Hobbes And Rousseau 's View Of State Of Nature

Locke and Hobbes are both famed political philosophers whose writings have been greatly influential in the development of modern political thought. In addition, the two are similar in that both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes speaks of states of nature theoretically, whereas Locke points out examples where they exist.

He refutes Hobbes’ idea that man is naturally seeking to attack and fight by saying that man in the state of nature is actually man in his most timid form. He states that savage man’s needs are so basic (food, shelter, water, a woman) and easily found that he can have “neither foresight or curiosity”. By this man he means that man lacks the expansive nature that Hobbes’ believed they possessed (natural eternal quest for power). He continues on man’s basic nature adding “With passions so minimally active and such a salutary restraint, being more wild than evil, and more attentive to protecting themselves from the harm they could receive than tempted to do harm to others, men were not subject to very dangerous conflicts.” This is rather opposite of the state of nature in which Hobbes calls man in a constant war with man. He argues, that without society, in fact, that man would be much more pure and that the ills of society have dirtied man. He believed that human nature is very comparable to that of an animal in that it is at its based even natured, but that the separating factor between the two is free will. He argues that since society calls for more cooperation between men, it also causes more competition, creating many of society ills. Rather than saying man fled from the state of nature like Hobbes, Rousseau rather said that man needed society for division of labor as well as the division

The state of nature can be characterized as the state before civil society, before government where all men agreed to enter into a social contract. Locke and Rousseau both believed that men were not savages as some might believe. The state of nature was in some cases even better than what we have become today. In fact, both Locke and Rousseau believed that in the state of nature all men had natural rights and followed natural God given or inherent laws that signified the freedom of men from tyranny.

Rousseau believed that to uplift ourselves out of the state of nature, man must partake in the course of being the sovereign that provided the protection. The contrast between Rousseau’s concepts and those of the liberals of his time, originated with different understandings and interpretations of the state of nature. Classical liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobbes defined the state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to one’s property was always an existent. He

Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative

Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

For Jean Jacques Rousseau, the state of nature is good. Rousseau believes that individuals are better off in a state of nature than in a state with an establishment

The state of nature is the idea of life without society, government, state, or laws. John Locke and Hobbes both agree that the state of nature is equivalent to a state of perfect freedom and equality, although they both understand these terms differently. Hobbes argues that equality leads to inequality in the state of nature. Inequality arises from the idea of man having the right to pursue their self-interest, with no duties to each other. Without duties to each other when, “Any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 184). In the Hobbesian natural state, man is made up of diffidence and lives with no security other than what he can provide himself (Hobbes 185). By virtue, men will enter a continuous state of war for self-preservation because it is man’s natural right to act on what he thinks is necessary to protect himself.

This perspective is essentially materialist and rather careful interpretation of the human conditions is radical and far-reaching in the history of political though and particularly disagrees with Locke’s. Unlike Locke’s perspective therefore, self-interest is the dominant theme of Hobbes’ perspective of the state of nature (Hobbes, 1994).

As I’ve stated before, Jean Jacque-Rousseau and Hobbes have contrasting views when it comes to the state of nature. Rousseau held an optimistic view of the state of nature. He viewed humans who lived in early times as “Noble Savages” and that man was “naturally good.” Rousseau viewed individuals who lived in a state of nature were happier, healthier, self-sufficient and had the freedom to do as they desired. To live in a state of nature was to live a simple life focused on family, self-love, and self-preservation. Rousseau believed we were better off in a state of nature, where as civilization corrupts us.

One of the first political theorists, Aristotle once wrote in his novel Politics, “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead

Human nature and its relevance in determining behaviors, predictions, and conclusions has caused dispute among philosophers throughout the ages. Political philosophy with its emphasis on government legitimacy, justice, laws, and rights guided the works of the 17th and 18th century philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through Thomas Hobbes world-renowned publication Leviathan and Rousseau’s discourses on basic political principals and concepts, each man validated their thoughts on human nature and what is required for a successful society within their respective government confines. The distinct differences between Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on the natural state of man frame the argument of the different

Limits must be put on freedom and inalienable rights. Hobbes lived in the 17th century, and wrote during the time of the English Civil War. His political views were most likely influenced by the war. Hobbes perceived that by bringing back the monarch, or any other sovereign, there would be an end to the civil war and is “necessary to peace and depending on sovereign power” (415). The original state of nature, according to Rousseau, is the perfect state for man, where he is born free but is everywhere in chains (The Social Contract, 49). In the original state, man lives alone in innocence where he is virtuous. Rousseau does not agree that man is an aggressive and greedy being in the original state of nature; in contrast, the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” as Hobbes suggests (Leviathan, 408). Rousseau argues that men are truly happy in the state of nature. Only when men become sociable, they become wicked. In Rousseau’s Social Contract, man is depicted as an ignorant, unimaginative animal.

The development of the selected passage into discussion about the need for a ‘social contract’ expresses how ultimately Hobbes saw society as being the only solution to the state of nature. This is in direct contrast to Rousseau who in claiming that ‘Hobbes was taking socialized persons and simply imagining them living outside of the society in which they were raised’ saw society as the problem and being in a state of nature as the solution. Rousseau however didn’t completely disagree with Hobbe’s concept of man as described in this passage as being selfish and egotistical, rather he illustrates his image through the argument that society is the driving force transforming the ‘natural man’ into Hobbe’s materialist interpretation. Contrasting Rousseau’s more positive stance to Hobbe’s somewhat pessimistic state of nature “brings into focus the goodness of peace” (James Madison), which further compliments the location of the passage and the central features of the desirability of peace that proceed it.

Both Hobbes and Rousseau are in agreement that the idea of the state of nature existed before the inception of the political society. However, their view is very different from the concept of the natural state of man. On one hand, Hobbes believes that humans are cruel, malicious and pathetic such that everyone acts in a way that pleases them regardless of whether they pose a risk to others or not (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Hobbes describes men as enemies of each other and that the only thing that pushes them to make peace is the fear of death and necessities that would guarantee them a decent life. It is the passion for self-regard and reputation that necessitates the need to a political institution to govern humans (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012).