What is the methodological importance of the state of nature for Hobbes and Locke in their arguments about states?

In both Hobbes’ and Locke’s thesis on the origins of the liberal state, the state of nature is used as a premise for the formation and justification of the government. Where Hobbes and Locke differ in their thesis though, is the assumption of how each has defined the state of nature to be. This consequently implies that their view towards the foundation on which the political society is laid also differs. Hobbes believed that the formation of society, government and the sovereign is in every aspect of human conduct a far rational and sensible alternative than that in the state of nature. Locke believes that the fundamental principle on which all political societies are formed is ultimately the protection of property. By examining the purpose of Hobbes’ The Leviathan, and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, one can deduce the reasons for Hobbes’ and Locke’s different interpretations of the hypothetical conjecture of the state of nature.
Despite their belief to the extent of savagery present in the state of nature, both Hobbes and Locke agree that each individual with or without a societal context are entitled to the right to self-preservation. This fundamental right is a critical ingredient to both their thesis on the formation of society, and the beginning of human beings living in a civilised context. For Hobbes, the right to self-preservation necessarily led to the imminent threat of war, or the state of war for which Hobbes believes makes living in the state of nature filled with uncertainty and insecurity. The right to self-preservation is not unquestionable in the sense that Hobbes believes such motivations and principle are reasoned through our capability to rationalize. As he elaborates in the beginning of The Leviathan, the individual’s existence is composed primarily from reason and experience. As such, Hobbes does not believe in the concept of free will in absolute terms, for every action, intention, and belief in our own conducts are guided by other faculties and therefore can never be arrived at independently of these entities. As he illustrates in his discourse on various passions of the mind, even if our various tendencies are described as ‘voluntary,’ in actual fact, they are nothing more than a sequence of affirmations and deliberation, and the last thought to arrive is “an end to the Liberty we had of doing, or omitting, according to our own Appetite, or Aversion.” For Hobbes, the common definition of the Will is not good, for it actually means that voluntary actions against Reason, which is not true. Hobbes further exemplifies that the use, as well as end of reason is to serve the purpose of arriving at the last conclusions, and to assert the various Affirmations and Negations on which “it was grounded, and inferred.”
The right to self-preservation for Locke, on the other hand is founded on the belief that individuals have some right that they are endowed with in the state of nature and which they have the right to under circumstances where the State or society properly abuses this natural right. Locke further believes that this right has been transformed to a political right under a society, and thus, all of our political rights are derived from “the state of perfect freedom.” It necessarily follows that the state of nature is also a state of equality, which implies that in the state of nature all men are “ equal amongst another without subordination or subjection” . Just as Hobbes believed that the state of nature always poses some threat to man’s peace, and is the state in which there is a tendency to revolt into a state of war, Locke acknowledges that this right to self-preservation does not guarantee protection of private property: “But though this [Locke’s state of nature] be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence.” Moreover, as the right to self-preservation is granted to every one, “the execution of the law of nature is put into every man’s hands,” however, what every one may do in prosecution of that law, so everyone must have the same right to do so. This is best demonstrated in Locke’s following passage:
“In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind…”
Thus, the right to self-preservation and its implication on the lack of security and reinforcement of basic rights necessarily led to the formation of society, regardless of its merits on preserving man’s natural right or protecting the public interest, though Hobbes and Locke diverge as to how man first entered into a communion with other individuals.
For Locke, the role of the civil government is to act as a proper remedy for the inconveniences that arises from the state of nature. Even with a religious, if not, enlightened tone, he observes that “God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence man.” Locke clearly shows that God has supplied us with the defects and imperfections that naturally induced us to seek communion and fellowship with others, even though he also strongly believes that to live in society is very unnatural because it requires and is established by our consent to be under the dominion of any will. In the statement, “The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power” and this natural liberty is “but to have the only law of nature for his rule,” Locke underlines his fundamental principle that man does so by agreeing to part with his natural liberty. Living in society is an unnatural arrangement as individuals do so to avoid the inconveniences of the state of nature and that of the state of war.
Whereas for Hobbes, the act of consent is not seen as a surrender of the natural right man inherits from the state of nature but a consent made by every individual. Hobbes’ definition of the final cause and end of Liberty is “the foresight of our own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby, of getting themselves out from the miserable condition of War.” This consent to leave our vulnerable and passion-orientated state of nature is not only a rational and wise decision but a necessary one; we not only consent to live in society, but arrive at the mutual agreement for the need of Sovereign Power. As Hobbes explains, “the Laws of Nature, without the terror of some Power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural Passions […] And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.”
The critical different between Hobbes’ and Locke’s state of nature premise is the type of consent formed when individuals mutually agree to enter into a society. For both Hobbes and Locke, humans are not fundamentally different in the state of nature than they are in a governed, civilized society. For Hobbes and Locke, human behaviour is regulated, moderated, and tempered because the government is justified to the individual by offering an indifferent judge to whom these individuals may turn to for common appeal. Locke clearly states that those who have no common appeal are still in the state of nature. Moreover, with no authority to appeal to he is in every way as vulnerable as if “he were degraded from the common state of rational creatures, and is denied a liberty to judge or defend his right.” Hobbes, on the other hand, implicitly describes this consent as formed predominantly out of fear.
With the establishment of society through Consent, the different premise of Hobbes’ and Locke’s state of nature is further reflected, despite other similarities, in their justification of the government to the individual. The need for ‘Civil Government,’ according to Hobbes, is grounded in the belief that there could not be “Peace without subjugation.” The only way to achieve this, primarily erecting a Common Power, or the creation of Sovereign Power, is for each individual “to confer all their power and strength upon on Man.” Hobbes claims that the need for a judge implies that it is “therefore in vain to grant Sovereignty by way of precedent Covenant.” Thus, the requirement for the act of voluntarily entering a Sovereign is that the individual “tacitly covenanted” – which for Hobbes is a significant moment with regards to the manner in which these individuals do not form private covenants (in the case with Hobbes) with the metaphorical mortal God that Hobbes calls ‘The Leviathan’, but a common covenant requiring co-operation with every other consented individuals.
Similarly, Locke believes that when individuals consent with others to make “one body politic under one government, [they put themselves] under an obligation, to everyone of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority.” However, Locke always clearly defines that this is a political society, because the great chief end of men uniting in commonwealth is the preservation of their property, whereas for Hobbes the political society is merely “a mediation of some body that represents God’s person,” and that the political society is a means for men to form a covenant with God. Where Hobbes uses covenant with God as a justification for society, Locke believes that the political society was justified because God has permitted it to come into existence, but it did not arrive to serve as a medium. Instead, Locke claims that men consented with every intent to preserve himself, his liberty and property – this underlies that the right of self-preservation must not only have preceded the consent but that the consent was made contingent upon retaining this right.
Ultimately, the difference in their interpretation of the state of nature is significant in their respective justification and perception of the political society for the individual. Hobbes, as he paints a rather fearful and insecure picture of man in the state of nature, argues more for absolute power (as the collective will of the public) than do Locke, who believes that the consent to form political societies was made conditionally because one can still retain their right to self-preservation. For Locke, we merely seek sanctuary and protection (for our own safety and for private property) in established governments, but on the condition of parting with our natural right save for the right to self-preservation and property. As Locke observes, “The power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good.” Hobbes believes that the mutual consent to and creation of Sovereign Power is not only a political instrument to temper our savagery instincts but to administer justice through laws, which are legislated and enforced by the Sovereign. However, while Locke agrees that the political society has the means to stabilize tendencies towards the state of nature, individuals retain the right to oppose and dissolve the government (which he views as a human design), thanks to the conditional contract of their consent. This is an irreversible form of free will and its outcome and approval occurs because God has allowed for it to carry forward. Thus, the state of nature is a critical premise for considering Hobbes’ and Locke’s interpretation of the type of consent that individuals give to form societies and on what basis, and consequently the role it has for these individuals to recognize the Sovereign, and its important purpose to defend their rights.