To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Throughout history, political philosophers have contemplated the hypothetical scenario of the "state of nature" to better understand human existence, society, and governance. Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke have grappled with questions regarding human nature, the role of government, and the pursuit of peace. In this essay, we will delve into Thomas Hobbes' perspective on the state of nature, examining his definition of peace and the reasons he posits for the necessity of seeking it. We will also explore critiques of Hobbes' views, particularly in comparison to the ideas of other philosophers such as Rousseau and Locke.
To appreciate why Hobbes argues that individuals should seek peace, we must first understand his conception of peace and the state of nature. Hobbes asserts that in the state of nature, human beings exist without any form of government, leading to a state of constant warfare, where individuals are in conflict with one another (Wolff 2006, pp. 6-7).
Verified writer
Proficient in: Justice
5 (234)
“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”
This condition is marked by a lack of political authority, absence of social institutions, and unrestrained competition for resources and power (Boucher 1990, p. 208).
In Hobbes' view, the state of nature is not merely a state of physical combat but also a state of perpetual readiness for conflict—a "constant disposition to fight" (Boucher 1990, p. 208). It is a condition where individuals are inherently at odds with each other, creating an environment of hostility and insecurity. Hobbes' perspective on the state of nature is notably pessimistic, portraying it as a realm of fear and danger (Hobbes 1996, p. 84).
Contrasting this constant state of warfare, Hobbes defines peace as the absence of war—a condition where individuals are not engaged in violent conflict with one another (Hobbes 1996, p. 84). In his view, peace represents a desirable and rational state of affairs that is fundamentally distinct from the constant state of war that characterizes the state of nature (Gauthier 2001, p. 8).
Now that we have established Hobbes' definitions of peace and the state of nature, we can explore why he contends that every individual should actively seek peace.
Hobbes asserts that human beings have an inherent inclination to seek peace because they recognize that the state of nature is perilous and fraught with danger (Trainor 1985, p. 348). In the state of nature, individuals live in perpetual fear of death and harm, as they lack the security and protection that a structured society or government can provide (Hobbes 1996, p. 84). This fear for one's life serves as a compelling motive for individuals to strive for peace (Gauthier 2001, p. 13).
Hobbes further posits that individuals are driven by a natural desire for happiness and power (Hobbes 1996, p. 111). He contends that continual success in obtaining desired goods, or felicity, can be achieved through the acquisition of power, which encompasses riches and authority over others (van Mill 1995, p. 452). In the state of nature, where resources are scarce, competition arises as people vie for these limited goods. This competitive environment can lead to conflict and, ultimately, war (Wolff 2006, p. 22).
Hobbes emphasizes the scarcity of resources in the state of nature, asserting that even when two or more individuals desire the same thing, conflict is inevitable (Wolff 2006, p. 22). This scarcity, coupled with the inherent human desire for power and felicity, fosters an environment in which competition often escalates into violence (van Mill 1995, p. 452). Hobbes' argument suggests that the pursuit of peace becomes imperative to avoid the destructive consequences of this competition.
While Hobbes' argument for seeking peace in the state of nature is grounded in a pessimistic view of human nature and the inevitability of conflict, it has faced criticism from other prominent philosophers who present alternative perspectives on human behavior and the state of nature.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau provides a stark contrast to Hobbes' outlook. He argues that in the state of nature, humans have few desires and tend to acquire goods through gathering or hunting, rather than resorting to theft or violence (Wolff 2006, p. 26). Rousseau contends that individuals in the state of nature are primarily concerned with their own survival and well-being, exhibiting little interest in power or dominance over others (Lane Jr. and Clark 2006, p. 67). Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau paints a more positive picture of the natural state, emphasizing cooperation and mutual support over conflict.
John Locke's perspective also differs significantly from Hobbes' view of the state of nature. Locke posits that in the state of nature, individuals are endowed with natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property (Wolff 2006, pp. 17-18). Contrary to Hobbes, Locke maintains that individuals are morally bound to refrain from harming others, even in the absence of a governing authority (Wolff 2006, pp. 18-19). Locke's view is more optimistic, suggesting that individuals can coexist peacefully and respect one another's rights without descending into a constant state of war.
Anarchist thinkers, such as Peter Kropotkin, reject Hobbes' contention that the state of nature inevitably leads to conflict and violence. They argue that humans possess a natural inclination to cooperate and collaborate, rather than engage in aggression (Slatter 1996, p. 258). According to anarchists, the absence of hierarchical structures and authority would not necessarily result in chaos and violence; instead, it could foster voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.
Hobbes' argument for seeking peace in the state of nature is built upon a foundation of fear, competition, and the pursuit of self-preservation. While his perspective is rooted in a particular interpretation of human nature, it is essential to recognize the limits and potential flaws in his argument.
Hobbes' portrayal of the state of nature as a place where individuals live in constant fear of being killed or harmed may be an overly pessimistic characterization. Critics argue that it is unlikely that humans, left to their own devices, would persistently resort to violence and aggression (Wolff 2006, p. 24). Alternative viewpoints, such as Rousseau's and anarchist perspectives, suggest that cooperation and compassion are equally intrinsic to human nature.
Hobbes' argument does not consider the notion of natural rights, as proposed by thinkers like Locke. While Hobbes emphasizes the pursuit of self-preservation, Locke argues that individuals have inherent rights to life and property, which provide a moral framework for peaceful coexistence (Wolff 2006, pp. 17-19). This alternative perspective highlights the possibility of individuals respecting one another's rights even without the presence of a sovereign authority.
Anarchists and some other philosophers challenge Hobbes' belief that a lack of authority necessarily leads to conflict. They contend that humans have the capacity to engage in voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, negating the need for overarching governing bodies (Slatter 1996, p. 258). This perspective suggests that peaceful coexistence is achievable without the imposition of external authority.
Thomas Hobbes' argument for seeking peace in the state of nature is rooted in a pessimistic view of human nature, where fear, competition, and the pursuit of self-preservation dominate. However, his perspective faces criticism from other philosophers who present more optimistic interpretations of human behavior and the potential for cooperation in the absence of government.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke offer alternative views that emphasize cooperation, mutual support, and natural rights as guiding principles in the state of nature. Anarchist thinkers propose that humans have an innate inclination to collaborate and organize themselves voluntarily, challenging the notion that a lack of authority inevitably leads to chaos and violence.
In conclusion, while Hobbes' argument sheds light on the bleak consequences of the state of nature, it is essential to recognize that human behavior is multifaceted, and alternative perspectives offer more optimistic visions of how individuals can coexist peacefully and harmoniously, even without the presence of external authority. The debate over the nature of humanity and the state of nature remains a central theme in political philosophy, with different thinkers providing diverse perspectives on this fundamental question.
Living in the State of Nature: Hobbes' Perspective and Its Critique. (2020, Jun 02). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/hobbes-must-every-man-endeavour-peace-might-difficult-new-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
