Explain and illustrate two ways in which people can act irrationally.

In the state of nature it would be rational, in the long-term, for every individual to keep/seek peace with every other individual, as this in the long-term would sustain self-preservation as there would be no need for violence in order to survive. However, some individuals may be driven by their irrational emotions (e.g. greed) and seek to gain their desires in the short-term, for example, attacking someone for their food - this would provide the attacker with food and thus be a short-term advantage, but in the long-term it might create a fearful environment. A fearful environment would then potentially create violence, as people are trying to protect themselves, which would ultimately be undesirable for all. Therefore, it is irrational in this example to seek the short-term gain as in the long-term it would create an undesirable state of fear and violence; it would be rational to agree to keep peace and focus more on long-term benefits.

--

Compare and contrast Locke and Hobbes on the Law of Nature.

Locke's idea of the Law of Nature interprets liberty and equality from a moral standpoint - he believed that we have the duty to preserve and not to harm our own and other lives, This idea of a peaceful state differs from Hobbes who argued that there is no place for morality in the state of nature, and rather than morality, individuals are driven by rationality (ultimately in the pursuit of self-preservation).

Hobbes argued that the Law of Nature creating an 'agreement' between individuals to be peaceful is not enough to ensure that peace will definitely be maintained - this is because humans are irrational and can be driven by emotions, therefore we can't put our trust in them. Even if two different people agree within the Law of Nature to not harm one another, we can't always be sure they will keep their word, which means that we still have to be prepared to be violent, therefore the Law of Nature isn't enough on its own to ensure peace.

Furthermore, Hobbes believed that some may not even want to be rational and seek peace in the first place - people can be driven by emotions such as greed and seek to be powerful, which may result in violence. Others may not recognise the long-term benefits of keeping peace and would rather seek an easier short-term solution, for example, stealing food from others is easier than growing your own crops.

Ultimately, Hobbes argues, even if there is a Law of Nature and even if the majority of people follow it, we can't always be sure that every single person will do so, therefore this creates a state of fear.


Explain Locke's reason for saying that, in the state of nature, we all have the right to punish.

Locke believed that, in the state of nature, we all have the right to punish those who break the Law of Nature - this is because Law breakers are a threat to everyone, and so everyone else has the right to punish them to make amends and force them to compensate for the harm they have caused, as well as to prevent others from breaking the law again.


Assess Locke's account of why we would leave the state of nature and set up the state.

Locke believed that the disadvantages and ineffectiveness of punishment within the state of nature would eventually amount to us setting up the state. This is because, firstly, without a powerful authority figure, those who are punished are likely to end up ganging up on those who punished them in the first place, this would also make it more likely for people to repeatedly break the Law, thus making punishment in itself ineffective and crime more likely.

Locke also believed that, although at first there wouldn't be many Law-breakers (given the large amount of land available to all), eventually, with the invention on money, this would bring about more problems - as people are then able to buy and sell land, pay people to work etc, making the availability of land for all limited and thus increasing the likelihood of violations of the Law of Nature.

This proves that an effective system of punishment is needed to avoid problems - however, in there are issues that may arise - firstly, disagreements are likely to arise on whether someone has broken to law, and this could end up going unresolved and thus causing tension. Secondly, punishments are likely to be subjective rather than objective as humans are driven by irrational emotions, therefore this may end up with unfair and perhaps too severe punishments. Lastly, it is likely that the ability to administer the punishment won't be available, therefore there will be no incentive for people not to break it.

Overall, living under a state would be more beneficial as there would be a single, common interpretation of the law, whereby punishments are administered fairly and that is actually enforced.


Compare Hobbes and Locke on the type of state we should submit to.

Locke believed that the type of state we must admit to must be some form of democracy - he believed that the Law of Nature and our own moral equality would place constraints on the state, therefore making it effective for enforcing punishment.

However, Hobbes believed that there must be a single person or political body (an 'absolute sovereign') with total power and whereby there are no restraints on the law. Hobbes believed that the state needs to have absolute power to create whatever law it thinks is necessary, as well as create its own interpretation on the law in order to be effective because otherwise conflict could break out between people on what the law should be and how it should be enforced.


Assess the claim that any state is better than no state at all.

Hobbes argued that any state is better than no state at all - this is understandable, as Hobbes also strongly believed that the state of nature would ultimately become a state of fear, whereby violence is often necessary for self-preservation, and where each individual is set up against each other in order to survive. From Hobbes' perspective it is rational to say that any state is better than his theory of the state of nature as his beliefs about what it would be like is ultimately the worst-case scenario of life.

However, it can be argued that, from another person's perspective about the way humans would naturally co-exist together could be based on morality and peace (e.g. Locke's theory of the Laws of Nature) - this would make a far better state of nature than, for example, a totalitarian state whereby there is one absolute ruler.