John Locke argues that we should study our place in the natural world to shape our ethical and political system. The most natural human behavior is to avoid pain and seek pleasure, which means that sometimes people are naturally selfish. It also states that we have a natural law that gives us the right to life, liberty, and the fruits of our labor (property) only by virtue of being born. It says: “All being equal and independent, no one should harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” There are people who would do horrible things to us in the name of self-interest, whether we like it or not, therefore, developing a commonwealth that uses reason to make and govern laws for the public good and giving an executive branch the right to enforce those laws to protect us benefit everyone. With a civil society we are given established laws, a judge and enforcement. The most important reason why people choose to consent to civil society is because in a civil society there are those who enforce the laws. Furthermore, to join a civil society, you must consent by giving up the right to do whatever you want and punish others. It is very difficult to give up the right to do what you want in favor of majority rule. Freedom has not disappeared, but in most civilized societies you are expected to follow many rules. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The idea of ​​a social contract was not unheard of before John Locke, but his belief differed from others at the time because he believed that natural rights were different from social contracts in that we were entitled to them from birth and a social contract is simply an agreement we make to help us maintain those rights. Despite what you believe about the state of nature, it is a fairly widely held statement that there will always be evil people who will do things that harm you in the interest of their own gain. John Locke's core beliefs that all humans are reasonable and tolerant can lead people to do things to the detriment of others who are more vulnerable. Locke compares the state of nature to a state of true equality as he believes that everyone is a blank slate, but true equality cannot be achieved. Some people are built better for some things and this leaves the most vulnerable group powerless against the strongest in the state of nature. Consequently, even if we all had the right to receive punishment, we do not all have the same ability to exercise that right. Physically less powerful people would be subject to the will of those capable of overpowering them and their rights would not be protected. The main reason I disagree with Locke is that even in situations where people grow up in the same family and environment as others, they can still develop talents and skills that allow them to succeed. Locke also says that humans are sometimes selfish and if left to their own devices, a state of war would be inevitable. Locke and Hobbes do not directly agree on this matter either. Hobbes stated regarding the state of nature that: “No art; no letter; no company; and what is worst of all, the continual fear, and the danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Clearly Hobbes would argue that many would be killed or exploited, even when Locke believes that every human being has a duty to uphold certain truths. Ideally, giving up the right to enforce laws would mean that).