To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, two prominent philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, explored the concept of the state of nature.
While both philosophers delved into this foundational human condition, their interpretations differed significantly. Although there are points of convergence in their ideas, the prevailing contrast between their perspectives can be attributed to their distinct conceptions of human nature and their views on humanity itself.
For Hobbes, the state of nature was synonymous with a state of war.
He contended that in this primal condition, individuals were pitted against one another due to their innate self-preservation instincts. According to Hobbes, human beings were naturally driven by the desire to live and secure their own safety, leading them to take actions that could endanger others. Consequently, the state of nature resembled a perpetual conflict, characterized by individuals constantly vying for dominance and security. Hobbes' theory portrayed a competitive and violent environment, in stark contrast to Rousseau's more optimistic perspective.
Hobbes further elaborated on the nature of human beings in the state of nature in his work "Leviathan." He posited that individuals in this state were motivated by basic instincts, primarily the instinct to preserve their own lives and secure their safety.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Nature
4.7 (235)
“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”
In this condition, every individual was potentially a threat to others, as the pursuit of self-preservation often led to conflict and violence. Thus, Hobbes' state of nature was marked by a pervasive atmosphere of fear and mistrust among individuals.
Rousseau, on the other hand, presented a contrasting vision of the state of nature. He believed that in its most primitive form, humanity lived in harmony and peace. Rousseau's state of nature featured individuals who were devoid of complex emotions, language, and the ability to understand one another. However, this absence of sophistication did not lead to violence or competition. According to Rousseau, the basic instincts of individuals in this state of nature were aligned with their needs, and there was no necessity for harming others to satisfy those needs. Consequently, the state of nature, as envisioned by Rousseau, bore no resemblance to Hobbes' warlike scenario.
Rousseau's concept of the state of nature can be found in his work "Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men." In this work, he argued that humans were naturally solitary beings in the state of nature, lacking complex emotions and social structures. While individuals pursued their basic needs, there was no competition or conflict, as resources were abundant and needs were easily met. Rousseau's state of nature, therefore, represented a peaceful and idyllic existence.
In assessing the relative merits of these two theories, it becomes evident that Hobbes' concept of the state of nature holds more relevance for several reasons. Firstly, the crux of the difference between their theories lies in their understanding of human nature. Hobbes, in his work "Leviathan," delves into the basic instincts of humanity, emphasizing the primal drives of self-preservation and security. He argues that these instincts, while essential for individual survival, inherently place individuals in conflict with one another. The perpetual fear of harm from others results in a state akin to war.
Contrastingly, Rousseau's portrayal of natural humans as peaceful and noble seems somewhat idealistic. If we were to accept Rousseau's depiction of humanity in a state of nature as being so inherently good and peaceful, it raises questions about how society could become so corrupted, as Rousseau suggests. If humanity were indeed as naive and inherently virtuous as Rousseau describes, the societies they form should not descend into the state of disorder that Rousseau portrays. Hobbes, in this regard, offers a more pragmatic understanding of human nature and its implications for the civil state.
Furthermore, Rousseau's perspective raises questions about how human beings, in their idealized state of nature, compare to other species in the animal kingdom. In reality, language, beliefs, and societal structures are key factors that distinguish humans from other animals and confer upon them their superiority. Rousseau's theory implies that in the absence of these factors, humans should coexist peacefully, free from competition or aggression. However, a closer look at the behavior of many animal species reveals a stark contrast to Rousseau's vision. Animals often exhibit territoriality and aggressiveness, akin to Hobbes' description of "simple man." Thus, Rousseau's idealized state of nature appears disconnected from observable natural behavior.
For instance, lions fiercely defend their territory and compete with other prides for resources, demonstrating the inherent conflict that can arise in the natural world. Similarly, chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, engage in territorial disputes and power struggles within their social groups. These behaviors align more closely with Hobbes' depiction of human nature in the state of nature, characterized by competition, conflict, and self-preservation.
One point of agreement between Hobbes and Rousseau is the notion that human beings were initially equal in the state of nature. However, their reasons for this equality differ. Rousseau contends that societal inequality arises due to physical disparities, variations in mental capabilities, and the influence of civilization. In contrast, Hobbes argues that the initial equality among humans is not significantly compromised by such differences and does not result in division among them.
Rousseau posits that in the state of nature, physical differences and variations in mental abilities were not significant enough to create inequalities that would disrupt the peaceful coexistence of individuals. However, with the advent of society and the development of language, these differences became more pronounced, leading to the emergence of inequality. Rousseau's perspective on inequality primarily focuses on the societal and cultural factors that magnify these disparities.
In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau offered contrasting perspectives on the state of nature, shaped by their divergent views on human nature and society. While both philosophers acknowledged a form of initial equality among humans in the state of nature, Hobbes' interpretation, with its emphasis on innate self-preservation instincts and the resulting state of war, appears to provide a more realistic and relevant understanding of the human condition. Rousseau's idealized state of nature, though noble in its conception, appears disconnected from the observable behavior of both humans and animals.
Hobbes' theory aligns more closely with the complexities of human nature and the challenges of societal organization. It acknowledges the inherent conflict and competition that can arise from human instincts, providing a framework for understanding the need for governance and social contracts. Rousseau's theory, while offering an idealized vision of humanity in its natural state, does not fully account for the complexities and contradictions of human behavior observed in both historical and contemporary contexts. In practical terms, Hobbes' perspective better explains the necessity for governance and the development of social contracts to mitigate the inherent conflicts arising from self-preservation instincts.
Comparing Hobbes and Rousseau on the State of Nature. (2016, Sep 11). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/re-rousseau-and-hobbes-conception-of-state-of-nature-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
