Introduction
One of the most entrancing yet unexplored terrains connected to the psychological traits and tendencies of a respectively particularly defined sociological area tends to be the terrain that exists in concern to the nature of man. Take into consideration, for instance, the fact that, although we currently have an exceptional degree of know-how in concern to the psycho-social, cultural and behavioral traits of humans living within a respectively defined area, we still have no idea as to the core reasons due to which individuals tend to partake in actions that are significantly advantageous or detrimental to the fabric of their society. This is the prime reason due to which renowned philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have timelessly focused on illustrating the reasons due to which man may yield a lack of inclination towards ensuring the advantageousness of his society.

An introductory perspective on Hobbes and his ideological characteristics
Take into consideration, for instance, the fundamental features and characteristics of the social theory regarding the state of nature as espoused by Hobbes within his work ‘Leviathan’. Within ‘Leviathan’, Hobbes presents a theory that holds that the natural state of man is bleak indeed, fraught with danger to life and property. This, moreover, is something that he justifies in as much as stating that by nature, all men are equal; ‘the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest’ (Hobbes, 1996: p. 101). It is not surprising, subsequently, that Hobbes theory adheres to the belief that moral or ethical concepts of good and evil are meaningless in the state of nature. This is since solitary man can use whatever force is necessary to preserve his life and goods against all around him when surviving and interacting in a state of nature utterly devoid of socio-cultural and psychological stimuli.

Hobbes elaborates on this by going on to referring to this condition of existence as a ‘Warre’; a warre as is of every man against every man (Hobbs, 1996: p. 103). Thus speaking and idealizing in light of this, Hobbes conclusively indicates that the society is the result of the social contract. The ideology adhering to a ‘contract’, moreover, is emergent of the notion that society provides man with a platform upon which he can exist with a minimal of the primeval fears espoused to be existent within the natural state. Society, thus speaking and considering it in light of the Hobbes theory, is fundamentally the eventual result of the collectively human desire for peace as an escape from continual fear. Thus speaking, we will now consider the implications that Locke’s theories hold in concern to the same issues that Hobbes has addressed within his social contract theory in Leviathan.

Considering the theories of lock in light of those of Hobbes
One of the first things that becomes apparent when considering Locke’s ideological stance in the light of that of Hobbes’ is that the former automatically attains a comparatively positivistic overtone. Take into consideration, for instance, that unlike the implications of Hobbes’ ideological perspective, those of Locke do not, in any way, suggest that the natural state or condition of man is a condition of ‘warre’. In an evident contradiction of Hobbes, Locke holds that the natural state is a neutral state rather than one which rewards individuals with the license to resort to any and all resources in order to the protect what they see as being crucial to their individuality. There are contentions, but the lack of their relevance is made quite clear when considering the Locke refers to them wholly as ‘inconveniences’ (Locke, 1952). Locke does not, however, as a subsequent result of the discrepancies that his theory hold towards that of Hobbes, deny the need for society. And this is something that is made clear when considering it in light of the specifics as to why he, Locke, espouses the need for societal parameters.

Take into consideration, for instance, that Locke asserts that the natural conditions does enable individuals to execute the law of nature and to consequently punish offenders of that law. And while Locke says that this sense of justice is born exclusively of the element of reasoning of morality within the human psyche; he also adds that the best way to deal with the possibly resultant confusion is to appreciate ‘that civil government is the proper remedy’ (Locke, 1952: p. 11). Moreover, Locke illustrates a reflection of Hobbes in as much as his assertion that it is the need for civilized society that basically fuels the need for a compact or contract. Furthermore, he goes on to indicate that ‘no man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it’ (Locke; 1952: p. 62) proving that even he, for all his differences with Hobbes, appreciates the need for civilized society. Locke asserts that by ‘agreeing together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic’ (Locke, 1852: p. 12).

Conclusion (s)
It is quite apparent, thus speaking and taking into consideration all that has been considered in concern to both, Locke as well as Hobbes; that Locke’s law seems to yield more sensibility and promise. It would be conclusively appropriate to acknowledge that one of the prime reasons due to which this is so is that Locke, rather unlike Hobbes, derives from an idea for a natural law that derives from reason. Hobbes' theory of license does not hold up because when considering this in light of the prevailing features and characteristics of present-day society, it becomes apparent that people desire peace. And while Hobbes does not support this, Locke appears to be comfortable with the notion inter-related existence. Locke, moreover, also stresses comparatively on the issue of such small things as reflector.