Michael Cameron
Prof. Crowe
Political Philosophy
8 Nov. 2016 Midterm Paper The State of Nature is a concept by which philosophers are capable of developing varying or similar theories of government, or social contracts. These social contract theories allow us to better understand the course humanity takes and the reasoning behind this when forming a social contract to create a Sovereign body to rule over it. The two main social contract theorists are Locke and Hobbes. These two philosophers have written contrasting accounts of the social contract theory that land upon equally contrasting conclusions. In historical terms, the social contract theories stem from the analysis of ‘man …show more content…
As far as social contract theories go it does not get more dismal and hopeless as it does with Hobbes. Unlike Locke, Hobbes stipulates that man has no inherent sense of morality but is rather a swirling mess of unpredictable actions and desires that lead to conflict with others, and leave man in a constant state of Cold War. Hobbes sees the State of Nature as the rawest form of humanity, despite the look of inhumanity and degradation with which he paints a picture. Hobbes social contract theory is comprised of man’s self interest and his desire to achieve the most important goal of all, self-preservation, and to avoid any obstacles that may impede his ability to maintain this self-preservation(death, for example). Man has no sense of good or evil, a Sovereign needs to be the guide by which man remains grounded in morality. There is no law and there is no property rights in Hobbes state of nature, only self-preservation. Man can use reasoning in the State of nature in order to achieve self-preservation, but this does not guarantee outstanding safety for him from others. In contrast to Locke, man has both License and positive liberty over his peers and as Hobbes’ famously states life under this system is, “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short. ” The laws of nature do not regulate or restrain man in Hobbes’ State of Nature as they do in Locke’s. The laws of nature become applicable if and only man is no longer in a state of conflict. All man is encouraged to live by the Law of nature but self-preservation stands above all else. In Locke’s State of Nature man can coexist peacefully, but in Hobbes’ society is fragmented and dangerous, a constant battle of the fittest. A Sovereign is needed to mediate and guide society, a third party into the conflict in order to resolve it. As man is eager to achieve self-preservation, he will gladly consent to the
Prof. Crowe
Political Philosophy
8 Nov. 2016 Midterm Paper The State of Nature is a concept by which philosophers are capable of developing varying or similar theories of government, or social contracts. These social contract theories allow us to better understand the course humanity takes and the reasoning behind this when forming a social contract to create a Sovereign body to rule over it. The two main social contract theorists are Locke and Hobbes. These two philosophers have written contrasting accounts of the social contract theory that land upon equally contrasting conclusions. In historical terms, the social contract theories stem from the analysis of ‘man …show more content…
As far as social contract theories go it does not get more dismal and hopeless as it does with Hobbes. Unlike Locke, Hobbes stipulates that man has no inherent sense of morality but is rather a swirling mess of unpredictable actions and desires that lead to conflict with others, and leave man in a constant state of Cold War. Hobbes sees the State of Nature as the rawest form of humanity, despite the look of inhumanity and degradation with which he paints a picture. Hobbes social contract theory is comprised of man’s self interest and his desire to achieve the most important goal of all, self-preservation, and to avoid any obstacles that may impede his ability to maintain this self-preservation(death, for example). Man has no sense of good or evil, a Sovereign needs to be the guide by which man remains grounded in morality. There is no law and there is no property rights in Hobbes state of nature, only self-preservation. Man can use reasoning in the State of nature in order to achieve self-preservation, but this does not guarantee outstanding safety for him from others. In contrast to Locke, man has both License and positive liberty over his peers and as Hobbes’ famously states life under this system is, “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short. ” The laws of nature do not regulate or restrain man in Hobbes’ State of Nature as they do in Locke’s. The laws of nature become applicable if and only man is no longer in a state of conflict. All man is encouraged to live by the Law of nature but self-preservation stands above all else. In Locke’s State of Nature man can coexist peacefully, but in Hobbes’ society is fragmented and dangerous, a constant battle of the fittest. A Sovereign is needed to mediate and guide society, a third party into the conflict in order to resolve it. As man is eager to achieve self-preservation, he will gladly consent to the