Chess pieces representing Hobbes and Locke on a globe, symbolizing the clash of philosophies in international relations.

Navigating the Chaos: Can Philosophy Explain Global Conflict?

Avery Sinclair in Politics & Policy September 2025 • 4 min read.

"Unpacking Hobbes and Locke to Understand Today's International System"

The specter of conflict looms large in our contemporary world. From the ongoing tensions in Eastern Europe to the complexities of the Middle East, violence seems ever-present. While many factors contribute to these conflicts, understanding their root causes remains a crucial step toward finding potential solutions. Political philosophy, with its long tradition of analyzing power, human nature, and the state, offers valuable frameworks for making sense of this global chaos.

Two towering figures in Western political thought, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, provide contrasting perspectives on the nature of conflict and the role of government. Hobbes, known for his grim view of humanity, believed that life without strong central authority would be a "war of all against all." Locke, in contrast, envisioned a more optimistic state of nature, where individuals possess natural rights and reason can prevail.

This article delves into the core ideas of Hobbes and Locke, examining how their theories apply to the complexities of today's international system. By comparing their perspectives, we can gain a deeper understanding of why conflict persists and what, if anything, can be done to mitigate its effects. We'll also consider the limitations of international law and the challenges of achieving lasting peace in a world of competing interests.

Hobbes vs. Locke: A Clash of Worldviews

Chess pieces representing Hobbes and Locke on a globe, symbolizing the clash of philosophies in international relations.

At the heart of Hobbes's philosophy lies the concept of the "state of nature," a condition where no government exists to enforce order. In this scenario, Hobbes argued, human beings are driven by self-interest and a constant fear of death. Without a common power to restrain them, individuals are locked in a perpetual struggle for survival, leading to a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Locke, while acknowledging the potential for conflict, offered a more nuanced view of human nature. He believed that individuals possess inherent rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property. In Locke's state of nature, reason can guide individuals to cooperate and respect each other's rights. However, disputes may still arise, necessitating the establishment of a government to protect individual rights and resolve conflicts fairly.

Hobbes: Emphasizes the need for a strong, centralized authority to maintain order and prevent society from descending into chaos.
Locke: Advocates for limited government, with checks and balances to protect individual liberties and prevent tyranny.
Key Difference: Their fundamental disagreement lies in their assessment of human nature. Hobbes sees humans as inherently self-interested, while Locke believes in their capacity for reason and cooperation.

The contrasting views of Hobbes and Locke have profound implications for understanding international relations. If we accept Hobbes's premise that states are driven by self-interest and a desire for power, then the international system becomes a constant struggle for dominance, where cooperation is fleeting and war is always a possibility. Locke's perspective, on the other hand, suggests that international cooperation is possible, but requires the establishment of international laws and institutions to ensure that states respect each other's rights and resolve disputes peacefully.

Finding Order in Anarchy

The debate between Hobbes and Locke continues to resonate in contemporary discussions about international relations. While neither theory provides a perfect solution to the problem of conflict, they offer valuable insights into the underlying dynamics that shape the global landscape. By understanding the competing perspectives of these two philosophical giants, we can better navigate the complexities of our world and work towards a more peaceful future.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What is the core difference between Hobbes's and Locke's views on human nature?

The key distinction between Hobbes and Locke lies in their assessment of human nature. Hobbes believed that humans are inherently self-interested and driven by a constant fear of death, leading to a "war of all against all" in the absence of a strong central authority. Locke, in contrast, held a more optimistic view, believing that individuals possess natural rights and the capacity for reason and cooperation. This fundamental disagreement shapes their perspectives on the role of government and the possibility of peaceful relations.

How do the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke apply to the understanding of international relations?

Hobbes's perspective suggests that the international system is a constant struggle for power, where states, driven by self-interest, are likely to engage in conflict. Cooperation is seen as fleeting, and war is always a possibility. Conversely, Locke's view implies that international cooperation is possible, but requires international laws and institutions to ensure states respect each other's rights and resolve disputes peacefully. These differing viewpoints influence how we perceive the challenges and opportunities in global politics.

What is the significance of the "state of nature" according to Hobbes and Locke?

The "state of nature" is a crucial concept in both Hobbes's and Locke's philosophies, though they define it differently. For Hobbes, the state of nature is a condition without government, where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," due to the self-interested nature of humans. Locke also envisions a state of nature before government, but in this state, individuals possess natural rights, and reason allows for cooperation and respect. The differences in their views on the state of nature directly influence their ideas about governance and the potential for conflict.

How do the concepts of "strong central authority" and "limited government" relate to Hobbes and Locke?

Hobbes emphasizes the need for a "strong central authority" to maintain order and prevent society from descending into chaos. He believes that only a powerful sovereign can restrain the self-interested impulses of individuals and prevent a "war of all against all." Locke, on the other hand, advocates for "limited government," with checks and balances to protect individual liberties and prevent tyranny. He argues that government should be designed to safeguard natural rights and resolve conflicts fairly, without becoming oppressive.

In what ways can understanding Hobbes's and Locke's philosophies help in navigating global conflicts?

Understanding the contrasting perspectives of Hobbes and Locke provides a framework for analyzing the dynamics of global conflict. Hobbes's emphasis on self-interest and the struggle for power helps explain why conflicts persist, while Locke's focus on rights and cooperation suggests possibilities for peaceful resolution through international laws and institutions. By appreciating these competing viewpoints, we can better understand the complexities of international relations and work toward creating a more peaceful future, recognizing the limitations of both perspectives and seeking nuanced solutions.