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

    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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Good Essays

    Rousseau developed a definition for the state of nature by using his knowledge of humans and animals, which he gathered from observations and experiences. He did not base his ideas of the state of nature on religious beliefs. Rather, he worked backwards; he used what he knew about contemporary man to guess how man was in the beginning (i.e. in the state of nature). Locke begins to explore the state of nature on the premise that the savage man had natural rights in the state of nature. Both philosophers followed the same train of thought: the state of nature, the development of property, the need for the social contract, the civil society that was created, and the governments that formed in those societies. They differ in that Rousseau believed that people left the state of nature when they discovered the benefits of relying on each other for resources. The idea of property caused labor to become necessary; this created a need for a social contract, which formed civil society. Since civil society formed on communal values, it should come before the individual. The individual does not sustain the social contract, the group of individuals does. In…

    • 481 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The pressure of time is crucial in both works, as both narrators race against time to save themselves or others. In the Pit and the Pendulum, the narrator is strapped to a strange contraption, with a deadly pendulum descending towards him. The pendulum is lowering an unhurried rate as it states in the article, "It might have been half an hour, perhaps even an hour, (for in cast my I could take but imperfect note of time) before I again cast my eyes upward. What I then saw confounded and amazed me. The sweep of the pendulum had increased in extent by nearly a yard"(Poe, E. A. Web). Each swing, the narrator is in awe by the motion of the pendulum, that now it is a distraction towards his fear in death, as he explains, "I fancied that I saw it in motion. In an instant…

    • 1623 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phil 103 Final

    • 1037 Words
    • 3 Pages

    1D. The state of nature is Hobbes’ description of what human beings lived like prior to the existence of a state or civilized society. In this existence, all humans were equal in that they all wanted to achieve their ultimate end and they all had the right to do what they thought necessary for survival…

    • 1037 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were to philosophers with opposing opinions on human nature and the state of nature. Locke saw humanity and life with optimism and community, whereas Hobbes only thought of humans as being capable of living a more violent, self-interested lifestyle which would lead to civil unrest. However, both can agree that in order for either way of life to achieve success there must be a sovereign.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Basic biology states that though survival of the fittest, animals learn to continue actions that put them ahead of others, actions that give them more power. Originating from the Victorian slums, Edward Pierce’s criminal career was greatly influenced by this power struggle. With “only 3 to 5 percent of all crime [being] reported,” Pierce was never discouraged from cheating his way to aristocratic wealth (Crichton 24). Pierce took advantage of Victorian England’s societal circumstances and used them as prongs of a ladder to ultimate power, the Great Train Robbery.…

    • 399 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau describes the state of nature and the origin of chance events that gave birth to a civil state, where men build social relationships and developed reason. His description of state of nature is very different from that of Locke and Hobbes, as he believes that state of nature is actually better than the civil society. According to Rousseau, civil state is the culprit behind destroying the rudimentary man. It is surprising to note that Rousseau prefers state of nature over civil state, where savage humans live amicably. Rousseau indirectly criticizes Hobbes’ way of examining original man’s traits that developed because of living in a society. Through his thought experiment, Rousseau tries…

    • 591 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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
  • 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
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes' and Locke's writings center on the definition of the "state of nature" and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and "the state of nature", a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes' Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler's powers. 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. At an undetermined point in the history of man, a people, while still in the state of nature, allowed one person to become their leader and judge over controversies. This was first the patriarch of a…

    • 3013 Words
    • 87 Pages
    Powerful 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
  • Good Essays

    When comparing Rousseau to Hobbes and Locke, the differences in their ideologies are prominent, however, they are still similar in some ways. In the State of Nature according to Rousseau, “man’s natural sentiment was that of his existence, his first care that of his preservation” (Discourse, Part II). This man is known as the “nascent man” and is often contrasted with the “savage man”, who exists in civilized society. In this State of Nature, man’s primary concern is to look after himself, similar to Hobbes’ and Locke’s, However, this is essentially the extent of the similarities between the three. Hobbes and Locke believe that man is naturally a societal animal who thrives with the presence of politics, whereas Rousseau believes exactly the opposite: that man is naturally a solitary animal, and that society corrupts us.…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 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