The state of nature is a concept introduced firstly by Hobbes, because he wanted to show us what life would be like in a condition without government (Lloyd, 2002). It is an artificial state, which describes relations between humans in a state without government. This way he could show us how government has its effects on human life. The state of nature was, among others, also used by Locke, Puffendorf and Rousseau (Wokler, 2001). Whereas Hobbes thinks of a state of nature as ‘‘a warre of every one against every one” (Hobbes, 1651, XIII), Rousseau completely contradicts this view on the state of nature (Wokler, 2001). The effects of civil society are therefore differently described in both philosophers. They both describe the transition from a state of nature to a governed state, but thus with a different starting point. In this essay, there will be dealt with the question ‘Why and how is the concept of a state of nature used in Hobbes and Rousseau, and are their concepts relevant for today?’. To deal with this question, first Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature will be described, along with some points of thought. Secondly, there will be looked at Rousseau’s state of nature and his criticism of Hobbes. Finally, we will look at both a comparison and the relevance of their concepts of the state of nature nowadays.
Hobbes on the state of nature
Hobbes uses his concept of the state of nature to emphasize the necessity of a government. He does this, stating that virtually any government, even if it has a few evil aspects, is always better than a civil war, which is a state of nature in his view (Lloyd, 2002).
First of all, Hobbes describes the state of nature by looking at the nature of man. “In nature, man to man is not that different and is therefore in the faculties of body and mind equal” (Hobbes, 1651, chapter XIII). From this equality, a battle between men arises. This competition happens when two people are equal in wanting the same thing, for which they would do anything to the other to get it (Hobbes, 1651). Also, people in the state of nature have lack of trust in each other. Because of this, they see it as the safest option to attack first, because others would otherwise attack them first (Piirimäe, 2006). The third thing from which battle arises, is the glory-seeking aspect of human beings. This is deduced from possession of power: when people have a reputation of power, they have power (Piirimäe, 2006). To summarize, competition, a lack of mutual trust and glory-seeking can be seen as causes for battle between men, as Hobbes (1651) describes.
These three things lead to a state of war. In this state of war, every man is each other his enemy, which leads to “continuall feare, and danger of violent death” (Hobbes, 1651, XIII). Man his life is in this state not quite pleasant, whereas it is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes, 1651, XIII). Given the fact that there is no common power to say that things are unjust, nothing is perceived as unjust (Hobbes, 1651).
With reason, everyone in the end wants peace to get out of this state of nature. Reason provides us with the law of nature, which is deduced from the right of nature, “the liberty right to preserve oneself” (Lloyd, 2002). This right of self-preservation is something unconscious, but with reason this gives us the law of nature, stating that a man cannot do anything destructive to his own life, and therefore would want to seek peace to preserve oneself. Since this state of nature provides us with continual fear and danger of violent death, there would be a better situation for the sake of self-preservation, which would be a situation of peace. Hobbes (1651) states therefore that it is not in our own interest to keep living in a state of nature.
Hobbes probably thought of this hypothetical state of nature as an ideal way to explain why people are in need of a government. One could also say that it is not the ideal way to explain this, whereas he could have also made a straight comparison between for example the situation with a government and a state of civil war. When adapting this point, one can say that it is unnecessary that Hobbes has to make things more complicated as they are.
However, given the concept of Hobbes’ state of nature, he names three examples of people that are in the state of nature (Lloyd, 2002): sovereigns, savage people in America and people in civil war. Following his way of thinking, sovereigns are in this state of nature for obvious reasons: they lack a common power that is overarching. Omitting savage people in America, does his concept of a state of nature hold for people in a civil war? A civil war is indeed a war where people are in continuous fear of violent death, but it is not necessarily a war of ‘all’ against ‘all’. This war is not necessarily driven by a competition between men, but rather a competition between groups. Hobbes (1651) does makes note of people combatting in groups against each other, but it is still a competition between men, by which the establishing of groups can help. Some sort of lack of mutual trust is probably present, because you do not know who is in what group in a war and who you should trust. Thirdly, is there some sort of glory-seeking present, because men desire power over others? It could be that there are men that are glory-seeking for their own power, but the majority of men will probably be glory-seeking for his group, and will not be individually glory-seeking. Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature does therefore hold partially in a civil war, but he looks at it if they are mainly individuals, while parties in a civil war are not all individuals against all, but groups against groups.
Whereas a man wants to preserve himself, he would, however, not logically join war in the first place, when a war is, as Hobbes states, more destructive than any kind of sovereignty. Why would man not live in peace if he would want to preserve himself and would want to avoid things that are destructive to his life? Since people driven by self-preservation, there is no direct necessity of a war of all against all in the first place, whereas the state of nature could be peaceful.
Furtherly, it is not really plausible that people in a civil war, are in a state of nature, because this state of nature is not the cause of their war. It is people that want to get rid of their government or that do not agree with their position in the state. Is it really an inner feeling that drives a civil war? A feeling of being equal to the other and therefore have the urge to defeat the other? It could be also, on the contrary, the feeling of being really unequal that causes people to rise up and get more power. Rousseau’s state of nature is more about these inequalities of man.
Rousseau on the state of nature
Rousseau’s state of nature is quite another state of nature than described in Hobbes. Rousseau uses the state of nature to write about the denaturation of our species by way of its metamorphoses in society (Wokler, 2001), meaning that he wants to write about how society affected our initial nature that was present in the state of nature. He claims that humans are good by nature, but they are corrupted by society (Bertram, 2012). The difference in approach with Hobbes is the negative influence of society in Rousseau, in contrast with the positive influence of civil society in Hobbes. The state of nature is quite positive, with men being relatively equal. Rousseau states that in a state of nature, the first inequalities do not have any consequences, because there is only infrequent contact between men (Wokler, 2001). These are natural or physical inequalities that men have, such as height or strength.
He also argued that savage ancestors have two natural traits. The first is amour de soi, which is a constant impulse to preserve one’s life, the impulse for self-preservation. The second one is pitié, which is compassion for the suffering of other members from the same species (Wokler, 2001). These feelings result in not only caring for oneself, but also for others. From these two traits, every natural right is derived (Wokler, 2001). These two traits cause men to be drawn together, other than reason to avoid a situation that would do harm to them. Also, these two traits caused men to not do harm to one another in the first place, because they would not want to see others suffering. The earlier described natural inequalities could have also not caused war. Rousseau states that war can only come about in a situation with private property, which cannot be the case in a state of nature (Wokler, 2001). Private property could not have been in existence in a state of nature, because there would be no form of social contract in which people accepted private property claims of others. For private property to exist, people first have to convince others of the existence of their private property. When the first people had convinced others, this would be the first risk of war. When people would only have their lives at risk, this would not lead to war, because people would not want to see others suffering (pitié). However, with private property, people would not only have their lives to fear, but also their property (Wokler, 2001). This would lead to war, because this private property would not be protected from others with the trait of pitié. This would never happen in a state of nature, because private property claims could never be expressed or be understood without language or society (Wokler, 2001). War would therefore not be present in this state of nature.
Why did people then get out of this state of nature if it is a such a peaceful state where man has a good life? This ‘escape’ from the state of nature came about with the emergence of major inequalities between men. If we want to talk about this, first we have to look at Rousseau his vision of what makes us different from animals, the concepts of freedom and perfectibility. Freedom is the ability to not only be governed by appetite (Bertram, 2012). The perfectibility of man is the ability to change one his essential qualities and to improve them over time (Wokler, 2011). When men started to improve his best qualities, other men must have come to notice how he differs from other men. One would start to compare himself to others, and would notice some difference in how their qualities would be perceived (Wokler, 2011). This would lead to moral distinctions about which qualities are good and which are not. When people started to respect some more than others, this would lead to major inequalities between men. Qualities in speech resulted in some proving their right for private property to others (Wokler, 2011). When people have power over others and some have more than others, this would be the end of Rousseau his state of nature.
Comparison between both concepts of the state of nature
The main differences between the Hobbesian and the Rousseauian state of nature can be found in perception of human nature and motivations of actions in the state of nature.
Steinberger (2008) states that the main difference between Hobbes and Rousseau is the pre-political approach of Hobbes in contrast to both the pre-social and the pre-political approach of Rousseau. Hobbes talks about the continual fear that people have, for example in terms of losing a wife or child to violence of others. This involves the earlier described competition between men. Therefore, his concept of a state of nature is social, because there are social interactions. It is also pre-political, whereas it lacks a legitimate political regime (Steinberger, 2008). Whereas Hobbes’ state of nature is only pre-political, it is assumed that Rousseau is talking about both a pre-political and a pre-social state of nature (Steinberger, 2008). That Rousseau is pure pre-social is a bit doubtful, whereas he talks about people uniting in a state of nature, but they are nothing more than a larger player in war. They are not a people, but just a multitude, which will fall apart when a leader falls away, because they are not really united (Steinberger, 2008).
For both Rousseau and Hobbes, getting out of the state of nature by means of a social contract, is caused by individuals seeking for peace and security (Steinberger, 2008). The main point is the different view on what is natural, such as sociability in the nature of man.
Whereas Steinberger (2008) talks about underlying principles of both concepts of the state of nature, there are also more differences. Rousseau thinks of society as a corrupting factor for people, since it will ruin their relative equality and will not result in an optimal situation. Hobbes talks about the positive influences of society as there must be some sort of restriction on the natural state of war that people are in, for their own benefits. This is caused by their conception of what is natural in people, as a starting point.
Rousseau states that people have compassion for others in this state of nature, whereas Hobbes focuses more on self-preservation. Seemingly, this leads to people in Rousseau his state of nature being naturally morally ‘better’ than in Hobbes. However, this is arguable, because Hobbes also talks about people that do not want to lose their wives and children, which implies some sort of compassion as well. Hobbes does not focus on this. To say that in Rousseau it is non-sociable, also might be a step too far. He may say that people joining as a means of self-preservation in the state of nature is not a real people at all, but he also describes compassion as part of human nature. It would be also quite plausible that people that uniting in a state of nature will still connect in some sort of way. Even with the absence of language, it is imaginable that people will remain to have a feeling above compassion for each other. The sociability in the state of nature is present in both concepts, but applied differently.
Relevance of a state of nature
Since their concepts are both different, is it useful to think about man in a state of nature that is artificial and hypothetical? To talk about the influences of civil society, a hypothetical state of nature is useful to get to the uninfluenced state of human nature, to which someone can build on. This helps one to think of an ideal way of organizing a society, where the needs of people from their natural and unconscious state are fulfilled. It could, however, be more useful for nowadays to focus on what people need in a modern-day society, because it could be that people in a state of nature do not represent our nature, whereas they are also put in some context that is different from the context of present day society. Generally, it is also questionable whether our nature is really relevant to determine how people benefit or not benefit from civil society or a certain form of government. One could also look at the situation of people in a civil society and look at what drives them, without artificially creating a hypothetical state of nature. Whether a state of nature is relevant now, or was ever relevant, is thus questionable. Besides the relevancy, Hobbes and Rousseau gave us, however, an interesting view on what human nature could be like.