Rousseau And Hobbes Views On The State Of Nature

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

In this essay, I will compare the contrasting views between Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau based on the state of nature and civilization. Rousseau was seen as an optimist who viewed human nature as good (“Noble Savage”) and believed that civilization corrupted us; While, Hobbes thought the complete opposite believing that humans in their natural state were selfish creatures purely interested in themselves and that government is imperative in keeping us in check. Throughout this essay, I will further explain their differing ideas and I will show how I view and interpret them as well.

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.

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

Since there is this constant struggle to get what you want, protect what you already have, and attain power and glory, all men are continuously in a state of what Hobbes deems war. It is a civil war because there isn’t a common power to rule everyone as every man is for himself. This perpetual civil war makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to function productively let alone make any kind of developments whatsoever. This chaotic state is what Hobbes calls the ‘state of nature’:

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

As Hobbes sees it men are naturally in conflict. Hobbes sees three reasons for this. They are competition, diffidence, and glory. Following from the right of nature, which states that all men have the liberty to promote their own life, men naturally desire to obtain resources so as to promote their own life and obtain some form of the good. Yet there are only so many resources, and so men enter into conflict over competition of who will be able to have the limited resources, since only one person can own each resource. .

Self-centered human nature drives men to egotism. Yet in a world of limited resources, as one man strives to satisfy his desires, he naturally diminishes other men’s opportunity to fulfill their own needs, thus creating Hobbes’ third premise: competition. In human nature, “From equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore, if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless the cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and . . . endeavour to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes 75). Men compete with one another to gratify their desires and thus become enemies. Consequently, competition begets jealousy, envy, and hatred, which sparks war among people. Hobbes’ three premises of human nature, equality, egotism, and competition, set the stage for an all out war.

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).

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 the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” (Aristotle 4) Dating back to Ancient Greece, the state of nature has been observed and disputed for centuries. It wasn’t until the 1600s, was Aristotle’s theory ever seriously debated. Thomas Hobbes developed his own theory on what is the state of nature in his novel The Leviathan. This writing sparked interest in philosophers as to what human nature truly is, not just what Aristotle had suggested. Just thirty-eight years later, John Locke anonymously published his writings Two Treatises of Government, suggesting a differing outlook on the state of nature to Hobbes. Through a summarization of each philosopher’s depiction of the state of nature and explanations of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, one will be able to find which argument is the most compelling.

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.

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all claim an integral space in the realm of political philosophy. Through their respective dissertations, each author analyzed man in his natural state and derived a form of civil society from that conclusion. While each author observes man in his own way and thus come to his own forms of subsequent government, equality seems to be a defining feature in all of their theories. All authors engage this notion heavily within their texts and use this comparison of man to man to draw powerful inferences from that. This paper will briefly summarize Hobbes’, Locke, and Rousseau’s definition of the state of nature and then critically analyze the role of equality in crafting the construction of government.

In Hobbes book Leviathan, he makes the natural man out to be a self obsessed monster who is only interested in his own self preservation. This would intern leave the state of nature to be consumed with war, “...because the condition of man is conditions of war of everyone against everyone”. With out the constrain of government Hobbes states “So that in the state of nature man will find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Leviathan, 76). These principles would then leave men in the state of nature, with a life that Hobbes describes as “solitary, poor nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 76). Over all Hobbes view on the state of nature is a materialistic world where without an “absolute sovereign” the life of man would be nothing more then the “state of war”.

The state of nature is the state were humans existed before government was ever created. There once was a period were there were not any rules, or laws to obey. In a state of nature there are no social goods. No farming, housing, technology, or education. With a state of nature there must be guaranteed that no one will harm one another, and people must rely on other 's to keep their word, and not go back on what they say. Living in a state of nature was no way to live honestly. A state of nature was total anarchy. The human condition is something we can not help, equality of needs, and scarcity are a few examples of human needs that are not reversible. There were three theorist who had different views on the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Each theorist had some similar and different views

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).