The State Of Nature By Thomas Hobbes And Jean Jacques Rousseau

This quote from Thomas Hobbes ‘Leviathan,' summarizes his opinion of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery. He basically suggests a natural impulse for war embedded in the souls of men who do not have a ruler, or a king. They are without bounds, and without limits. It is a state of anarchy that he envisages.

Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher from England whose work and ideas have arguably made him the founder of modern political philosophy. His most famous work is the Leviathan, which he wrote in 1651. In it he describes his view of human nature and hence his view of government. Hobbes’ view of justice is based on his view of what he names the state of nature and the right of nature. Hobbes defines the state of nature as a “war” of everyone against everyone. Hobbes describes the right of nature to be self-preservation. Justice, in order to appease both the state of nature and the right of nature, is then a human construct created out of our drive for self-preservation, at least according to Hobbes. He defines justice as the keeping of valid or enforced

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.

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.

Both Locke and Rousseau believe that man, within the state of nature, is not a brutal creature void of morality. Hobbes famous quote concerning man’s natural condition, “and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," is indicative of his vastly different views regarding the State of Nature.

Hobbes’ theory of human nature begins with him stating that all men are created equal. With all men being created equal, this means that everyone is equally capable of killing each other, because while, “there may be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body,” the weaker may be compensated for by his “quicker mind.” This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals, and that when two or more men desire the same thing which they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other. Hobbes called this time when men oppose each other “war,” and said that there were three basic causes for war: competition, distrust, and glory. Hobbes also maintains the belief that in this state of nature, humans have a natural tendency to obtain as much power as they can, and that the only way they will ever be satisfied with their power is by acquiring more power, going so far as to harm or kill others in order attain what they desire. Thus, the state of nature is a “war of every man against every man,” where humans live in perpetual fear

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.

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

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 notion of human nature has always been historically debated. Explores, philosophers, and writers have always come to argue on what is considered to be barbarism, savagery, and civilized. These constructed categories have put a label on people who do not share the same ideas as one another. These different views of human nature have come to propel change and have come to revolutionized human history. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Michel de Montaigne, and Thomas Hobbes all differ on their ideas of human nature, but they also share common ground. For some of these men the practices of different cultures are categorized as savagery, and for others it has been viewed as noble savagery. Their ideas however have allowed society to view different perspectives of human nature. These perspectives have classified human nature as a way of life, or as an obstacle to what is consider to be the good life. Their ethnographic resources provide a glimpse to all the different cultures and their value to society and history.

Where Hobbes’ believed the state of nature and a state of war to be one and the same, Locke saw them as two separate entities, and sees the state of war as a smaller occurrence. Locke believed that nature is at peace until one man attacks another. In this state of war it is suitable for the person being attacked to defend themselves from the transgressor.

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.

In Philosophy the argument of the state of nature often comes into discussion. However, two mainstream philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean- Jacques Rousseau have similarities, but mostly have multiple different ideas on this theory. Although Hobbes makes valid points Rousseau 's view on state of nature is more realistic then Hobbes.

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

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