Preview

Rousseau and Hobbes' Conception of State of Nature

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1029 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Rousseau and Hobbes' Conception of State of Nature
Both Rousseau and Hobbes talked about state of nature but their understanding of state of nature and the first living of humanity is quite different from each other. Their views are similar in some points but mostly they contrast with each other. These differences in their thoughts are mainly because of their understanding of human nature and also their view of man. For Hobbes, state of nature is a state of war and because of this, every individual are against each other and because of their basic instincts they are dangerous for each other but as a contrary Rousseau's thought about humanity is totally different and because of this at least in the first base of the state of nature he thinks that the humanity was in peace. Mainly Hobbes' theory about human nature defines a competitive and violent environment among people and in contrary Rousseau is a little bit naïve about the nature of man. In my point of view, although both theories have their contraries Hobbes' idea of state of nature is more relevant than Rousseau's idealistic state of nature for some reasons.
First of all the difference between their definitions about the state of nature is about their understanding of human nature. If we look at Hobbes' Leviathan we can see that he talks about the basic instincts of man. For him these instincts are about the will of living and will to be safe. So because of this will man could do anything to live and maintain this living in safety. But also because of this reason every human is a danger for another. And this danger causes an environment which is so similar to war. Because every individual is afraid of the harm that another individual could give, everybody feels unsafe and this causes them to feel as like they are in war. After the state and law people started acting not just for themselves also for the other individuals. They did not harm others in order not to get harm. After civilization although they did not lose their basic instincts they need to block

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    According to Rousseau, the civil society is what represses people’s freedom who argues that people’s freedoms are better secured in the state of nature. This point of view sharply contrasts with that of Hobbes who sees the state of nature as one of constant battles. Hobbes sees a civil society as the most ideal way of ensuring that collective freedoms are preserved.…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    It is a brutish and violent nature. In the absence of culture, arts, science, reading or writing, humans, possibly, are more related to animals, since animals also live in the state of nature, and who always fight for domination. This rather negative view is Hobbe’s main reason why there should be a government. There should be an authority to establish peace. In peace, numerous achievements can be obtained. In peace does humanity progress. It might be argued that Hobbes demands a despot, an autocracy. Still, is not that better than the state of nature? There might be many opposing arguments especially that of the anarchists, yet Hobbe’s examples might not be conquered because they are succinct and feasible. They are plausibly impregnable because they are factual, not idealist. Leviathan does convincingly argue, and this monster in the state of nature does devour…

    • 1395 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    According to Rousseau, there are some good things in civilization but there are negatives that come with it. This correlates to his famed quote “A man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. This can be interpreted as people are born free, but they are chained by the societies that they live in. People believe they live above society’s standards but it is society themselves who reminds people that you always seek approval from them and always conform to their beliefs, therefore it makes us a slave to societies standards. Even the people who enforce society’s standards and think they are the perfect example for society also show that they are a bigger slave than to those who are trying to seek the approval of society. Rousseau's main argument is that the main cause for all of human nature's problem is not 'sin' but separation from 'Nature.' He believed that Nature has always been kind to man and only when he separates himself from Nature that he degenerates both physically and morally. This is in direct contrast to Hobbes' views that man is fundamentally…

    • 1774 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The idea of the natural human is a topic discussed for centuries. Philosophers for generations asked question regarding the form of government that human beings react best in. In class we examined both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's theory of the State of Nature which allowed us to see their viewpoints on humankind. Hobbes believes that humans are selfishly motivated and are constantly at war with one another. However, Locke has a more positive outlook. He believes that humans behaved based on the Law of Nature which is given to us by God (hobbeslockedocument). In Locke’s opinion, the State of Nature is free and has the right to life, liberty and property and if people want their rights respected, they should respect others. However, Locke is not delusional, he knows…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who believed humans were naturally evil, Jean Rousseau believed that humans are born, neither good nor bad, thus corruption or goodness is taught from the society. For example, when children are born, everything they…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Rousseau Vs Hobbes

    • 209 Words
    • 1 Page

    In favor of Hobbes, he does make several valid points. His theory in regards to constant competition applies to this day, as people constantly find themselves in situations where they meet others that are of equal physical strengths and could be faced with a conflict as a result. Despite the points that Hobbes makes, his theory is overall negative, as living in a constant state of fear and paranoia is absolutely no way to live one’s life. Rousseau is very pertinent to remind others of how life was before society and technology took over. Life was extremely simple, and everyone was fairly alright with living alone and focusing on themselves and their life. If today’s society was the same as it was over a thousand years ago, almost no one would…

    • 209 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    After analyzing how Locke and Hobbes understand the state of nature it is evident that they share many ideas but they also show essential differences in their ideas. Hobbes regards the state of nature as a state of war, in which natural law is established only after a process of reasoning. This process leads men to the conclusion that they must somehow find…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes credits to each person in the state of nature a liberty right to preserve herself, which he terms “the right of nature”. This is the right to do whatsoever one sincerely judges requiring for one's protection; yet because it is at least possible that virtually anything might be judged necessary for one's protection, this hypothetically limited right of nature becomes in practice an unlimited right to potentially anything, or, as Hobbes puts it, a right “to all things”. Hobbes further assumes that people should accept what they see to be the necessary means to their most important ends.…

    • 214 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The view Locke had on the state of nature is conceptually different. Locke's view of the state of nature says that humans have limits as to what we should or should not do, but he believed that humans are generally nice to one another, and we will not bother one another. Therefore, in Locke's state of nature, humans are peaceful. Hobbes, however, believes that humans live in a state of war and fight with each other constantly.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    hobbes and kant

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Hobbes was a different kind of philosopher that had a very pessimistic view on humanity. In Hobbes’ book the Leviathan, he believed that humans were naturally nasty creatures and needed to be regulated in a society. For Hobbes one thing he also believed in was Utilitarianism, which is the desire for pleasure that drives our actions, basically, the most useful choice for your benefit. Hobbes had a theory that was called “the state of nature”, which in the eyes of Hobbes was life for humans before any kind of laws or governments. He says that the state of nature is a violent place with no lows. In the state of nature there is no business, no account of time, buildings, and there is always danger around the corner. For Hobbes the “state of nature” was a savage place that could only be fixed by laws, there is only peace when there is no war and no war is a place with laws. Hobbes came to the conclusion that humans cant live in groups without law. Hobbes was…

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The argument presented by Thomas Hobbes in chapter 13 of Leviathan, is that the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Such a view had previously been discussed- earlier versions of the argument appear in other significant works- however it is Hobbes account of a state in “continuall feare of danger and violent death”1 upon which I will focus on and critique in this essay. There are many reasons why many seem to regard Hobbes argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised society, many believe it to be so straightforward and seemingly correct that to object it would be to ignore a necessary truth. Secondly, those who accept Hobbes’ view of a human nature that is so egotistical and unforgiving, would seemingly too agree to the assumption of a gloomy, unbearable state of nature. In this essay I shall argue that such opinions are not logically justified as Hobbes’s argument holds its foundations solidly in assumption alone, an assumption that was heavily moulded on his surroundings of a savage Civil War. Hobbes’s argument lies solely on the grounds that human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centred beings an argument that cannot be completely validated and therefore cannot be a ‘necessary truth’. Yet despite holding such a bleak outlook on the human condition and its simple invalidity the work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political word today2 and it continues to impact our understanding of human nature and interactions. In order to justify my critique of Hobbes I will begin by presenting both his original argument and a brief view of some modern interpretations before cross examining their conclusions against that of other social contract theorist such as Locke and Rousseau as well as rational logic to present the argument that the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    I shall start off by first defining the meaning of A State of Nature. As the likes of Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke wrote about it, it means man when he was natural in his state of nature, uninfluenced by society, and the temptations of today. There are no rights in a state of nature, only freedom to do as one wishes. It is a term used to illustrate the theoretical condition of civilization before the states foundation in Social Contract Theories. In the dictionary it is described as “a wild primitive state untouched by civilization.” Both Hobbes and Locke discuss the state of nature with the positives and negatives in mind. Thomas Hobbs wonders what life would be like without a government to keep ruling over all of us, and John Locke believed the government should be working for the citizens and protecting them. Throughout my essay I am going to be comparing and contrasting their differences and similarities.…

    • 2706 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    First, Hobbes imagines the state of nature as what would result if humans were free from laws and societal expectations, a conception which has latent problems. Conceiving of the state of nature in this way predisposes Hobbes to imagine simply taking already-socialized human beings and freeing them of the constraints of civil society and the force of authority. In Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau argues that Hobbes, and other political theorists, have not removed the effects of society from their conceptions of natural man. Rousseau writes that his objective involves “separating what he [man] derives from his own wherewithal from what circumstances and his progress have added to or changed in his primitive state”…

    • 1545 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes argues that a state of nature will eventually become a state of war of everyone against everyone. According the Hobbes, the main reason behind this change will be the harsh competition over scarce resources caused by the nature of man. Through out this essay Hobbes's reasons will be explained in greater detail.…

    • 1451 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Rousseau states that Hobbes and Locke mischaracterize the state of nature, since man is not motivated by greed, envy or material things in a true state of nature. From Rousseau point of view man would be motivated by love to the self and self preservation. Rousseau expresses how animals does not have a need for material things and they life in a state of nature.…

    • 65 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays