In a state of nature, there are no laws, and people are constantly at war. Would Hobbes and Locke agree? A. Hobbes would agree. B. Locke would disagree.

B. Hobbes and Locke would disagree.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had different perspectives on the state of nature and the social contract:

1. Hobbes:

• Hobbes, in his work "Leviathan," argued that in the state of nature, without a governing authority, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He believed that people are naturally in a state of war and chaos, and without a strong central authority, life would be characterized by constant conflict.

2. Locke:

• John Locke, in his work "Two Treatises of Government," had a more optimistic view of the state of nature. While he acknowledged the potential for conflicts, he argued that people have natural rights (life, liberty, and property) and can form a social contract to create a government that protects these rights. Unlike Hobbes, Locke did not believe that people are always at war in the state of nature.

Hobbes and Locke had differing views on the inherent nature of human beings and the necessity of government. Hobbes saw the state of nature as a constant war, while Locke believed in the possibility of a more ordered and peaceful state of nature with the protection of natural rights through a social contract.