How would John Locke respond if there was categorical evidence that Thomas Hobbes was right and the state of nature was violent?

If there was categorical evidence that Hobbes was right and the state of nature was violent, John Locke might argue that such evidence did not necessarily refute his own views on the state of nature. Locke believed that in the state of nature, individuals had natural rights to life, liberty, and property, but they also had the right to punish those who violated these rights. Therefore, if the state of nature was violent, Locke might argue that this was a result of individuals failing to uphold the social contract and failing to respect each other’s natural rights.

Furthermore, Locke argued that the purpose of government was to protect these natural rights and to provide a framework for individuals to live together in peace and harmony. So, even if the state of nature was violent, Locke would still advocate for the establishment of a government to protect individuals’ natural rights and to prevent further violence. In essence, Locke might argue that his theory of the state of nature provides the moral and philosophical justification for the need for government, regardless of the actual conditions of the state of nature.

For some background, here is a syllogism of Locke’s Labor Theory:

Major premise: According to Locke, individuals have a natural right to the fruits of their labor.

Minor premise: Labor is a necessary condition for the creation of property.

Conclusion: Therefore, individuals have a natural right to property that they have created through their own labor.

By me — Charlie — and with the help of ChatGPT.