,”that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own case showing self love and partial to themselves and to their friends as well”.