The era in which Thomas Hobbes and John Locke lived was of great political upheaval and war. Civil War revolutionized political spectrums in England and the Thirty Years War swept through Europe. Fashioned by such extended periods of social and political turbulence, both Hobbes and Locke present a pre-political, pre-social scenario in order to justify social contract as a rational mean to bring political stability. However, the respective conclusions are differed starkly by their contrasting views on human nature – that is how human behave with respect to each other, and the state of nature – the natural condition of humanity as a result of the human nature. Such differences emerged from the unique positions of the state of nature then further define striking distinctions in their two social contract theories. Both philosophers refer to men as being equal in the state of nature; Hobbes contends that human are roughly equal in a sense that they possess the similar level of strength and skill. Similarly, Locke argues, “Men are all equal that no person has a natural right to subordinate any other” (Wolff 18). However, the shared premise of human equality merged with contrasting view on human nature develops into diverging conclusions of the state of nature. The single most distinctive argument of Hobbes’ view of human nature is that of its pessimism, as the pessimism brings Hobbes to his conclusion that the state of nature is a state of war. In his view, human are free, rational and self-interested; the aims of human acts are at pursuing their endless desires and maximizing their personal gains. Due to the scarcity of resources in the world, however, the desires of each man collide and cause a state of “war of all against all.” Since none is so strong and smart as to be beyond a fear and uncertainty of violent death, according to Hobbes, men in the state of nature are given rights to do anything in order to guarantee one’s life and conservation. Then “every man has a right to everything; even to one another’s body, there can be no security to any man as long as this natural right of every man endureth”(Hobbes 99). Respectively, Hobbes concludes that even with the absolute freedom that human are naturally endowed, life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes 100). Locke, on the other hand, takes a different position. He relies on theological foundation in order to understand and explain human nature alo