What Is Hobbes Original Position

What is the argumentative function of Hobbes’s ‘state of nature’ and of Rawls’s ‘original position?’ Compare these accounts and critically assess their cogency.

Both Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’ and Rawls’ ‘original position’ are used to provide individuals with good reason to consent to a social contract and to accept their state. The two arguments are formulated with quite different end goals in mind. The ‘state of nature’ presents a terrifying world without reason or safety and is designed to force one to realize how unsafe they are without a state. Whereas the ‘original position’ attempts to use reason and rationality to show the citizens that they are agreeing to a state they design themselves and in their best interest. I will reconstruct
The ‘state of nature’ differs from the ‘original position’ in that it assumes a lack of state, meaning the ‘state of nature’ occurs in a theoretical position in which men are completely unbound and unobligated. Hobbes argues that in this unbound state, men are characterized by conflict and competition, he does not assert that this is the normal state of man, but simply that they are forced into this circumstance of strife due to a lack of neutral jurisdiction and neutral power. Neutral forces are required to create and enforce laws, and a state without either has no laws, and the individuals living within it have no obligations to one another. However, the appeal to the ‘state of nature’ is a ‘right to everything’ which is the equivalent of unparalleled freedom for those living in the ‘state
In sum, the primary problem I hold with Hobbes’ argument is his conclusion. Hobbes is content with security, and this allows for tyrannies and a complete lack of rights or equality. Also, as I have stated, once the need for security is satisfied, individuals will not be content with their society, but unfortunately for them, Hobbes’ system does not allow for disagreement of any kind. Thus, anyone who does not want to live in Hobbes’ secure state is sent back to the ‘state of nature.’ Hobbes then serves as a building block upon which Rawls creates his argument. Rawls identifies the need for security and it is implicitly applied to his argument, as it should be, because security is not an end, but a means to reach an end goal of autonomy and fulfillment in life. By designing a just system, with ensured equality, and guaranteed rights, Rawls presents good enough reason for me to give my rational consent, but I do not believe that Hobbes does do so in the end. My only true criticism of Rawls is the lack of property rights that are, from a libertarian perspective, essential to a state. But this criticism should not be so large as to dissuade one from recognizing the effectiveness of this