Preview

Humans in the state of Nature

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1364 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Humans in the state of Nature
Humans in the State of Nature There are many theories about how humans used to be, before a state or any form of government was involved. Many imagine that we were in a State of Nature, which is where no political power exists, no laws or government. These theories were brought on to answer the questions, “Why do we need a state, and what would things be like without a state?” Many philosophers have given their views on what humans would be like in the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau offers us three different accounts of what life would be like in a state of nature.
Thomas Hobbes, who was an English philosopher, believed that human beings in general were selfish and always-in search for power to achieve their object of desires. So naturally Hobbes’s conception of the state of nature would be one that involves competition between people that are unrestrained, selfish and uncivilized. According to Hobbes, life in the state of nature is miserable, it is filled with war, and you have to always be on the look out and you can never let your guard down. For Hobbes, because everyone seeks power, this leads to competition and war. He offers three reasons why this happens which are scarcity, equality and uncertainty. In his state of nature there are scarce numbers of goods so people will desire the same thing, everyone possess the same level of skill and ability to kill, and everyone is in a state of fear and doesn’t want to be vulnerable to attack. With all these factors this leads to the source of the war being because of selfishness and fear, where people are fighting to gain power and defending their lives. In Hobbes’s state of nature everyone has The Natural Right of Liberty, which means that you have the right to defend yourself from harm however you see fit. Hobbes’s only account of achieving peace in the state of nature is through sovereign, where government needs unlimited authority

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher of the 1600’s that tried to create a basis for politics. Having experienced the English civil war, Hobbes realized that the conflict was the result of human nature. Hobbes exclaimed that the world was full of greedy people and those who are selfless and care only for themselves. Without the government to maintain order, Hobbes said that there would be “a condition of war of everyone against everyone”. Hobbes noted that in order to stop this, the people would have to sacrifice their freedom for the government. In exchange, they gained law and order. He also notes that this sacrifice would allow the government to suppress any form of rebellion. Hobbes called this agreement the social contract.…

    • 123 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes, an Enlightenment philosopher, claimed that mankind is naturally evil and selfish and will cause conflicts “if any two men desire the same thing, which they nevertheless cannot both enjoy” or have differing opinions, in order to gain more power so that they can freely pursue their selfish desires, especially “during the time men live without a common power” and “in that condition which is called war, every man against every man,” and are therefore incapable of self-governing. Hobbes’ position on human nature is easily observable; intolerance and bigotry causes violence and general public…

    • 1210 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    1ST PARAGRAPH - What did Locke think would happen without government? A State of Nature is a society without government or laws. Locke believed when men became overpopulated enough to the point where land becomes scarce, then men needed law beyond the natural law.…

    • 865 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being. He believed that all human actions can be explained through the motions in our bodies. According to Hobbes all feelings and emotions are a result of phantasms, our perception of the objects around us. This perception is a motion within our bodies and each person perceives these phantasms differently causing love, hate, desires, and what we think is good and bad. Every feeling that comes from ones perspective has a physical feeling, such as desires can cause certain pains and it is only human nature that one does whatever is needed in order to relieve those pains. Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. This inevitably would end up in a fight for survival or “the war of all against all”. In order to prevent such a war from happening Hobbes thought it necessary that the individuals must promise each other to give up their right to govern themselves to the sovereign for the mutual benefit of the people. This sovereign then has absolute power to rule with no questions asked and not to only act on behalf of the citizens but to completely embody their will. In summation, Hobbes believed that society could only exist under power of the sovereign and that life in the state of nature is violent, short and brutish, as all men act on self-interest.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 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
  • Better Essays

    His writing is focused on the evils of mankind, as well as the government’s role in preventing man from reverting back to the competitive behavior that he is condemned to. Thomas Hobbes believed that humans could not live in peace and harmony as other creatures do, because “men are continually in competition for honour and dignity... and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, envy and hatred, and finally war…” Additionally, man’s joy “consisteth in comparing himself with other men, [and] can relish nothing but what is eminent.” In any revolution, there is a constant battle for who will become the next leader. The first post-revolution leader can effect major changes, because they are responsible for setting a new precedent in leadership style. They are also able to rebuild the system themselves. And as a result of the all the “eminent” power available that men are obsessed with, many men are tempted by the idea of becoming the leviathan, therefore they must compete to decide who takes the position. So, during a time of civil war, this “envy and hatred” between men is at its peak. It seems natural then, that a man surrounded by this competition and war, could conclude that competition must be mankind’s natural state. From his perspective, this natural state of war came after the downfall of a steady government, and so he believed…

    • 1374 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Thomas & Locke

    • 513 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The one great similarity between Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature and John Locke’s state of nature is that they both discuss how dangerous a state of nature can actually be. Both suggest that men are equals in this state with Hobbes stating “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body and mind, as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man is not so considerable.” Likewise, Locke describes this nature as a “state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another.” Despite thinking alike in this way, however, Locke and Hobbes warn of the risk of the state of nature. Hobbes so states, “if any two men cannot enjoy the same thing, they become enemies and in the way to their end…endeavor to destroy or subdue one another.” Similarly, Locke points out these risks, saying that without the “law of nature,” man may make decisions that lead to a state of war.…

    • 513 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes Vs Mill

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Hobbes offers support to his claim that nature makes men apt to fight one another, by showing how people act in their own self-interest. When people act in their own self-interest they look to preserve their own life. Hobbes believes in his definition of nature that man must use their own virtues of protection to ultimately preserve themselves. The way Hobbes describes the motivation is quite simple. For instance, in modern society, one may still lock our homes regardless if it is a perfectly safe area – this is due to Hobbes’ concept of, “self-preservation.” Nevertheless, the root of these actions is actually…

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes Vs Locke

    • 5047 Words
    • 21 Pages

    He begins noting that humans are essentially equal, both mentally and physically, in so far as even the weakest person has the strength to kill the strongest. Given our equal standing, Hobbes continues by noting how situations in nature make us naturally prone to quarrel. There are three natural causes of disagreement among people: competition for limited supplies of material possessions, distrust of one another, and glory in so far as people remain hostile to preserve their powerful reputation. Given the natural causes of conflict, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (Hobbes Pt 1, Ch…

    • 5047 Words
    • 21 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes doctrine the Leviathan based on his social contract theories. As the book was written in the midst of a civil war much of it focuses on the need of a strong central authority to avoid discord and civil war. In his Leviathan Hobbes hypothesizes what life would be like without government, also known as state of nature. In this state each person would have a certain right, or license to all . This would eventually lead to a “bellum omnium contra omnes” or war against all, and people would love solitary, poor, short lives. In order to avoid this he states that man needs to agree to a social contract and establish civil society. Hobbes states that “society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection”. This means that man gives up some of his natural right to the sovereign in exchange for protection and order, and any misuse of this power is to be acknowledged as the price of peace, although in extreme cases rebellion is to be expected. The sovereign is in charge of and must control civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical powers. To prove this Hobbes said "If men are naturally in a state of war, why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors? "…

    • 508 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes argues that the state of nature is a state of perpetual war of all against all and consequently, the life of man in the state of nature "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" (xiii, 9). In this paper I will explain Hobbes' arguments that support his claim to the state of nature. I will also assess these arguments and state that they are not valid and, therefore, not sound. I will then talk about the most controversial premise, relative scarcity of goods, and how Hobbes would respond to the objections of this premise. I will then talk about his response to this objection being unsuccessful. Finally, I will assess whether it will be possible to leave the state of nature given the factors Hobbes describes that create the state of nature. I will show that Hobbes' argument on how men will leave the state of nature is a valid and sound argument.…

    • 1062 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Locke Synthesis

    • 566 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The natural state of humanity promotes personal freedom and rights with the demand of peace. They are born inherently good and in a “state of perfect freedom.”1 The law of nature is the primitive law of life that creates personal rights. The law of nature protects people’s freedoms and keeps them under a code. While individuals are born inherently good, moderate greed is included in the law of nature as a way for “[man] to preserve himself” and to “preserve the rest of mankind.”2 The individual is put before all of mankind because mankind cannot survive without the individual. While the individual is the most important there are restrictions to protect each man’s freedom. The law of nature Hobbes creates a state of nature where each man fights and survives for himself. In Hobbes’s state of nature there is no way for each man to thrive. Locke believes that not all men are evil and sets the law of nature to be livable for all individuals. Locke does not follow Hobbes’s brutal state of nature by not allowing men to violate the rights of other individuals.…

    • 566 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Pros And Cons Of Hobbes

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The “State of Nature” in this post-9/11 21st Century America is one of self-induced fear, not by the US citizens but by our president. With constant reminders of terrorist threats against the US, as well as the constant state of high alert, the president has placed Americans in a tough place. US citizens are in constant fear and are looking to their government for protection. This idea stems back to the writings of Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes critiques the effects of government, or as lack there of, on man and society.…

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes and Locke

    • 658 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In Hobbes’ theory of a natural state, people live with no sense of government or law, forcing society into chaos and a war where “every man [is] against every man” (Hobbes 1651:3). Without the constraints of an institution, people begin to reveal their most unpleasant virtues. The three “principal causes of quarrel” include competition, diffidence and glory (Hobbes 1651:2). In order to control these causes, Hobbes proposes a sovereign with the ability to preside over all. He proposes a Leviathan with which the people can create a social contract and increase their probability of self-preservation. In return for its protection, the Leviathan assumes the power over all through violence, resulting in contracts of fear. Ensuing from the contract with the Leviathan, society understands that “a kingdom divided in itself cannot stand” (Hobbes 1651:7). Similar to the covenant between Rome and the Romans, however, if their sovereign fails to uphold its conditions of safety and security, the commonwealth can justify his disposal. In summary, Hobbes’ believes that a successful society is one that prevents people from experiencing complete freedom, simply because they cannot handle this privilege.…

    • 658 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays