Is Locke's theory of life being peaceful in state of nature relevant?

June 23, 2016 7:47pm CST
Locke said humans were at peace in state of nature.But in state of nature where there was no rule of king or the government there was anarchy. The presumption that men were peaceful is a peculiar hypothesis.
1 person likes this
1 response
Li-anne . Assobar
@Dramista (542)
•
24 Jun 16
Haven't red much on Locke's works but maybe he was stating about wars. Sure in nature some people will fight over for food,dominion and resources but without an organized government or king to unite the people, then there would be no large scale wars which would cause deaths on the majority of the population. Just my own thoughts, It does make sense dude :)
Dr Souvik Chatterji
@sathviksouvik (23274)
•
29 Jun 16
Thanks Assobar, Locke presumed humans in state of nature. There must have be anarchy there.
1 person likes this
Li-anne . Assobar
@Dramista (542)
•
29 Jun 16
@sathviksouvik Some people believe nature is in a state of peace and harmony and it is the natural way. While Lockes states the natural state is in anarchy. Has it occurred that maybe in our organised and systematic world there exists a state of anarchy.