Political PhilosophyPart One (Question 2)Aristotle, Locke and Hobbes all place much importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Everyone, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is and, ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government, based on this natural state, should be. Aristotle's feelings on the natural state of man are very different from those of modern philosophers and lead to the construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man. Aristotle's emphasis is on the city-state, or the political world as a natural event. He says that “every city-state exists by nature, as the first communities do.” (Aristotle 3). Aristotle continually reiterates the idea that the creation of a community derives from necessity; individuals aim for the highest good of all, happiness, through their own rationality, and the only way to achieve happiness is through the creation of the city-state. Aristotle follows the creation of a family and a village with the creation of the city-state in which citizens can gather to aim for the "good that has more authority than all", (Aristotle 1) happiness. In turn, this need for the formation of a city-state derives from the idea of ​​man as a rational being. “It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal… no animal has speech except the human being.” (Aristotle 4). For Aristotle, humans are political animals because of their ability to speak, to communicate pleasures and desires, and to reason. Aristotle's state was composed... mid-paper... based on their heritage as nobles or the virtues of their fathers. Burke states that “there is no other qualification for government but virtue and wisdom” (Burke 561). Burke's most convincing argument against Locke is his idea that "government is not made by virtue of natural rights, which can and do exist in complete independence of it... but their abstract perfection is their practical defect." (Burke 564). Burke examines the rights established by Locke and Rousseau and derides them, claiming that they have no merit in the real world, however attractive they are in principle. He believes that the claimed rights of these theorists are all extreme, and therefore morally and politically false. Burke believes that “the rights of men lie in a sort of middle ground” (Burke 565), and their inability to define completely contradicts the extreme rights defined by Locke.