Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's State Of Nature

Improved Essays
Final Assignment
Richard Herbert
Rowan University

¬
Philosophy and Society
PHIL 09241
A.Jacob Greenstine
October 30, 2017

In political theory the State of Nature is a hypothetical state that human beings lived in before they began to form governments. Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke, used the state of nature to theorize about the motives that led humans to create government structures and what those government structures should be. Of the three, Locke’s concept of the state of nature is the most realistic and most capable of creating good government.
Hobbes states, that existence in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes) a constant state of competition in which each individual
…show more content…
Mankind may still return to the state of nature if the power of the state collapses. Hobbes believed that if the power of the state is absolute, its collapse is very unlikely and only occurs when the state is no longer able to protect its people.
Rousseau disagreed with Hobbes’s conception of the state of nature. Rousseau’s state of nature is a, peaceful and morally neutral state were solitary live as “Noble Savages” (Rousseau) individuals act according to their basic urges, hunger etc., and their need for self-preservation. These urges and needs are tempered by a natural sense of compassion.
Rousseau believed that the state of nature was a primitive state that preceded the creation of society and that it was only when people left the state of nature and began living together in society that they began living lives that resembled Hobbes’s description of the state of nature, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
…show more content…
Humans developed government to impose law and order and control the state of war between individuals. Hobbes government is designed to control people in order to protect them from themselves.
Rousseau believed the state of nature was idyllic and that humans lived freely as equals the negative aspects of human behavior were created by government structures not solved by them. People need to return to the state of nature and have no permanent government institutions. Government functions should be performed by all of the people, not by representatives, as necessary to meet specific needs.
Lockes’ state of nature has both the good and bad aspects of Hobbes and Rousseau. People had complete freedom to do as they wanted, as Rousseau believed, but exercising that freedom sometimes created conflict between people as Hobbes believed. Locke believed that people create governments to protect the rights of all the people without unnecessarily restricting the rights of individuals.
Lockes’ view is more accurate because humans do have the flaws of Hobbes and the aspirations of Rousseau. The governmental structure that Locke developed from his concept of the state of nature balances Rousseau’s complete freedom with Hobbes’s potentially oppressive

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    For Rousseau human nature is simple, innocent and pious and he based this notion on the premise of the “state of nature” where humans were free and equal, and just seek to satisfy their basic needs (Rousseau 1974, p.80). What is more, Rousseau claims that society, as a whole should be the one, which guided by its general will, set up the laws (Rousseau 1974, p.96). Nevertheless, Rousseau's principles are not longer workable within the present society due to the fact that we do not longer live in a state of nature; rather in a corrupted and unequal system. For this reason is determinant to consider the premise that Human beings are bad, ungrateful, and fickle or as the Italian politician Machiavelli asserted, “men are wicked and they never do good unless necessity drives them to do it “ (Viroli 1998, p.47).…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The description of the state of nature is only a prelude to political theories concerning the ideal political system for humans to live in. On one hand, Rousseau depicted natural man as solitary and peaceful as he illustrated how man is tainted as he becomes societal via the process of moving into society. To him, society is the corrupting force that transforms ‘natural man’ into the self-obsessed beast that Hobbes declares he is. He does not deny Hobbes’ concept of state of nature but declares it incorrect and gives it his own significant meaning. For Rousseau, reverting back to the state of nature is much more than the removal of government or authority.…

    • 1051 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hobbes vs Locke They agree on the state of nature for the state of mankind before goverment. When they have to decide on divine right or the social contract and they both chose social contract. They both agree on alot of things but they disagred on some things too.…

    • 84 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The nature of man and the state of nature have varied and contrast immensely throughout different societies. Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau’s ideas about the state of man clash in the form of politics and social contracts. Locke’s view involves the power residing within the people, and the government is there to protect their property, life, and liberty. Hobbes’ ideas are in favor of a monarchy in order to keep the citizens secure and free from harm. Rousseau’s ideas on the politics shares a collective will amongst the population.…

    • 943 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The state of nature is viewed differently by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Hobbes views that state of nature and man in a negative light with everyone being only for themselves. Locke views the state of nature in…

    • 2006 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    First, Thomas Hobbes describes the state of nature and human beings as solely wanting power over one another. He states that nature makes humans equal from the start as so nobody is smarter or stronger from the beginning, but by how we allow ourselves to become. According to Hobbes, the state of nature has “no common ways of life, no enforced laws or moral rules, and no justice or injustice, for these concepts do not apply” (Hobbes, 66). In this quote he means that there is society would be incapable of existing except with the power of the state. He has the idea that humans would be incapable of governing themselves because eventually everyone would break out into chaos and lose all order they had.…

    • 1260 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau present themselves as very distinct philosophers. They both use similar terms, such as, the State of Nature, but conceptualize them differently. In my paper, I will argue that Locke’s argument on his proposed state of nature and civil society is more realistic in our working society than Rousseau’s theory. At the core of their theories, Locke and Rousseau both agree that we all begin in a State of Nature in that everyone should be “equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection,” in which we are free with no government or laws to guide one’s behavior.…

    • 1297 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Why does Hobbes consider men equal in the State of Nature? Why does this eventually compel men to form a commonwealth? Hobbes describes a State of Nature as a society with no official government. This means that people would decide for themselves; how to conduct themselves, if someone is guilty of a crime, and if they are guilty of a crime, how they should be punished.…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes and Rousseau both agree how significantly society changed from the state of nature, and that implication that change had on the governments that followed. These arguments are important to note for the later implication on the purpose of the state, and how that purpose…

    • 419 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Locke believed people needed to form a government in order to protect their property. As stated in The Second Treatise of Government, “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of property…” (Locke, 37). Under the rule of the king, the natural rights people had to property (life, liberty, and estates) were taken, however, Locke believed that by joining or creating a representative government, their natural rights would be preserved. In contrast, Rousseau believed that the purpose of a direct government was to bring harmony and unite the people under the general will.…

    • 1235 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes advocates for extensive government power to protect people from the state of nature. He thinks that everyone is a bully. Eventually, one particular bully proves to be stronger and able to bully more than others. At this point, the other bullies follow in line with this big bully which not only strengthens this bully, but also keeps the other bullies safe from the “lead” bully so to speak. Hobbes says that that is how government is formed.…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Monique Wilder Professor David Hill SSP 101.7920 July 15, 2015 Midterm 1) Explain the main differences and similarities between the ideas of Hobbes and Locke’s. Similarities include: rights, state of nature, atheism, powers of a sovereign, and the idea that governments are beneficial. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two social contract theorist who share similarities in their Social Contract Theories, however they both have differences. The social contract theory is a voluntary agreement among individuals by which organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes Vs. Rousseau

    • 1582 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Hobbes argues that men are innately selfish, while Rousseau believes that humans are naturally good beings. Rousseau argues that the “nature” presented by Hobbes is in fact “unnatural.” Hobbes argues that man is evil, that government is needed in order to protect the public, that the government should be all-powerful, and that power should not be shared. In contrast, Rousseau argues that man is good and that society is the reason that man has been misbehaving, that the government’s purpose is to protect the social contract, that the government should be able to be overthrown, and that power should be shared and direct. The main divergence in these two educated philosophers theories is the fact that Hobbes believes that society is needed in order to prevent mankind from a “human nature” that is beastly and savage, while Rousseau argues that human nature is inherently good, however when man come together in society, they corrupt…

    • 1582 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rousseau criticizes the state of nature described by Hobbes; instead of a constant state of fear, Rousseau described it as equality and happiness. Through the passage of time, the state of nature started to disappear as small communities formed, here man started to make comparisons to one another as class divisions developed. For Rousseau private property was a drastic change because communities went away from a simple state to one that consisted of greed and rivalry. Disapproving of Hobbes, who argued that people surrendered rights to an overall “ruler”, Rousseau believed people surrendered their rights to each other, in other words the community. For Rousseau, modern civilization took away the good parts of the early societies and replaced it with a society revolved around the state.…

    • 1070 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Many people specifically philosophers would question, “Why we need a state?” or “What kind of state should we have?” This question opened up all the different views and perspective of the three following philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. They all have different but also very similar views on the state of nature, social contract, laws. Hobbes definition of state of nature is a state of war. Morality doesn’t exists and everyone lives in constant fear.…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays