Hobbes And Locke And Rousseau's Theory Of Human Nature

Throughout history, many well known philosophers have argued mostly about nature and its inherent goodness and badness. Rousseau, unlike Hobbes and Locke, veers from this standard discussion of good and evil, and instead claims we are simply amoral, making his ideas the most pragmatic by far. Amorality, not necessarily meaning no morals, but having one predominant moral, is a theory that allows individuals to be viewed not just as good or bad, but as lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. In Rousseau 's case that amoral principle is self-love. Essentially, in that principle good behavior or bad behavior can follow. Due to this amorality, it’s important to leave the state of nature and create a government …show more content…
Even though Locke has a more plausible theory of human nature than Hobbes, Rousseau has the most logical. Locke argues that an individual would never intentionally hurt another individual due their purity. Man would want to preserve himself and his family and never cause harm to others according to Locke. He also believes that the state of nature is one before a civil society, which means that individuals within his theory are able to adapt to a civil society. Rousseau also focused a lot on civil society, which is what makes his theory the most pragmatic. Straying away from the state of nature and leaning more towards a civil society was one of Rousseau’s main points. Human nature, being amoral, is not innately good or bad, so a civil society is needed within a community. When a civil society is created, individuals begin to adapt to what is going on around them, and begin to listen to what they are being told, which is well needed in a community. Unlike Rousseau, in Locke’s theory, the state of nature is a good thing, when in reality a society needs a government to keep everything in order, which is why we have strayed away from the state of nature. His view is a little too promising and confident to actually be real, in other words, he focuses on all of the good, but never the bad, which is very unrealistic. An individual can not just appear on …show more content…
Meaning mankind is not naturally bad or good, but start out as with one specific moral and can sway either way. Not only is this the most reasonable theory out of all three philosophers, but it is the most realistic as well. One can only have applicable morals once a civil society and a government is formed, the state of nature is no more, and there are morals created. Rousseau also states that an individual is sympathetic towards others and would never intentionally cause them harm; also known as amour de soi. Society’s outside influence is the cause of all that goes bad within an individual, but is also the cause of all that goes good with an individual as well. Rousseau’s main flaw is that he believes the government is behind the bad within an individual, when in reality that state of nature must be strayed away from in order for the government to keep everyone in order. Without any laws or morals to follow, one does not know right from wrong, which is why the state of nature is toxic to human nature, and a civil society should be formed. Mankind has the ability to be corrupted by society, and in order to retain the good within, everyone has to join together in the general will to benefit everyone. Favoring a direct democracy, Rousseau believes that some interferences are necessary, especially in the general will. With Rousseau being more of a pragmatic thinker, it is easier to understand and