Humanity In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

In Hobbes' "Leviathan", we spoke about how he viewed primal humans as being in a "state of war/nature." Although this was hypothetical, I do agree with it to be somewhat true. Back in a time of humans with no structure or agreement socially of norms or folkways, it probably made life confusing and unpredictable. I believe that in that particular state of nature, fearing death was probably equal to the need to kill/defend. It is hard for me to believe that at some point humans actually began to think with reason. If it is possible I feel reason only would come up through thought was fears such as death. A thought shared expressing that death was not wanted, and was in some, more than other, instances wrong. And with that thought process,
Here I think he is reflecting the notion of the individual approaching the idea of making surroundings not violent anymore. However, they want it to be not violent for their own lives. He then says, "And therefore, if a man by words...seem to despoyle himself of the end,...he is not to be understood as if he meant it,...but that he was ignorant of how such words and actions were to be interpreted," (93-94). From this "transferring of right" Hobbes says men call it a contract. I had to look up the word "despoyle" which I found to be spelled "despoil" meaning: to dispossess or be stripped of possessions. Knowing this, I figured he meant that if a man, in a way, fails to reach the main goal of the "contract", and that it is not that they do not want to have an understanding, but that they simply cannot understand the fundamental meaning of making sacrifices and working together under one ruler. He also said it was impossible to have a covenant between you and a "beast," (97). These, I am assuming, are the savage people, or people foreign to the group completing the contract. And this covenant was important, because Hobbes felt not preforming the
Locke believes in the property of the world for every human being, and the property of the body to oneself. Whatever is done with that body belongs to that body. But that transfers over to what that body experiences, and what it touches, and when. So, I do believe that there are facts to what is what, and what belongs to who based on simple question of what is done with each body. He says at the very end of chapter five in the second treaty, "...what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless as well as dishonest to carve himself too much..." (302). The words useless and dishonest stood out for me, because if it is so useless, then why do people continue to carve more for themselves in more instances than one? And if it is to be dishonest, who is it hurting personally if one takes more for themselves? Those who have less? There is a class system. The proletariat relinquishes what they have to become a part of a class, and a mindset for the better. The savage homo-sapien relinquishes their violent way for a mindset of peace. This being said, there are those who give up, and those who are left to take what is given up. Locke believed in a system, and in that system there are going to be those who make things happen, and those who benefit from those things happening. If you make things happen then you are more likely to receive the benefits from it. Most who put in the work are better off in