In many ways Hobbes and Locke's conclusions about man and society create a polarizing topic when compared to one another. For example, the two make extremely contrasting claims regarding humanity's ability to promote and achieve an organized society. Hobbes states that humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they descend into war and chaos; Locke, however, concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man's way of thinking, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality in which no human being is superior to or holds dominion over another. While this is the basis of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated by tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison revealing that the heaviest and basest opposition in any man's philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings. One of Locke's broader conclusions is his definition of the role of man. the state. It defines that the only true role of the state is to ensure that justice is done on the basis of what it claims are inalienable rights afforded to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of property. Because society gave birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke's theories manifested in social archetypes such as democracy and perhaps even in certain anarchist theories. Hobbes, on the other hand, attests to a role of government similar to monarchy or dictatorship. His definition of the role of the state is a direct inversion of Locke's. It states that society is a creation of the state and therefore the governed give up their rights so that the state can fulfill its primary function...... middle of paper ......or self-preservation and lack of morals coupled with l Failure to establish ownership of assets will ultimately lead to a state of war. This obviously requires a dominant state to determine what is good and evil and to enforce morality and justice. Once again Locke argues the opposite, that due to the existence of natural law and enlightened self-interest, human beings are by nature social and peaceful creatures capable of governing themselves. It is peculiar then that both of these theories, being almost perfect logical inversions of each other – arose from two different answers to the same question: how would interactions between completely equal, ungoverned people evolve over time? Reasoning deductively it is clear that Hobbes and Locke's different views on the nature of human beings are the core difference between their theories of social evolution.