Second Treatise of Government starts from the same premise as Hobbes that “We are all born free and equal.” It arrives at a similar conclusion where a sovereign is required to end the perpetual state of war
However, Locke saw the introduction of the Civil Society as something that would happen only when there is consent from the majority.
Civil Society takes away various rights of an individual and places them in the hands of the Sovereign. Locke saw the potential for abuse of such power, so he emphasized the need for checks and balances through the separations of powers.
Locke’s argument rests on the idea of abundance, where there are enough resources to satisfy everyone’s desire. At the same time, Hobbes’ argument is based on scarcity and the violence that comes with people fighting over the same finite objects.
Locke’s work has been influenced by Hobbes’ Leviathan, given that it also sees kings as good and people as beasts.
17th-century science did not separate philosophy from social sciences, and the only clear boundary was between theology and the rest.
In his “Essay on Toleration,” Locke moves away from Hobbes by highlighting people’s right to dissent.
Man is concerned with the self-preservation of himself and humanity as a whole. Only when one of these assumptions is broken should he act with an appropriate response.
“Who so sheddeth Mans Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed.”
Everyone has executive powers in the State of Nature, but this allows people to be lenient on their friends and severe on strangers. In contrast, in Civil Society, the individual gives away his rights which places them in the hands of the Sovereign, who in theory should provide an impartial method of resolving conflicts.
In contrast to Hobbes, Locke does not assume that people live in the perpetual State of War. He sees the peaceful State of Nature as being prone to devolving into the perpetual State of War, given that each person can behave irrationally.
The genesis of the Commonwealth and entering the Civil Society