The definition of the state of nature depends upon the opinion of the philosopher. There are three main philosophers who have defined the state of nature: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Rousseau. The state of nature is defined as “the condition in which men were before political government came into existence or would be if the government did not exist” (Locke xiii).
John Locke defines the state of nature as “men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them” is the proper state of nature (Locke). Locke “believed that if government is based on consent men can still preserve that freedom, independence, and equality with which they are endowed by nature” (Locke xiv). Locke justified his belief in a government by consent by using a social contract. Under Locke’s state of nature, “every man has a right [or moral authority] to punish the offender and be executioner of the law of nature” (Locke 7). We are to hold each other accountable for our actions. Each man naturally has the right to execute the state of nature by consulting nature and thinking and reasoning the natural condition of man. The main part of Locke’s state of nature is that no man is to “harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” because we are all created by one “omnipotent and infinitely wise” Creator (Locke 5). Under Locke’s state of nature, a person cannot hurt another but has no obligation to help.
Thomas Hobbes presumes the state of nature to be without law and government. He expects the worst out of people. His state of nature is based on a state of war, where we fear one another and the world is violent and chaotic. The main element in this state of nature, is the fear of death and anarchy.
In this state of nature, everyone has the right to die. Each life is violent and short. Hobbes calls it the right of nature and defines it as “the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto” (Leviathan XIV). According to Hobbes, there are two natural laws, to seek peace and to contract with others to give up the right to everything.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains the state of nature by comparing man and beast. Man feels the same instincts as the animals, but “he realizes that he is free to acquiesce or resist” (Rousseau 114). According to Rousseau, there are two main natural inequalities. The first is the natural or physical inequality of “ages, health, bodily strengths, and qualities of mind or soul” and is “established by nature” (Rousseau 101). The second is the moral or political inequality and it “depends upon a sort of convention and is established, or at least authorized, by the consent of men” (Rousseau 101). This “consists in the different privileges that some men enjoy to the prejudice of others, such as to be richer, more honored, more powerful than they, or even to make themselves obeyed by them” (Rousseau 101).
The state of nature has never been reached before by the philosophers who have tried to go back to it. According to Rousseau, “religion commands us to believe that since God Himself took men out of the state of nature immediately after the creation, they are unequal because He wanted them to be so; but it does not forbid us to form conjectures, drawn solely from the nature of man and the beings surrounding him, about what the human race might have become if it had remained abandoned to itself” (Rousseau 103). He speaks of how education and habits have corrupted, but not been able to destroy, us. “Men, dispersed among the animals, observe and imitate their industry, and thereby develop in themselves the instinct of the beasts; with the advantage that whereas each species has only its own proper instinct, man—perhaps having none that belongs to him—appropriates them all to himself, feeds himself equally well with most of the diverse foods which the other animals share, and consequently finds his subsistence more easily than any of them can” (Rousseau 105-106).
Locke’s and Hobbes’ states of nature, though different, also have some similarities. Both states of nature are based on freedom and equality. Locke’s state of nature is limited and uses moral reasoning; “though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his persons or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions” (Locke 5). In Locke, freedom and equality feed off one another: we are free because we are equal; we are equal because we are free. Every individual in this state of nature is equally strong and have the same advantages and faculties.
Hobbes’ state of nature has no limits and is based on the calculating reason of interest. It is based on our passions and what we desire. Our reason tells us how to accomplish it and that reason is the law of nature.
Each state of nature reflects politics and each author views them differently. Locke says that civil government is the “proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature” and that God has “appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men” (Locke 9). Locke speaks about whether men are or were ever in this state of nature and the answer that he comes up with is, “Since all princes and rulers of independent governments all through the world are in a state of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in the state of nature” (Locke 10). He “affirms that all men are naturally in that state and remain so till by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society” (Locke 11).
Hobbes is in favor of a strong, powerful government, ruled by the sovereign. The sovereign can do anything to preserve peace and order and can decide what to do. The sovereign is unchangeable and unpunishable. The individual has an obligation to obey the contract between the sovereign and himself because the alternative of being in the state of nature is much worse. You have to stay loyal to the sovereign until you have death to fear, in which case, you do everything you have to do to stay alive.
Rousseau tells us that man develops pride when he has human interactions. He saw that all the animals behaved in the same way he would have had he been in their situations and this “made him follow, by a premonition as sure as dialectic and more prompt, the best rules of conduct that it was suitable to observe towards them for his advantage and safety” (Rousseau 144). “Taught by experience that love of well-being is the sole motive of human actions, he found himself able to distinguish the rare occasions when common interest should make him count on the assistance of his fellow men, and those even rarer occasions when competition should make him distrust them. In the first case he united with them in a herd; or at most by some kind of free association that obligated no one and lasted only as long as the passing need that had formed it. In the second case, everyone sought to obtain his own advantage, either by naked force if he believed he could, or by cleverness and cunning if he felt himself to be the weaker” (Rousseau 144-145).
In conclusion, there are three different perspectives regarding the state of nature from three different philosophers: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Each state of nature can reflect the author’s political view. Locke and Hobbes base their states of nature off the same basic principles of freedom and equality. Locke’s state of nature is about not harming anyone in their life, liberty, and possessions and Hobbes’ state of nature is close to the state of war, in that, you do what needs to be done to survive and to avoid a violent death. Rousseau compares humans to animals in his state of nature, saying that though we both have instincts, humans have the free will to be able to deny those instincts.