Comparing Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau's State Of Nature

What does it mean to be in state of nature? The idea state of nature has no definite meaning because it is perceived differently by different philosophers. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each discussed state of nature and why political societies had to established. To understand the views of each philosopher about the state of nature we first have to understand what they think about human beings in a natural state. Hobbes believes humans to be fearful of death, wretched and in constant war with one another. Locke believes humans to be perfectly free and have morals. Thus, people in Locke’s state of nature have some kind of rights called natural right whereas, Hobbes believed beings in the state of nature to be a moral, meaning there is no right or wrong. Rousseau believes human beings to be “Noble Savages” and free and equal. Rousseau is the
Locke believes the state of nature to be a place of equality and justice because everyone has the same power, no one has more than someone else and everyone has the same advantages of nature. People have perfect freedom in the bounds of laws of nature. There is a governing force in Locke’s state of nature preserves liberty, life, and possession. Laws of nature are in place to ensure everyone is able to practice perfect freedom and anyone who tries to break the boundaries they are punished. Locke says to have perfect freedom does not mean to have license. Thus humans have the capability to reason they want to improve their lives and they do that by obtaining property. Anything that is previously unclaimed can be can be improved by one’s efforts then that becomes the person’s property. Locke states a rational person will try to do the right thing and wont disturb else. Also when an individual acquires property they should leave some for other because unlike Hobbes he doesn’t think people are