Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Two Treatises on Government produced two definitive and very different theories of government. Although both philosophers seem grounded in the concept of natural law, why do Hobbes and Locke seem to come to two opposing conclusions about society and government? The answer lies in the crucial distinctions between their interpretations of the state of nature, including their conjectures about human nature, their perceptions of liberty and equality, and their ultimate reasoning with respect to civil society. Human nature is an integral part of the theory of the state of nature. Hobbes theorizes that human nature is imperfect, with men being naturally selfish and hedonistic: “of the voluntary acts of each man, the object is a good for itself” (Hobbes, 1996, p. 93). This suggests that in a natural state, humans are guided only by their own needs and desires. Accordingly, Hobbes believes that the only law that governs the state of nature is the maintenance of self-preservation. This gives rise to a conflict of desires, which forces a man to undermine all concern for others and put himself above all else. The extent to which man is capable of undermining others for his own benefit is also unlimited according to Hobbes: "in this law of nature, for where no covenant has preceded, no right has been transferred and every man had the right to everything; and therefore no action can be unjust” (Hobbes, 1996, p. 100). There is a clear Hobbesian view of morality that is beginning to take shape. Good and evil seem to be relative for Hobbes. For this reason, each individual in the state of nature has different perceptions of morality, which are often contradictory, creating disagreements that only incite violence. This p...... middle of paper ...... have consent to act. This essentially gives sovereign power to the people. This philosophy is also consistent with Locke's preference for a republican structure of government. The apparent difference observed between the political theories of Hobbes and Locke can be attributed to their divergent views on the state of nature. The development of humanity as selfish beings living in a state of war and violently attempting to achieve equality naturally leads Hobbes to conclude that authoritarian power is necessary to bring order out of chaos. On the other side of the spectrum, Lock shapes the state of nature into a state of peace, attributing men to reasonable creatures and therefore creates a representative government where the people hold sovereign power. Essentially, these theories seem to be the result of a pessimistic and optimistic view of nature and humanity..