Final answer:
Thomas Hobbes' idea of laws of nature suggests that these are rational principles that lead to peace and safety, with the Leviathan enforcing them to prevent life in a 'state of nature' which Hobbes viewed as violent and chaotic. In contrast, John Locke viewed natural laws as moral obligations that exist independently of government authority.
Step-by-step explanation:
English philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced the concept of laws of nature which he believed were rules based on human reason that could lead to peace and safety if universally followed. Hobbes suggested that in a state of nature, without any political authority, adherence to these laws would make individuals vulnerable to attacks. Thus, to protect themselves and ensure everyone follows these laws, Hobbes proposed the establishment of a Leviathan, a powerful governmental entity authorized through a social contract. This entity would enforce the laws of nature by imposing a symmetrical fear of punishment for violations.
Examples of such laws, according to Hobbes, included the right to self-preservation and the pursuit of peace as a means of self-preservation. Leviathan puts forth the idea that in the absence of political authority, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, due to the human condition of perpetual war resulting from scarce resources.
In contrast to Hobbes, John Locke asserted that natural laws and natural rights are moral obligations evident through reason and ultimately on the belief in God's existence. Locke saw these rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, as inherent and obligatory regardless of whether a government enforces them. Unlike Hobbes' authoritative Leviathan, Locke imagined a more reciprocal form of governance where people, living initially in a state of equality, consent to join a political society that respects their natural rights.