Compare And Contrast Locke And Rousseau's State Of Nature

STATE OUR NATURE IN THE STATE OF NATURE

Introduction

The state of nature for all intents and purposes is a device used by philosophers in an attempt to prove a particular moral or political theory; the device has been used by John Locke (1632-1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) to explain the origins of the political community and justify how it relates to our nature as human beings.

Both Locke and Rousseau looked at the state of nature to “reason.” Their goal was to determine what was natural and unnatural for man in his most primitive of states; why? They wanted to make a connection between the original condition and the origin of justice in society.

They did this by imaging what human society was like before there was civil government. The next step, was to surmise what life was like under those conditions and determine what ultimately led men to give-up their condition to transition into civil society.

John Locke, believed, after looking at primitive man that men existed in the state of nature in perfect freedom to do what they want. The state of nature for him is neither good nor bad. It is chaotic; so men give it up to secure the advantages of civil society. From nature, Locke saw that

For Locke, social contract is the inevitable process because man needed a central power to satisfy his need for security i.e. to secure the rights that he believed was natural to all men. He cannot protect all of these rights because some are born of greed; therefore, he needs a central power to get his fair share, “Government.” Nevertheless, for Rousseau, social contract is needed to bring people into harmony; to unite them under the “General Will.” In the process of uniting people under the same will, it unavoidably creates inequality as well as peace and order. The inequality stems from man not being fair in his actions and the dependence formed from shared