Thomas Hobbes And The State Of Nature And Within Civil Society

1310 Words Nov 8th, 2016 6 Pages
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau weigh into the discussion about justice and morality in both in the State of Nature and within civil societies. Hobbes enforces that individuals do not have any moral obligations in the State of Nature or within civil society, but instead all decisions are made with rationality. Therefore, legitimacy and justice are based upon his notional of rationality and the validity of covenants created. Locke argues that humans are moral in both the State of Nature and in civil society and what makes the government legitimate is due to the common good of all rather than what a rational individual would do. Lastly, Rousseau takes a view that merges both Hobbes’ and Locke’s views of morality by claiming that humans are not moral in the State of Nature, but the obtain morality once entering into civil society. All actions and laws made in this definition of a civil society are legitimate and just so long as they follow the general will, or collective good. Thomas Hobbes claims that humans, regardless of being in civil society or the State of Nature are not driven by morality, but instead by rationality. Hobbes declares that the State of Nature creates a never-ending set of conflicting interests between individuals causing people to fight for competition, diffidence, and glory, acting as animals trying to take whatever they want without any real repercussions (119). People in the State of Nature act within self-interest and for their…

Related Documents