Final answer:
Hobbes's state of nature is a dangerous state where life is constant warfare, necessitating a strong government for peace and order, unlike Locke who suggests a government to protect natural rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hobbes theorized that in the absence of government, there would be no laws or social order to govern human behavior. This results in a situation where life is 'nasty, brutish, and short' as individuals are in a constant state of war with one another over resources.
In contrast to Hobbes, John Locke presents the state of nature as a more peaceful scenario where individuals possess natural rights and are generally capable of managing their own affairs respectfully.
However, both agree that a government is necessary to avoid the pitfalls of the state of nature. It's important to recognize that Hobbes and Locke saw different primary roles for government, with Hobbes advocating for a powerful, even unlimited, sovereign to keep peace and order (strong government), and Locke suggesting a government that respects and enforces the natural rights of individuals (natural rights).