Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, And Jean-Jacque Rousseau

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

Hobbes defines the State of Nature, as the original condition of mankind. It is a period without timeline, or time frame, and that is purely speculative. Hobbes uses the trope of an imagined pre-civilization, which existed since the Antiquity with many authors like Hesiod, Virgil or Ovid. It might seem at first glance that the State described by Hobbes is perfect as well “Nature

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

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.

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.

1. The "states of nature" talks about mankind’s condition without government. Hobbes says that if humans had no government, then life would be “solitary, nasty, brutish and short.” Meaning that humans are selfish, and will not look out for the “public good.” So in other words, without the government human beings would hurt and kill each other without thinking twice. According to Hobbes it is a myth to do the right thing just because it is the so called right thing to do. Therefore, humans only do what is right when they are forced, and because they want to survive. Humans also recognize that there is a government that is waiting to punish them if they disobey the law.

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.

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.

According to Hobbes, the absence of authority delineates the state of nature. Hobbes believes that all men are equal in spite of the fact that some may appear smarter or tougher than others. In addition, humans are in perpetual state of war as they are self-centered and will often be willing to do anything that is at their personal interests (Hobbes, 1994). Locke however maintains that in the state of nature, humans live in accordance with reason and that there is no “superior” to act as the judge. Locke is of the view that the state of nature differs from the state of war, and that it contains equality and each person has identical powers (Locke, 2005).

According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature does not refer to a peaceful and harmonious social life. But gets translated into a life with chaos and violence. He characterizes the state of nature, of the war of every man against each other. It is a competition for the individual. Hobbes (1651) claims that men are in a never-ending competition for honor and dignity. Each individual has the natural right to everything and can take it by violence regardless of the interest of another. With no higher power to resolve problems the individual is fearful and unable to trust others. Which leads Thomas Hobbes state of nature to be a pessimist. Hobbes only claims to be able to see a war between men.

The state of nature is very differential to that of feudalism which was taking place during Hobbes’s time period; this is evident in social relationships and the characteristics of human beings in each state. In feudal society the notion of equality was not present and was class based, meaning there was a social hierarchy (Weinstein, 2015) , this is rather different to Hobbes who described the state of nature as a complete free and equal system. In feudal society there is a mutual cooperation and obligation in the system making it a direct social relationship among individuals which portrays the system more like a community (Weinstein, 2015) rather than separate, isolated individuals that are present in the state of nature. In feudalism the economic problem is solved through the production of agricultural goods which is done by the labour of the surfs. The idea of accumulation of wealth is not significant since the system operates through a direct social relationship and so due to this the payment the surfs get for their labour is payment in kind. Meaning the surfs exchange their labour for order, security, and peace that the system grants them (Weinstein, 2015). In the state of nature there is no form of “payment” or “system”, every individual in the state of nature is self-preserved and only fights for its own well-being making this individual not obligated to anything or anyone. During feudalism the government was based on divine rights, in other words it was God who