The State Of Nature and Human Nature Philosophy

The State Of Nature and Human Nature Philosophy

In political theory, the state of nature is the hypothetical or real condition of humans before or without any political connection. Social contract philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes on this notion to examine the justification and limits of political authority. The theory perceives that a person’s morality and political obligations depend on the agreement among them in the formation of the community in which they live. Moreover, the philosophy integrates the state of human nature to evaluate the legitimacy of societies. This theory is among the dominant philosophies within the political and moral domains among the history of the modern West. Both Hobbes and Rousseau are considered as theorists who understand society as the rational creation of humans. Notably, the two philosophers have similar and unique views on the state of nature. The opinion and disagreements of both Hobbes and Rousseau are crucial to understanding the explanation of the world.

Thomas Hobbes theory

Hobbes lived during the most vital era of early modern British history through the civil war that spread between 1642 and 1648. In 1651, he famously wrote that the life of man in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (76). Hobbes school of thought considers human beings as atomistic individuals who are in constant disagreement with fellow humans. Moreover, the theorist regards the lack of harmony as individuals who use the force of superior authority to maintain peace, order, and serenity. According to Crettez, Hobbes considers men as individuals who are born the same and in a free state of nature (499). In addition, the natural man was endowed with negative freedom. In the situation, no legitimized entity exerted and coerced influence over human actions.

Hobbes’s theory was greatly influenced by the science revolution discoveries on the possibility of describing and predict the universe in accordance with natural laws. His philosophical masterwork, Leviathan, discusses the view of society, politics, and morality. According to Nepal, Hobbes sought to provide a framework of human nature that would parallel discoveries made by science (785). His political theory was informed by mechanism, which states the general impression that everything in the world is produced by matter in motion. Hobbes extends this observation to human behavior. Crettez says that people’s macro behavior can be described as the effect of specific forms of micro-behaviors, even though this is invisible to humans (500). This observation means other micro-actions inside us create such conduct such as talking, walking, and jumping. Furthermore, human interaction with other bodies or individuals causes macro-actions.  Eventually, the process creates chains of cause and effect, which establishes the observable human behavior.

Hobbes school of thought details that human actions and choices are explainable in terms of universal laws of nature as scientists explain motion in earthly bodies. From his view, people are complicated organic machines who respond to world stimuli mechanistically and agreeing with human nature.  According to Crettez, Hobbes describes the mechanical quality of social psychology to imply the subjective kind of normality (501). For example, the words ‘love’ and ‘hate’ are terms that humans use to describe attracting or unappealing things, respectively. Thus, the works have no meaning other than to distinguish and delineate human appetites. Hobbes stated that moral terms do not describe the actual state of affairs but rather the expressions of an individual’s preferences.

From the compelling premises of human nature, Hobbes develops a provocative argument about why humans submit themselves willingly to political association.  The philosopher accomplishes this by imagining people in a situation before the creation of human society. According to Keenan, Hobbes’s justification for a political obligation is humans will choose to submit to authorities to live in a civil society conducive for their specific interests (488). The theorist argues this position by perceiving men in their natural state, which is the state of nature. In such a hypothetical country, humans are exclusively but naturally self-interested due to limited resources. However, there exists no power that forces individuals to cooperate. Hobbes resolves that the state of nature would be unbearably brutal, cruel, and unrelenting, as people would fear to lose their lives to each other.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau Philosophy

Rousseau lived through the most reckless period in the modern history of France. Born in 1712, the theorist was among the bright lights of the Enlightenment intellectual movement and wrote significant contributing articles to the Encyclopedia of Diderot (Waldow 343). Rousseau developed two distinct theories concerning the human state of nature. His first theory is found in the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men essay. According to Garrard, the essay gives a comprehensive account of the political and moral evolution of human beings from the state of nature to modern society (70). In his second essay, Rousseau presents an idealized or normative theory of the human state. The account seeks to offer a means that alleviates the problems faced by modern society as established in the social contract.

Rousseau authored the Second Discourse in response to an essay contest he had won earlier in Dijon. According to Garrard, the philosopher describes the historical process in which humankind originated in a state of nature and progressed over time into civil society (71). Rousseau describes the state of nature as a peaceful, idealistic, and romantic experience. During that time, humans lived uncomplicated and solitary lives where their needs were easily fulfilled by nature. According to Rousseau, competition before civil society was non-existent since individuals rarely saw each other and had less reason for fear of conflict. According to Oswaldo, Rousseau highlights the small size of the population, and the abundance of nature developed morally pure people endowed with the capacity of pity, empathy, and care for others (22). However, all this would change as humanity continued to face specific changes.

Rousseau argues that as the overall human population grew, how individuals could meet their needs had to change. Humans started to live slowly together in small families, then into small communities, and finally into modern society (Oswaldo 73). The developments led to the division of labor within families and communities. Moreover, inventions and scientific discoveries made human life more comfortable, which led to the development of leisure activities. According to Rousseau, the creation of leisure time facilitated humans to make comparisons between themselves and other individuals in society. Notably, the developments led to the origin of public and moral values that lead to disgrace, envy, disrespect, and pride. More significantly, the invention of private property created a pivotal moment in humanity. Rousseau argues that the moment led to humans characterized by greed, inequality, vanity, jealousy, and competition. These inventions led to people falling out of the state of nature into modern society.

Comparison between Hobbes and Rousseau theories

          Hobbes and Rousseau had similar thoughts on the state of human nature. The former argued that natural human condition outside political authority is a solitary and complicated experience. Rousseau counters Hobbes’ theory claiming human nature is inherently good, and that people could have lived peaceful lives before modern society. At first glance, both theorists seem to be representing opposing thoughts in an attempt to answer the critical question on human nature. The actual positions of Hobbes and Rousseau spark a philosophical debate on the evaluation of the political world lived by humans. The essential similarity for their theories is attempting to answer the question of whether people are naturally evil or good.

Humans are complex creatures capable of doing both evil and good. According to Oswaldo, Rousseau and Hobbes agreed that political possibilities and radical visions about human nature shape the people’s judgment about societies (21). However, Hobbes did not consider humans as naturally evil and argued individuals are not connected permanently to live together in large-scale political communities. The theorist contends that people are different from political animals such as ants, who collaborate to accomplish a common good. Notably, Hobbes insisted that human beings are selfish and care about the material wellbeing, and maintaining reputation. In his view, people’s intense care about social status drives them into competition and conflict over scarce resources. According to Crettez, Hobbes argues that humans should submit their lives to political bodies with the power to resolve disagreements and enforce laws (505). Furthermore, as long as the authorities preserve peace, people should not question the legitimacy of societal bodies. Such a challenge leads humans back to the state of nature, the solitary, complicated, nasty, and worst possible place to live.

Hobbes presents a political analysis of how an authoritative political state is an answer to the selfish, material, and competitive nature of humans. For Rousseau, everything went wrong when people incorporated the arts of industry and business, which led to high levels of private property. In addition, the move led to inequality, social division, and economic interdependence. According to Waldow, where strong social bonds once connected families and communities, the aggression of inequality turned humans into ruthless competitors for domination and status (346). A distinct aspect of Rousseau’s theory in natural goodness is that social and political institutions turn humans into evil. The philosopher perceives human nature as incapable of being redeemed once the chances of redemption vanished. Rousseau’s narrative portrays Hobbes as a pessimist by considering political authority as the answer to human nature. Rousseau opposes his school of thought by wondering how individualistic creatures manage to establish peaceful societies.  The unique perspectives of the two theorists continue to divide the world today.

Reflection

Rousseau does not contradict that humans have selfish tendencies. Notably, he recognizes the Hobbes approach that people have the capacity for compassion, empathy, and care towards fellow human beings. Moreover, Rousseau contends that people can form a society and govern themselves without the restraining authority of a tyrant. I believe his criticism of Hobbes is justified as humans can only realize their potentialities with being a member of a cooperative society. In addition, Rousseau’s school of thought does not believe in an inevitable opposition between the political authorities and humans. He submits that people willingly and freely created communities with the collective will to achieve a specific goal. I believe Rousseau’s argument is logical in that no individual has a natural right to govern others in a state of nature.

I believe Hobbes has the most plausible perception of the human nature theory. The philosopher states that the state of nature represents the people’s interactions in the absence of political or social authority. In such a scenario, I think humans would be at war with each other since humans are concerned with their personal needs and desires. The world today sees people with the endless desire to acquire the power to ensure no one fulfills an individual’s desires of material and glory.  Modern governments use the authority to create situations of favorable long-term projects that will benefit an entire society.  The enforcement of laws makes continuous violence and fear, which is beneficial for the growth of industries such as farming and business.

Socialization is a significant account of understanding human nature. I believe Hobbes’s argument clearly describes and integrates the aspect of explaining humanity. He argues that specific kinds of micro activities can distinctly represent macro-behavior. For instance, human behavior such as walking, running, or talking are created by smaller actions within our bodies. This account thus explains the impact of socialization in the state of nature. Humans might be sophisticated individuals, but their interactions with others creates a notion of self-interest. The quality of socialization determines the reputation with a person and the need for competition for scarce resources.

I believe the question on whether humans are naturally violent or selfish creatures is something theorists such as Hobbes and Rousseau should refrain from making comments. I think people are complex individuals capable of both good and evil deeds. To side with any of the philosophers would be a naïve approach of someone failing to grasp the messy and complicated reality of the human condition. I believe what Rousseau, Hobbes, and other theorists considered are how the fundamental perceptions of human nature influence our judgments. I do not think people are naturally evil or good. People with the best aspects of generosity, solidarity, and empathy surround our society. In addition, you will still find people demonstrating the bad aspects of humanity.

Cabrales, Antonio, et al. “It Is Hobbes, Not Rousseau: an Experiment on Voting and Redistribution.” Experimental Economics, vol. 15, no. 2, 2012, pp. 278–308.

Nepal, Padam. “Of Social Contract And Ecopoutics : Revisiting the Ideas of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in an Ecopolitical Context.” The Indian Journal of Political Science, vol. 71, no. 3, 2010, pp. 795–804.

Keenan, Brian. “Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau by John Plamenatz (Review).” Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 51, no. 3, 2013, pp. 488–489.

Crettez, Bertrand. “On Hobbes’s State of Nature and Game Theory.” Theory and Decision, vol. 83, no. 4, 2017, pp. 499–511.

Oswaldo, Plata Pineda. “Jean Hampton’s Interpretation of Conflict in Thomas Hobbes’ State of Nature.” Escritos, vol. 24, no. 52, 2016, pp. 21–36.

Garrard, Graeme. “Rousseau, Happiness and Human Nature.” Political Studies, vol. 62, no. 1, 2014, pp. 70–82.

Waldow, Anik. “The Artifice of Human Nature: Rousseau and Herder.” Intellectual History Review, vol. 25, no. 3, 2015, pp. 343–356.