The State Of Nature As A Free And Equal System

A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.

Every person was free to do what he or she needed to do to survive. In the state of nature, there were no laws or anyone to enforce them.Although, The people in charge would have to “lay down” their natural rights of equality and freedom and give absolute power to a sovereign. The sovereign, created by the people, might be a person or a group. The sovereign would make and enforce the laws to secure a peaceful society, making life, liberty, and property possible. Hobbes called this agreement the “social contract.”

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.

According to Hobbes the state of nature leads to a war of all against all. What Hobbes refers to when he discusses the state of nature is a state in which there are no civil powers. To reach his conclusion about how the world would be in the state of nature, Hobbes first explains what human nature is and then explains the relationship between man and civil government.

In the state of nature there is always a war of everyone against everyone. The citizens of nature left the “natural condition of mankind” because they thought that living under the “Leviathan” would be better than living under Nature. In the State of Nature, there was nothing that was done that was unjust. Hobbes says in Chapter XIII (pg. 78), “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent: than nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” In Natural Condition of Mankind,

Thomas Hobbes’ view on a state of nature was that it was a state of war. Everyone would live in a constant state of fear and that morality did not exist. He found it to be a very “poor, nasty, brutish, and short” place (Greenstine,2017). In this state of nature, political authority is artificial and human beings lack government in a natural condition. “The desires, passions, and actions are not immoral or unjust” (Greenstine,2017). It is basically every man for himself. There is unlimited freedom for human beings to do whatever they

To Hobbes, a State of Nature, in which there is an absence of the formation of a state, is synonymous to that of a State of War, and that life for men without a Common Power to keep them all in awe is nasty, brutish, and short. Hobbes claims that because the condition of man is a condition of war of all against all, in a state of nature men have the right to everything, even one another’s body, therefore there can be no security. Hobbes line of reasoning is that man needs a Common Power to rightfully give them the security that they would not otherwise have - and this security is to protect us from each other. The type of government that is needed to protect a society from the depraved condition of man is one that can be

While Hobbes describes the state of nature as violent and unappealing, Locke’s view is that the state of nature is nothing more than the absence of a government. Where Hobbes sees violence arising from the physical equality of men, Locke sees natural peace arising from their moral

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

To begin, there are a few terms and concepts brought forward in Hobbes piece that I will define now. The first being “egoist,” an egoist is someone whose sole goal or ultimate end is their own happiness. Psychological egoism is a slight variation of this idea, in that everyone does act egoistically, because it is our human nature. The next term, “sovereign,” is an authoritative ruler of state, one who uses fear to enforce contracts. The “Right of Nature,” Hobbes defines is the right someone may invoke if their is danger presented that harms their lives. The most important thing to an egoist is staying alive, therefore Hobbes implements the “Right

The “state of nature” is generally referring to how an individual is at their core before ones social life, as well as outside influences came into play and affected them. It is a formula that was very popular and frequently used during the Enlightenment Period. Two philosophers that are well known for their opinion on the matter are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The two saw them as completely different things. Thomas Hobbes saw this in a very negative way. He thought that this theory of a “state of nature” is more so a “state of war”. In his account he says that men all want the same thing and in order to reach them they will compete with one another. They will take extreme measures to gain these things that other men have. Greed will overcome and lead to a permanent “state of war”. Hobbes feels that there are three different consequences that can be directly connected to a state of war, and those are the loss of all law, the loss of justice because everyone will be working for their own needs and no laws are in play to do any differently. And finally there will be no property because there is no distinction or ownership. To Hobbes

Hobbes believed that the State of Nature was the state of mankind that all people should fear, and that all humans should do anything they can to avoid returning to that state. Hobbes feared the State of Nature immensely, referring to it as “a war of all against all.” Hobbes also spoke of what he called the

By reading Hobbes, it was undoubtedly seen that his biggest trepidation was ending up living in a state of nature. For this reason he beliefs that the best way of avoiding state of nature is by not rebelling and obeying to the law. He described it the state of nature as “no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” . He goes on saying that anyone’s property is the common wealth’s property. It belongs to the sovereign state. He says “That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as excludeth the Right of the Soveraign. Every man has indeed a Propriety that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it onely from the Soveraign Power; without the protection whereof, every other man should have equall Right to the same. But if the Right of the Soveraign also be excluded, he cannot performe the office they have put him into; which is, to defend them both from forraign enemies, and from the injuries of one another; and consequently there is no longer a Common-wealth.” He claims that the State owns everything in the country and citizens are only legitimate to own as long the State finds it

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”.

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, humans have no laws, morals, police force, property, government, culture, knowledge, or durable infrastructure. Within this state of nature, people have no morals and do as they please without any consequence. As