Chapter: CHAPTER. III. OF THE STATE OF WAR.


Sect. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and
therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a
sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of
war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has
exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any
one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it
being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which
threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature,
man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be
preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may
destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his
being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because
such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no
other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as
beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure
to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sect. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into
his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with
him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his
life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his
power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me
there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can
desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by
force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a
slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my
preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my
preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it;
so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into
a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away
the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be
supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom
being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of
society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society
or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every
thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

Sect. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in
the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther
than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away
his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he
has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it
will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my
liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing
else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put
himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that
hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war,
and is aggressor in it.

Sect. 19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of
nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are
as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and
preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual
destruction, are one from another. Men living together according to
reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge
between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared
design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common
superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it
is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against
an aggressor, tho' he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief,
whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that
I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or
coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it
cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost,
is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of
war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not
time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for
remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common
judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without
right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is,
and is not, a common judge.

Sect. 20. But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases
between those that are in society, and are equally on both sides
subjected to the fair determination of the law; because then there lies
open the remedy of appeal for the past injury, and to prevent future
harm: but where no such appeal is, as in the state of nature, for want
of positive laws, and judges with authority to appeal to, the state of
war once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to destroy
the other whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace, and desires
reconciliation on such terms as may repair any wrongs he has already
done, and secure the innocent for the future; nay, where an appeal to
the law, and constituted judges, lies open, but the remedy is denied by
a manifest perverting of justice, and a barefaced wresting of the laws
to protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men, or party
of men, there it is hard to imagine any thing but a state of war: for
wherever violence is used, and injury done, though by hands appointed to
administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however coloured
with the name, pretences, or forms of law, the end whereof being to
protect and redress the innocent, by an unbiassed application of it, to
all who are under it; wherever that is not bona fide done, war is made
upon the sufferers, who having no appeal on earth to right them, they
are left to the only remedy in such cases, an appeal to heaven.

Sect. 21. To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to
heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where
there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great
reason of men's putting themselves into society, and quitting the state
of nature: for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which
relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war
is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power. Had there
been any such court, any superior jurisdiction on earth, to determine
the right between Jephtha and the Ammonites, they had never come to a
state of war: but we see he was forced to appeal to heaven. The Lord the
Judge (says he) be judge this day between the children of Israel and the
children of Ammon, Judg. xi. 27. and then prosecuting, and relying on
his appeal, he leads out his army to battle: and therefore in such
controversies, where the question is put, who shall be judge? It cannot
be meant, who shall decide the controversy; every one knows what Jephtha
here tells us, that the Lord the Judge shall judge. Where there is no
judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven. That question then
cannot mean, who shall judge, whether another hath put himself in a
state of war with me, and whether I may, as Jephtha did, appeal to
heaven in it? of that I myself can only be judge in my own conscience,
as I will answer it, at the great day, to the supreme judge of all men.

 The law of nature dictates that self-preservation is of utmost importance. Thus, if any man is threatened by another he is in a state of war with him and has the right to destroy him. This is similar to being threatened by a wild beast; it is only logical that one may kill a wolf or a lion that threatens him. A state of war also exists when anyone tries to place another under his absolute power by making a slave out of him. The only reason why anyone would want another human being under their unmitigated power would be to compel him to do things he would not do in a state of perfect freedom. Locke states that it is lawful to take the life of a thief even if the thief did not initially threaten the life or body of the man whom he robbed. If the thief already violated one's liberty by taking the property of one to whom it belonged, it is reasonable to suppose that he cannot be counted on to desist from taking anything further, including a man's life. A state of war exists in this situation as well. Locke strongly differentiates between a state of nature and a state of war. In a state of nature, men live peaceably without a government or earthly authority. Since there is no authority to judge, when one man uses force to deprive another of his life, health, possessions, or property, it is now a state of war. Laws may exist to secure reparations, but a man can defend his own life against an aggressor because there are no reparations possible if he is killed. Similarly, an aggressor may be killed if there is no time to appeal to the law. Clearly, when a state of nature exists and there is no adjudicator, aggression creates a state of war. When force has ended in a society that consented to be governed, the law is appealed to. However, in a state of nature where there are no laws or judges, the state of war only ends when the innocent man destroys the aggressor or the aggressor calls for peace and makes reparations. A state of war can also exist in a society with laws and judges if said laws and judges are perverted. In some circumstances, laws can be used to protect those who deserve punishment. Any time the law fails to protect the innocent, this being the true purpose of the law, a state of war exists. The only option available in this situation is to appeal to the ultimate Judge in Heaven. Locke writes that the aforementioned situation, where a man has no appeal left but to God, is solved by men consenting to be governed by some earthly authority who rules on such violations of the law. He utilizes the biblical example of Jephthah and the Ammonites to demonstrate that Jephthah had no earthly authority to help him and he was forced to appeal to God for judgment.

