The State of Nature and Political Society According to Locke

As one of the most prominent political theorists of all time, John Locke’s impact on the western world cannot be diminished. Locke, born on August 29, 1632, in a small cottage near Bristol, England, was a medical researcher, physician, and one of the greatest philosophers of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. After completing his initial studies at the prestigious Westminster School in London, Locke went to Oxford University where he studied philosophy extensively. Through Locke’s medical studies, he developed ideas dealing with natural philosophy which were published in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1690.

Though he wrote many significant works, his Two Treatises on Government¸ is undeniably the most famous. It not only had a significant impact on the English parliament of his day, but its philosophies still serve as the cornerstone for the modern American democracy. It is Locke’s defense of a rational purpose to political society that raises the question posed by James W. Sire in The Universe Next Door, “What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?”1 Is political society needed in reality to maintain individual rights given to us within the state of nature or will these rights exist independently? Locke believes that in order for liberty and the good of the people to flourish, political societies must exist.

Locke begins explaining the world around us with a discussion of the essence of the “state of nature.” This concept, originally developed by Thomas Hobbes, argues that the state of nature is simply the state that men are naturally in.2 It is a situation in which men would find themselves if they did not belong to a political society or if they were not subject to any type of governing authority. The state of nature is intrinsically happy, says Locke, and is characterized by equality, tolerance, reason, and a mutual respect for one another.3 In the state of nature each man would have a natural right to life, liberty, and property, and therefore a natural obligation to respect the same rights of every man.4

Known as the “prince of individualists,” Locke staunchly defends the individual rights which no man can divest himself.5 “They are grounded in man’s nature as a man, they are as constant or as invariable as human nature itself is.”6 Wherever and whenever men may live, they all share, by virtue of their humanity, the same immutable rights and moral obligations. Within external reality and the state of nature, all men have what Locke classically calls natural rights – life, liberty, and property. These rights do, however, have boundaries. While, for example, a man in Locke’s state of nature may exercise his individual rights freely, the exercise of that right must not be in the violation of that law of nature which he is under. According to Locke, understanding natural rights is a vital component of increasing our understanding of the world around us.

While Locke regularly refers to the state of nature as men living within a common region without being subject to political authority, he does not argue for a situation where there are no forms of society at all. He does not argue that men live completely isolated lives that are evidenced by the absence of interaction and relationships, but instead argues that all people always have and will live in some type of society.7 The relationships between mother and child, husband and wife, and master and slave are examples of societies that exist naturally. But Locke suggests that there is more to the ordering of society then just these relationships. While man, as described in the state of nature, is free and not subject to the political authority of any other man or group, Locke reiterates that man is not unaware of his duties to others, which is the springboard for his discussion of political society.

While the state of nature recognizes that man is not bound to any one political society, it fails to protect the individual rights which Locke so adamantly seeks to protect. This, explains Locke, is the reason why political societies exist in the world today. Locke realizes that man is not perfect and consequently the world around us will not become utopia. In reality, however, if political societies did not exist, then the threats to liberty would never cease and there would be no system in place to regulate or keep other men from unjustly violating the rights of others.

How then are these political societies formed? “For Locke,” says Richard Aaron in his book John Locke, “government is a ‘trust’ and a political community is an organization of equals, of ‘brothers’, into which men enter voluntarily in order to achieve together what they cannot achieve apart.”8 This fundamental of political society, coined by Locke as the “social contract,” says that men voluntarily enter into a sort of pact, whereby, in order to gain certain ends and goals, some men allow themselves to be ruled by others.9 Government in this situation is not their master but is created and agreed upon by the people voluntarily in order to secure their own good. This ensures protection of individual rights and even opens the door for the state to provide protective services to its citizens. Thus government and political society is instituted by a social contract – its powers are limited by the people, and they imply shared obligations.

The terms of this social contract are actually very simple. Each individual relinquishes some of their individual freedom, which was rightfully theirs in the state of nature, in order to allow the political society to establish laws that will ultimately promote the good of the individual. Also, functions such as judging and punishing are transferred to the state instead of left to the individual to pursue.10 Locke adamantly argues in a passage from his Two Treatise of Government that, “The only way whereby any one divests himself of his Natural Liberty, and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other Men to join and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living…”11 As evidenced here, Locke dictates that the only way to ultimately secure freedom and liberty, as well as the safety and peace of society, is to employ the social contract.

Locke then goes on to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate civil governments. He argues that the reason political societies are established in the world around us is to protect the life, liberty and property of a people. In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke explains that the purpose of the social contact is, “to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.”12 When these values are no longer being preserved, then rebellion is entirely permissible by the population who originally consented to the government's power. In fact, Locke goes to the extreme of maintaining that only the people that consent to the institution of political society are subject to that political society’s authority and rule – those that do not consent, are in no way bound to that society. A legitimate government, therefore, is one that is based upon the consent of the governed.

James Sire’s question, “What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?”13 is answered in part by John Locke with his philosophies concerning political society. The world around us is based upon the state of nature and the recognition of individual rights. However, political societies are created by the people voluntarily to maintain their liberty and to ensure their own good and consequently rely on the consent of the governed for legitimacy. Thus, there does exist a rational purpose to political society and Locke firmly believes that in order to examine the nature of external reality, one must look at the state of nature and the necessity of just political society.