Two Treatises of Government · Chapter
III: Of the State of War explained
Locke defines the state of war as a state of enmity and destruction, distinct from the state of nature.
What happens
Locke defines the state of war as a state of enmity and destruction, distinct from the state of nature. He argues that when there is no common judge on earth to appeal to, or when the law is perverted, force without right creates a state of war. In such a state, the innocent party has a right to destroy the aggressor, even to the point of killing a thief who uses force to take property, because the aggressor's attempt to enslave or dominate threatens the victim's life and freedom. Locke emphasizes that the lack of an earthly appeal forces an appeal to heaven, as illustrated by Jephthah's appeal to God.
Themes in this chapter
State of Nature and Social Contract
Locke distinguishes the state of nature (peace, reason, no common superior) from the state of war (force, enmity, no appeal), showing how the social contract aims to avoid war.
Natural Rights and Liberty
The right to self-preservation and freedom from absolute power is central; Locke argues that anyone attempting to enslave another puts themselves in a state of war, justifying defensive killing.
Right to Revolution
When the law is perverted to protect violence, the injured have no earthly appeal and must appeal to heaven, implying a right to resist unjust authority.
Characters to notice
- Jephthah
Cited as an example of appealing to heaven when there is no earthly judge to decide a controversy, leading to a state of war.
Key passages
“The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or anyone that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.”
The state of war is defined by deliberate enmity and destruction. A settled intention against another's life justifies the victim in using lethal force in self-defense, as the fundamental law of nature prioritizes preserving the innocent. An aggressor who rejects reason and uses force can be treated like a dangerous beast.
Locke establishes the moral and legal basis for killing in self-defense within the state of war.
“And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave.”
Attempting to gain absolute power over someone without their consent is an act of war, because it implies a threat to their life. Without consent, the only purpose of such power is to force them into slavery, which violates their natural freedom.
Locke connects the attempt to enslave with the initiation of a state of war, linking liberty and self-preservation.