Society is a collection of individuals living in an ordered community that provides protection for all who reside in it. However, individuals do not directly consent to this system, but rather give tacit consent. As such, the question must be asked: “What was the period called before tacit consent was present in society?” Many political philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau have called the period before society “the state of nature.” Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all agree on the hypothetical starting point of the state of nature, but they disagree on the details. Both Hobbes and Locke agree that the state of nature is associated with the state of war, while Rousseau believes that man is perfectly stable and non-violent.
In order to understand the connection between human nature and war, we have to analyze each philosopher 's point of view. In Hobbes ' work, The Leviathan, he emphasizes that nothing could be worse than a life without protection provided from a well-functioning state. Without it, Hobbes envisions a world in which there is “war of every man against every man” and exemplified his view of the state of nature as a brutal scenario where the life of man is “nasty, brutish, and short” (Jovanoski, 2014, p.334). Hobbes, being a materialist, mirrors a theory of conservative motion: …show more content…
Hobbes reduces the state of nature to a list of laws based on the individual’s desire to seek peace, which would conflict with the scenario Hobbes presents. However, one could view the state of nature as an example of collective rationality prescribing individual rationality. In the end, peace may be the goal, but it can only be achieved if others are united in seeking this goal. Given the insecure, suspicious nature of man and the non-existence of institutions to achieve peace, collective rationality cannot be
In order to understand the connection between human nature and war, we have to analyze each philosopher 's point of view. In Hobbes ' work, The Leviathan, he emphasizes that nothing could be worse than a life without protection provided from a well-functioning state. Without it, Hobbes envisions a world in which there is “war of every man against every man” and exemplified his view of the state of nature as a brutal scenario where the life of man is “nasty, brutish, and short” (Jovanoski, 2014, p.334). Hobbes, being a materialist, mirrors a theory of conservative motion: …show more content…
Hobbes reduces the state of nature to a list of laws based on the individual’s desire to seek peace, which would conflict with the scenario Hobbes presents. However, one could view the state of nature as an example of collective rationality prescribing individual rationality. In the end, peace may be the goal, but it can only be achieved if others are united in seeking this goal. Given the insecure, suspicious nature of man and the non-existence of institutions to achieve peace, collective rationality cannot be