ACCOUNTS ON THE STATE OF NATURE 2
Running head: ACCOUNTS ON THE STATE OF NATURE 1
Comparing and Contrasting the Assumptions of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau about the State of Nature and the View One Aligns To the Most
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
In late medieval periods, political power was key in controlling order and a state of natural order. Political power originated from natural conditions which were generally supported by limited power to which many individuals were required to renounce their natural liberty. The state of nature as defined by great philosophers is tied down to theories, real or hypothetical conditions in which humans correlate in, with or without any political association. Social-contract theorists such as, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes bank on ideas that examine the justification and limit of political authority with Jean-Jacques Rousseau seeking to legitimize human society itself. The ideas of the three theorists have some common similarities as well as some difference. The major themes discussed by the three theorists mostly tackle issues pertaining to the absence of sovereignty among the people.
Hobbes Account
Many commonly refer to Hobbes as the father of modern age political science. He used a systematic way to arrive at the definition of severity with his overall notion of human agency revolving around the delight and displeasure among us. To him, all men were roughly equal with life circumstances putting some in positions that seem to put them above others. Even with individual characteristics such as height, weight, knowledge or even age, all men are equal only having a sort of natural hierarchy to which some openly use to their benefit. To him, men always put themselves in a position where they are more intelligent than others, but in the real sense, it is illogical to have one man being wise than most others. To Hobbes, the search for happiness and personal fulfillment coupled with us being relatively equal in terms of knowledge and capabilities sets us on a course of collision.
As he further explains the quest for personal gratification and personal achievement offsets the moral and social fabric to which we live in. Most are the times we enjoy the suffering and conquest of others rather than act in a manner that may help them. Hobbes only sees the justification for having a personal gain within nature was only one was securing his wellbeing from harm. To him, self-preservation should be adopted by the government which brings harmony and a sense of harmony to the state of nature. By further elaborating on the laws of nature, Hobbes shows how we can live in peace in the state of nature which further promotes individual rationality. He also acknowledges that even if it is logical to seek peace, the state of nature will always be mixed since not all people are for peace.
Locke’s Account
In comparison to Hobbes, Locke’s’ account seems to be more placed and pleasant with the laws of the natural state, to which much is oriented towards preserving the best there is in human nature. He shares a religious view with some of his ideas branding humans as God’s property to which he attains one should not seek to harm another human being. To have such a law means there needs to be an enforcer. Locke just like Hobbes sees the solution to solving the problem of inequality as treating all humans as equals to which every human has a mandate of enforcing their authority to attain. By applying the laws of nature, Locke believes there would be no reason for people to be irrational and self-centered. He labels those who do not want to live as their brother’s keeper as a public enemy, and further explains why they should be put to punishment as per the laws of nature. Locke, however, does not accept how impartially laws are interpreted with most victims of crime never getting justice.
Furthermore, Locke does not identify with the use of certain resources such as money which to him break the moral fabric of how people interact. To a lot of individuals around the world, the lack of money put one in an underprivileged position, which limits their ability to afford a decent living. He believes most will hoard money and resources to meet further their future desires which contradict with the laws of nature and equitable living for all. Of the three theorists, I identify with Locke’s ideology more, since they are oriented towards living right in harmony with all around you including the eternal father. Locke work is geared towards defining how we should live in harmony free of the and evil towards each other which is more of peace which is a vital message in today’s world where people and nations always seem ready to break the peace and initiate war and hate among themselves.
Rousseau Account
To Rousseau, he attributes natural human qualities to those found in their societies. His theory is majorly influenced by zoological and anthropological discoveries to which he depicts the human nature to be more different from that of any other being or organism. He explains man is morally innocent but somewhat influenced to new ideas both good and bad; either knowingly or through influence. He goes on to explain man becomes corrupt through a corrupt process to which many involve themselves is to gain a social position in society. It’s a vice that disrupts the natural state of the society with the government being the fabric to which corruption finds its roots. Rousseau’s theory on politics seeks to recapture much of where we go wrong with the main goal being to return parity to the natural law of social contract. However, Rousseau harmonious living differs slightly to Hobbes concept of social antagonism founded on political philosophy. To Rousseau, we live in a primitive state which is preceded by socialization and which creates a void of social traits such as hate, envy, and fear of others. In this nature, humans seek to become morally neutral and live peacefully while avoiding basic urges that are meant to break the social fabric that keeps humans in norms of social justice and fairness.
In conclusion, the natural fabric to which we live in is what defines human nature. In our nature, we ought to establish the objectives that define fairness and justice among us all. It is in this space that we come to develop a harmonious state of nature. As explained in the work of pre-political of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, the state of nature is composed of various features which make human just as they are right from their living to the values portrayed in social institutions. The key concept of the three theorists is finding a balance between the natural right of life, liberty, and property. As demonstrated in Locke’s theory, individuals should seek to live in a state through which they violate no one’s rights with the overall political fabric offering a platform through which one can feel and live free with all necessary support coming his/her way.