Social Contract Theory: Natural Rights and Personhood Within Democracy

Locke’s idea of the state of nature men had kept their promises and honoured their obligations. In locke’s first treatise he argued that there was no divine right for monarchs, because God didn't put men above others and therefore everyone was equal. In his second treatise he strikes Hobbes and speaks his thought on the state of nature “man is free and in this condition all men equal”. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the of the law of nature. This idea influenced him to believe that human nature is represented by reason and tolerance the reasoning was "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is the reason. Much different than Hobbes, who had believed people were selfish and needed to be

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions (Locke, Ch. 2, Section 6).

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

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.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

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.

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

John Locke linked human behavior with our nature. He argued in his works that men are governed and guided by the rules within our nature. “The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” (2nd Treatise.6) Even without any manmade laws that specifically guide us what and how to do a certain thing, we are programmed to follow basic rules mutually understood by every human on Earth. Locke brought up that these rules discourage, in fundamental, people from gaining power by depriving that of others. He noticed, by specifically employing the word mankind, that the ability to accept and live by this rudimentary rule is the ultimate characteristic that makes us who we are. It is the ability to respect other’s

While Hobbes bases his analysis on the strength of man, Locke focuses on man’s capacity to reason. Hobbes argued that in this state of nature, all men stand as individual people, with no sense of community or family. In his version of the natural state, every person has equal claim to everything, so it is essentially survival of the fittest. He believed that men all have the capacity to kill and that even “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest”, if he so desires (Hobbes, Introduction). This, according to Hobbes, would result in a war in which everyone in the world was pitted against each other.

The state of nature is an issue that both Locke and Hobbes took into consideration. Locke believed that within the state of nature, all men had the rights to life, liberty, and property. He believed that all men were free and that they were all equals, leading to a stronger idea of democracy. Hobbes took the stance of an absolute monarch as ruler. People are born with rights which they surrender to their monarch. The monarch in turn gives them protection, which brings forth of the every-so-important social contract. With Locke’s democratic view, and Hobbes’ monarch, their beliefs become clear about the abilities of man himself. Locke saw man as being capable, from the state of

Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ views are different from each other in the sense of nature of man. Hobbes portrays natural state of man as ‘nasty, brutal and miserable in which people are independent to behave as they want and might occur risks to others’ survival. For him, man is also scared of being killed by others because everybody is a rivan and an enemy to each other. In Leviathan, Hobbes asserts that “the passions that incline men to

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.

Hobbes wrote that in order for men to have security and to escape the State of War that exists in the State of nature, they must "conferre all their power and strength upon one Man" and that this man will "beare their Person." In fact, Hobbes did not consider the State of Nature as having existed generally throughout the world. Locke on the other hand says that it is a state men are naturally in and will remain so unless men consent to form a civil society.

They both agreed that self-preservation was really important for men in the state of nature. Locke on the other hand, described the original state of nature to be a state of perfect freedom in where an individual could do whatever they wish. He assumed that in the state of nature an individual is led by reason, and that reason showed and taught people how to behave and showed them the differences between right and wrong. However, he also understands that even though men are capable of reasoning, they do not always act reasonable although some people might be born in different situations with better talents. He also explains that, “Every man has a property in his own person,” as well as the “labour of his body” (Locke 8) in which one has the right to work and own property.

However, Rousseau’s aspect on mortality in the state of nature is there is no room for law, right and mortality (Giampietri). In other words, we do not harm others because we have a natural distaste to seeing people in pain or suffering. Such as, Hobbes and Locke assumption that we will fall in a state of war which Rousseau feels they over estimates. Rousseau imagines in state of war a man will feel horrible for the harm caused to other fellows. To Rousseau in a state of nature man are equal. Rousseau attitude towards private property is different than Locke’s view. Rousseau feels the only outcome that will occur of owning private property is inequality, mutual dependence, and jealousy.