How did John Locke’s state of nature differ from Thomas Hobbes’s state of nature?

In political philosophy, the state of nature serves as a hypothetical condition used to justify the necessity of government. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke held fundamentally different views on this pre-political state.12

• Hobbes’s State of Nature: Hobbes characterized this condition as a "war of every man against every man." In the absence of a sovereign, individuals possess a natural right to everything, leading to a state of constant competition and mistrust. He famously described life in this state as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," where no justice or culture can exist.12
• Locke’s State of Nature: Conversely, Locke argued that the state of nature is not a state of total license but is governed by the law of nature. He believed humans are naturally endowed with rights to life, liberty, and property. While this state can be relatively peaceful, individuals choose to enter a social contract to establish an impartial authority to arbitrate disputes and protect these natural rights more effectively.123

Ultimately, while Hobbes viewed the state of nature as an unsustainable, violent chaos requiring an absolute sovereign, Locke viewed it as a state of freedom and equality where government is a tool to protect pre-existing natural rights.12