Many philosophers dwell on the concepts and meanings of natural law and being in a state of nature. Just like all philosophical questions, this too was, and still is, a very complex and difficult matter to discuss. The following paper will be discussing different descriptions of the state of nature and natural law. The philosophers that will be discussed are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. The main discussion will concern the similarities and differences between the descriptions of these philosophers' state of nature. As we finish with the state of nature, we will conclude this discussion with the connection that these implications have on human nature today.
Thomas Hobbes was a very well known English philosopher. Hobbes' promotes a naturalized conception of reason (dumouchel,2002). He did not believe that right reason existed in nature. Since there was no naturally existing right reason, this non-existence pushed subjects to accept the civil laws as the measure of their actions (dumouchel,2002). His theory on natural rights and the state of nature is recorded in his most recognized writing, "Leviathan". His description of a “state of nature” was a very pessimistic one. Hobbes clearly had no faith in the human race when living in a state without political guidance. He referred to the “state of nature” as a pre-political stage of human development (Hayden,p.57). Hobbes depicted a “state of nature” as a brutal, solitary, poor and nasty world that consists of short lives due to the lack of organization and rules. He believed that according to human nature, every action that is made by humans is done for the mere feeling of satisfaction and their own self-interested reasons. When living in a state of nature we a...
... middle of paper ...
...sions (hayden).
Even though Locke proposed that humans are reasonable enough to live in a state of nature without a government, he also believed that a government would be important. Living in a state of nature possesses a number of good qualities but what happens when there is a violation of natural rights? Locke proposes his version of a government through a Social Contract. Locke believed that a government can only be created when everyone agrees to transfer their rights to political authorities in order to execute the law of nature (hayden). This transfer of their partial natural rights must be a voluntary transfer to the sovereign. According to Locke, the purpose of establishing a common wealth state is to protect our rights in an organized and proficient way. In this civil society, when there is a violation a proper punishment will be dealt by the community.
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
2. Locke is a bit confused for himself about this question. Then he backs it up simply by using the results that the state of Nature brings. Locke says, “man in the state of nature is an absolute lord of his own person and possessions, though he has such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure.” This is the reason why man quits from such an idea and goes on finding a more compatible political society. The ability for the man to create such commonwealths that benefit everyone is a secure road for them to preserve their property, Locke explains.
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...
Locke states that in order for a civil society to be established, the individuals must forfeit some of their rights that they have in the state of nature. This needs to be done so everyone can live together in peace.
One of the most important foundations of Hobbes political philosophy is his reasoning for the importance of government. Hobbes argues that without the presence of government human life would be unbearable, in fact he even goes as far as to say that without government we would live a life of everlasting war with one another. In this paper I will support Hobbes’ claims as to why government is vital, I will also compare Hobbes’ description of the state of nature to the state of the world today.
Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant. What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he ...
John Locke powerfully details the benefits of consent as a principle element of government, guaranteed by a social contract. Locke believes in the establishment of a social compact among people of a society that is unique in its ability to eliminate the state of nature. Locke feels the contract must end the state of nature agreeably because in the state of nature "every one has executive power of the law of nature"(742). This is a problem because men are then partial to their own cases and those of their friends and may become vindictive in punishments of enemies. Therefore, Locke maintains that a government must be established with the consent of all that will "restrain the partiality and violence of men"(744). People must agree to remove themselves from the punishing and judging processes and create impartiality in a government so that the true equality of men can be preserved. Without this unanimous consent to government as holder of executive power, men who attempt to establish absolute power will throw society into a state of war(745). The importance of freedom and security to man is the reason he gives consent to the government. He then protects himself from any one partial body from getting power over him.
...ture. As Locke himself says: the obligations of the law of nature cease not in society. There is thus a double restraint upon the body politic; it has to respect the natural rights to life liberty and property which people enjoyed in the state of nature and to abide by the law of nature itself. In short, unlike the social contract of Hobbes which gives absolute and unlimited powers to the sovereign ruler, the original contract of Locke gives only limited powers to the community; it is not a bond of slavery but charter of freedom. In the hands of Locke the contract theory is made to serve the purpose for which it was originally enunciated; namely, to defend the liberty of the individual against the claim to absolute authority on the part of the ruler. It hardly needs pointing out that Locke uses it to preserve as much of natural freedom to the individual as possible.
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.
The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.
Hobbes and Locke both present states of nature in which the human race exists prior to, or without the formation of civil society. These states of nature present stark differences between one other that emphasize the different views the two author’s have on the natural human state. The states of nature each give rise to their own distinct and separate reasons for forming a civil society and, consequently, giving up rights in order to form a civil society. I will begin my essay by presenting both Locke’s and Hobbes’ state of nature and outlining their differences. Then I will analyze the ways in which Hobbes’ state of nature may be seen as more plausible, as well as considering some possible objections to Hobbes’ view. Next I will examine Locke’s view and why it may be considered more plausible in addition to looking at some arguments against it. In this paper I intend to argue that Hobbes’ state of nature makes the acceptance of a civil society more plausible, but that Locke’s state of nature presents more plausibility in commonly held views or intuitions people may hold today.
Hobbes was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that “only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life.” Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism.