Abstract


A CRITICAL VIEWTOTHE JOHN LOCKE’S IDEA OF STATE OF NATURE
One of themostimportantconcepts of 17th and 18th centurypoliticalphilosophy is theconcept of state of nature. Philosophers, tryingtojustifyandusingtheconcept of thestate of nature, usuallyexplainedtheirpoliticalideasbythe idea of socialcontract. Thereasonforthis is thattheconcept of thestate of nature is a startingpointforthetransitiontopoliticalsocietyandtheory of state. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau can be d-eclared as leadingphilosophersusingtheconcept of state of nature. Inthisarticlewewillspecificallyfocus on John Locke, placedtheconcept of thestate of naturebased on politicalphilosophy. Withtheconcept of thestate of nature, Locke describedthesituationwherethere is nopoliticalauthority. He arguedthatpeoplecomeoutwiththeirwishesandconsenttothepoliticalsociety. Theconcept of ownership is one of thekeyconceptsusedby Locke in thistransition. Locke considersthatownership is fundamentalrightlikelivingandfreedom. John Locke considersthatthe main reason of transitionfromthestate of naturetopoliticalsociety is thedesire of finding a solutiontotheconflictsthatmayarise in thestate of nature. However, therearesomecontradictions in thethought of Locke. Locke, claimedthestate of naturewasfull of unlimitedfreedomsandrights, andpeoplelived in a waythattheyareequal in thestate of nature, but his argument is insufficienttoexplainwhytheywanttogetrid of thissituation. Anothercontradiction of Locke regardingthestate of nature is that he can'texactlyexplaintheissuetheconcept of consentand how consentwillcarry a universalnature.

Keywords
State of Nature, Property, Consent, John Locke, Right