When it comes to the state of nature, Locke also distinguishes it in particular from a state of war: "Whoever attempts to place another person under his absolute power is in a state of war with that person." This should be understood as an expression of an attempt to live that person. ([English] Locke. Theory of Government. Next. Translated by Ye Qifang and Qu Junong. The Commercial Press, 1964. p.13; page numbers below) He also criticized Hobbes's view by name: although the state of nature is distinctly different from the state of war, some have conflated them.
But Locke didn't make the relationship between the two clear, he just emphasized that the two are not the same thing. In fact, as we have said above in relation to the state of nature, it is almost impossible to separate the state of nature from the state of war. One of the peculiarities of the state of nature is that everyone has the right to punish those who violate natural law, and then these violators of natural law are obviously putting themselves at war with those whom they have violated. By including this article as a fundamental feature of the state of nature, Locke is tantamount to acknowledging that there is inevitably a state of war in the state of nature.
Locke acknowledged that in the state of nature "most people do not strictly observe justice and justice." (p.77) Justice and justice here should be understood as natural law, since there can be no other rules of human conduct in the state of nature. This means that most people do not always obey natural law; in the state of nature, the state of war is a more common phenomenon.
It is precisely because the state of nature and the state of war are inevitably intertwined that it is necessary for mankind to break away from the state of nature to form society and build a state. If the state of war occurs only by chance, and natural law can easily eliminate the harm caused by the state of war, there is no need for man to form a society.
Locke's state of war refers to the aggression of one side towards the other; is there a state of war between them? Locke didn't seem to think there was. But from the example of two men competing for wild fruit above, this mutual state of war should exist and be quite common.
Although in fact Locke could not deny the inseparability of the state of nature from the state of war, it was his intention to separate the state of war from the state of nature and to distinguish or even oppose the two. That is, in speaking of human society, he needs a "complete" free and equal state of nature as a point of reference; of course, the stripped state of war can also be used as a reference from the opposite. If the two are mixed together, good or bad, it is impossible to play the role of reference or norm.
Linked to this is the final question: Does the state of nature that Locke spoke of really exist? Is there a natural state or prehistory period before the formation of human society? Locke also encountered the question at the time: "It is often the case that one raises the question as a major objection: Where is there, or ever, a man in this state of nature?" ”（p.11）
Locke's answer is that there are now, for example, that the rulers of the world are in a state of nature because they do not meet to join the same society. Therefore, neither the past nor the future will be without people in a state of nature.
From Locke's answer, it can be seen that what he calls the natural state of man is not a category of history, not the initial state or prehistoric state of mankind. Locke did not use the historical data of the primitive period to argue his point. On the contrary, his description of the state of nature is always linked to the situation of real society.
For example, he analyzes that in society under absolute monarchy, people are still in a state of nature. As far as subjects are concerned, when their property is violated by the will and orders of the monarch, there is no power of complaint, so they are in the worst state of nature. The worst is because in the ordinary state of nature, although there is no social authority to appeal to it, it is possible to enjoy the freedom to judge oneself and to do its best to defend it; now even this is lost and deprived.
As far as the absolute monarch is concerned, he is also in a state of nature with his subjects, for he is in charge of everything, has all the power to legislate and enforce, and can infringe upon his subjects at will; he is not a just arbiter, but a man who is not bound in any way in his natural state. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that he and his subjects were in a state of war in a state of nature.
In the view of those who maintain absolutism, when people enter society out of the state of nature, they agree that everyone except the absolute monarch should be bound by the law, but that the absolute monarch alone can still retain all the freedoms in the state of nature, which is expanded by his power and becomes unscrupulous because of his freedom from punishment.
Locke criticized this view, arguing that people would not be so stupid, "they are willing to be swallowed by lions and think it is safe not to be disturbed by the possibility of tanuki or fox." ”（p.57-58）
Locke argues that the fundamental difference between civil society and the state of nature is that no one can be in this position of being unfettered; if there is such a person, his relationship with others is not that of a civil society, but of the state of nature.
From the above, it can be seen that Locke's ideas about the natural state of man are ultimately implemented in the critique of absolute monarchical rule and the establishment of the principles of civil society. Locke made it clear at the beginning of the first part of The Treatise on Government that the reason on which the proponents of absolute monarchy were based was that no one was born free. ([English] Locke. Theory of Government. Previous. Translated by Qu Junong and Ye Qifang. The Commercial Press, 1982. p.4) And what he calls the basic feature of the state of nature is that man is fully free, and he is born free.
Some critics have criticized Locke for saying that in the state of nature, it is unreasonable for a person to act as the adjudicator of his own case by virtue of natural law. Locke retorted that this state of nature was much more reasonable than in an authoritarian society.
The absolutist monarch is also a man, and his deeds are in fact the adjudicators of his own cases, and can dispose of all his subjects at will, and no one can have the slightest question or control over his actions; whether what he does is rational, wrong, or emotionally dictated, the subjects must obey.
Locke asked: How much better is such a ruler, such a government, than the state of nature? "In the state of nature, the situation is much better, where man does not have to submit to the wrong will of another man; if the adjudicator makes a wrong decision in his own or other case, he is responsible to the rest of mankind." (p.11) Here, the state of nature is clearly a powerful basis for criticizing the rule of absolute monarchs.
In summary, we can explain Locke's concept of the state of nature as follows: If the state of nature is examined separately, it may be a situation that has not fully existed in human history, and it is not true in the sense of historical reference; but in connection with the state of human reality and society, it may be indispensable as a reference point for examination and a principle of criticism.
[This article is excerpted from the book "History of Western Social Thought" (Huang Zhongjing et al., Mass Publishing House, 2004 edition)]
Locke: What are the characteristics of man's natural state?