caglar_yenihancer_14.05.2013

8/13/2019 caglar_yenihancer_14.05.2013

1/5

The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau

Natural state of man has been one of the major themes in political philosophy for

centuries. This is because the discussion over the state of nature reveals the underlying

reasons why man has had to establish political societies according to Hobbes as well as the

causes of mans misery according to Rousseau. For Hobbes, mans natural state is miserable,

nasty and fearful that is why, he has needed to found some institutions for self!protection.

However, for Rousseau, this is not a valid argument because he firmly believes that man was

much happier at least in his early natural state. "n other words, both Hobbes and Rousseau in

their theories appeal to the state of nature as a phase before the formation of political society,

but their views of the state of nature are #uite different. "n the light of the information above,

this paper will e$plain the differences between these two views and e$amine the effects of

their differing views of state of nature on their understanding of the legitimacy and bases of

the social contract. For this reason, " can claim that Hobbes has a more feasible theory of

mans natural state as regards the formation of political societies and legitimacy of social

contract.

First of all, Hobbes and Rousseaus views differ from each other in terms of natural

state of man. %n the hand, Hobbes regards natural state of man as brutal, nasty and miserable

in which everyone is free to act as they wish and may pose a ris& to others e$istence and

survival. 'an is also always in the fear of being &illed in a painful way because everyone is

an enemy to each other. That is why, he says that (the passions that incline men to peace are)

fear of death desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living and a hope by their

industry to obtain them* +-/. 0veryone can go after his own instincts and claim rights on

others property for self!protection, reputation or glory. "n such a state, one cannot e$pect

peace and order therefore, there must be a political institution that would guarantee these

aspects. %n the other hand, Rousseau considers human nature good, yet it is to be corrupted


2/5

by society due to some reasons. 1lso, he says that in his natural state man is solitary, but not

brutal to others. "n this state, he is li&e an animal, searching for the ways of satisfying himself

physically for survival. For that reason, man is not an enemy to his fellow men, but there is a

sort of cooperation and collaboration for surviving together. "t is actually related to four

features of human nature such as lac& of rationality, lac& of morality, physical freedom and no

coercive impact of society. "n other words, they are dependent on each other in order to

struggle with natural conditions in their environment. However, for Rousseau, with the

formation of political societies, greediness and ine#ualities arise, which is not part of mans

natural state. 1s he points out, (it will be understood how much less difference from man to

man must be in the state of nature than in society, and how much natural ine#uality must

increase in the human species through the ine#uality of social institutions* +Rousseau 23/.

This statement reveals Rousseaus overall point of view about the rising ine#uality in society

after the formation of political and social institutions.

4econdly, their views are different from each other in terms of the phase after man has

left his natural state. For Hobbes, man became much happier after getting rid of his natural

state, because his life was based on peace and order. 'an transferred all his rights to the

sovereign and signed a social contract in which he obtained self!protection with the laws that

the state imposed. For Rousseau, this brought ine#uality as well because man became greedy

for power and wealth. 1s he states, (since the most powerful or the most miserable made of

their strength or their needs, a &ind of right to the possessions of others, e#uivalent in their

opinion, to the right of property, e#uality was destroyed and followed by the most frightful

disorder* +52/. He also says that (honor without virtue, reason without wisdom, and pleasure

without happiness. "t suffices for me to have proved that this is not the original state of man,

and that this is only the spirit of society and the ine#uality it engenders, which thus transform

and corrupt all our natural inclinations* +Rousseau 6/. 7onsidering these statements, one can

3


3/5

conclude that Rousseau was not satisfied with the social institutions that man founded because

for him, it triggered ine#uality because while some of them became richer, others remained

poor in the race of power and wealth.

Finally, Hobbes and Rousseau have a different outloo& on the basis and legitimacy of

social contract. For Hobbes, social contract is an inevitable process because man needs a

central power for self!preservation. He cannot protect himself from outside dangers therefore,

he needs sovereign power for survival. Nevertheless, for Rousseau, social contract is needed,

but it unavoidably creates ine#uality as well as peace and order. "f man were more just and

fair in his actions, social contract would be more beneficial to his life. "n his natural state, man

was more caring and cooperative, but with social contract, he is more individualistic and

greedy. That is why, Rousseau does not believe in the good side of social contract. 1s

Rousseau states, (" must ma&e everyone see that since the bonds of servitude are formed

merely from the mutual dependence of men and from the reciprocal needs that unite them, it

is impossible to enslave a man without first having put him in the position of being unable to

do without another person* +23/. 1s this statement implies, social contract enslaves man to

une#ual chances and opportunities according to Rousseau, but for Hobbes, it is the best form

of self!protection. %therwise, man cannot survive and become happy.

"n my opinion, Hobbes has a more credible theory of mans natural state. First, it is

good enough to comprehend the essence of political societies. Hobbes comes up with

plausible e$planations about how man needed for a political society, but Rousseau remains

insufficient in terms of ma&ing the reader comprehend how man gave consent to shifting to

the formation of political society. 4econd, it well depicts the need for a social contract which

would provide self!preservation or self!protection. "t is for sure that without social contract,

man cannot survive by himself. He has to possess some &ind of peace and order, which social

contract provides with. 'oreover, in social contract, man gives up all his rights and transfers

2


4/5

them to the sovereign, which is logical in terms of the beginning of political societies.

1lthough Rousseau critici8es Hobbes approach to the state of nature from a methodological

perspective with reference to the phases that man has undergone from natural state to a

civili8ed society, " believe that capacity of man as well as his bac&grounds and e$pectations

from life create ine#uality. This argument is valid for the natural state of man. 'an is never

e#ual to his fellow men as long as personal, physical and social differences e$ist.

1ll in all, it is worth e$amining Hobbes and Rousseaus views about natural state of

man because it provides an insight into the legitimacy and basis of social contract as well as

the formation of political societies. The first difference between their views is that while

Hobbes considers mans natural state as miserable, Rousseau sees it as a good and delightful

condition. 4econdly, whereas Hobbes regards the formation of political societies as a need for

stability, peace and order by getting rid of natural state, Rousseau considers it a need arising

out of growing population and changing life conditions. Finally, for Hobbes, social contract is

a great necessity for society, because it is a guarantee for peace, order and self!protection,

whereas for Rousseau it meant to be ine#uality in society. 1s a result of these, one can

conclude that natural state of man needs to be analy8ed for the sa&e of understanding the

essence of political societies and the meaning of social contract.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas.Leviathan.9ondon) :enguin ;oo&s,


5/5

Ritter, 1. 1nd =. 7. ;ondanella. Rousseaus Political Writings. New >or&) Norton and

7ompany,

caglar_yenihancer_14.05.2013

Documents