Similarities Between Hobbes Locke And Rousseau

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each have their own theories as to what the state of nature is; however, essentially they are trying to describe the same state of nature. Assuming that there is only one state of nature being described in different ways, I will attempt to put together a theory of what the state of nature is actually like based on what Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each has to say about it. Moreover, understanding the state of nature is important for figuring out what role it played in the Enlightenment-era genealogies, namely, the origins of government. Therefore, in what is to follow, I will argue for the state of nature is an important, if not only, explanation for why we have government today. Hobbes’ conception and Locke’s conception
Locke, like Hobbes, believes that humans in a state of nature are equal . That is, not one person holds power over someone else, everyone is able to take advantage of nature equally, are of the same rank, and are born to the same advantages and disadvantages . However, Locke also believes that there is mutual love naturally between the people, which gives rise to the obligations owed to each other . This evidently shows that Locke’s conception of natural is not nearly as brutal as Hobbes’s conception. Locke’s state of nature is heavy on rights and punishments. Locke says that though it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license . People are allowed to do as they wish, but they are not allowed to harm others. There are punishments in place for doing something wrong and that the punishment will be fitting of the crime . Evidently, Locke’s conception of what constitutes the state of nature is a step closer to society than Hobbes’, as Hobbes’ state of nature has no justice and no
Rousseau argues that humans, originally, may not have been rational creatures . The only goal of humans was to just self-preserve . In the state of nature, humans are just animals and share the same characteristics as animals, because just like animals, humans want to survive and fulfill immediate desires . Also, in Rousseau’s state of nature, there are abundant resources, which make the savage, or animal, life self-sufficient. Rousseau argues that Hobbes was wrong about the “savage man” wanting to become the “civil man” and argues that Hobbes has mistakenly applied modern natural rights to a problem that has yet to exist in history . People of today only say it is a problem and do not want to go back to being savage men because we would not be able to survive . Rousseau argues that the savage man had a more pleasant life than we do now because everything they need is nearby and they also think less; that is, an overall simpler