Would Thomas Hobbes State Of Nature To Be A Pessimist?

Hobbes held a rather pessimistic view of human nature, writing in Leviathan that, in the state of nature, the lives of all humans would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He believed that, in the state of nature (ie without a without a central power), every man is in constant war with every other man. This constant battle arises from the fact that no one can trust anyone else not to harm or steal from them. You may tell me that you won’t steal my horse, but there’s nothing stopping you from murdering me in my sleep and making off with all of my possessions. Thus, I must expect an attack – to prevent it, it would be wise for me to act first, killing you before you kill me. We see how the natural state of war arises.

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.

In the State of Nature, which is a State of War, Hobbes believes three things will lead society into violence. Scarce resources will create competition, which could lead some to violence. Diffidence, which in the case of Hobbes can be defined as protecting your life by killing those who could potentially end your life trying to protect there own. The last cause to violence is glory. Building a reputation as someone who successfully

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.

In fact, the conflicts that Hobbes describes as being a part of the state of nature truly arise from social organization. Though he believes this war torn state exists whenever civil society is not working,

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

The state of nature as viewed by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau is a concept of human life without government. These three philosophers hold some similarities in their views and many differences. We can compare these viewpoints to get a better picture on who these men were and their logic behind the natural state of men. Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes share similarities in their views as they all belong to the social contract tradition and they use the device of the state of nature. Locke and Rousseau felt that people were genuinely good and are free. Locke and Rousseau see people as being capable to maintain a sense of morality

Hobbes talks in great deal about his idea of “felicity”, essentially, a person’s natural want for achieving power. Elaborating, he says that this power vacuum of sorts embedded in the human brain will bring forth competition, and would ultimately lead to a state of war (Wolff, p. 10), which I agree with. Moral competition between beings that operated under Hobbes’s proposed “Laws of Nature” would make a “state of nature” succeed for some time, but the problem arrises when people rebel. Not everyone is going to follow these simple laws, there will be the outcast that will divert from the good, honest people. This is where I see the state of nature turn into a state of war, like Hobbe predicts.

Unlike Rousseau, Hobbes who witnessed the horrors of the English Civil War which shaped his view of humanity, leading him into thinking that men are inherently corrupted. For Hobbes, the state of nature is that of a war. Is all against all and no morals are in place. According to Hobbes what imprisons all individuals is fear. The weak and the strong would shatter blood tying destroy each other in a search for power, stability, and security that would never come under the state of nature. Hobbes states that in the state of nature there would not be o arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death. The life of man would be meaningless and not entirely worth living because it would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

We then need to comprehend the understandings that structure society, and from these assentions we will comprehend the structure and status of the state. Envisioning a condition of nature, said Hobbes, helps us comprehend what individuals are similar to just as people. ‘Self-preservation’ is our most fundamental desire; and if there is no law or authority to override our acting on this desire, no one to tell us how or how not we may try to stay alive. So Hobbes argues that in a state of nature, we have the right to use our power however we choose in order to stay alive. (Hobbes’ argument about the state of nature can be found in Leviathan, esp. Ch.

Hobbes believed that living in the State of Nature would not work. People would become savages and the strong would survive. There is only so much protection you can have over your belongings because we are only human we require sleep and rest. This is where the State of Nature fails.

Evaluate Hobbes’s argument that the state of nature is a state of war. Hobbs conclusion that the state of nature is a state of war is not definitive, rather, the state of nature is a balance between war and peace due to the dynamic and different nature of individuals. The significance of the question is such that it helps to shed light onto human morality, and as a basis from which to derive morality. It is also significant because it helps understand the dynamic processes that help shape human beings and their interactions among them in the absence of a governmental entity. A further reason it is important is because human

According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature referred to a life of chaos and violence. Hobbes believed that the state of nature was a “state of war” where all individuals competed against one another and no one looked after each other. The state of nature is a society where there are no laws or police. Each person in the state of nature is free to do what he/ she chooses. This life ended by creating the social contract. Hobbes believed that human beings are purely selfish and act in a bad way when they are