The State of Nature According to Hobbes and Rousseau

the state of natUre aCCordinG to hobbes and roUsseaU

Aaron Lu

TWO PERSPECTIVES ON THE STATE OF NATURE:ASTATE OF WARANDASTATE OF PEACE

Thomas Hobbes lived through the aftermath of the SpanishArmada and witnessed the English Civil War. His experiences with war certainly influenced his view of the natural state of man, which he shared in his pessimistic social contract theory Leviathan. After reviewing the social contract theories of prominent modern philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an influential contributor to the Enlightenment, offered his insight on the natural state of man in his optimistic social contract theory Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Hobbes would mostly disagree with Rousseau’s depiction of the state of nature due to their conflicting outlooks on human nature.

For both philosophers, natural man acts in the interest of his self-preservation, and his passions reflect his behaviors in the state of nature. Hobbes defines self-preservation as the “preservation of [one’s] ... own life” by any means necessary (Hobbes 79). Similarly, Rousseau defines self-preservation as the fulfillment of man’s “physical needs” of “nourishment and woman and rest” (Rousseau 26). Hobbes’s definition encompasses both human needs and desires, while Rousseau’s definition only encompasses physical human needs; however, both thinkers would concur that subsistence motivates man. Hobbes believes that a “perpetual and restless desire of power after power” drives mankind to pursue prosperity (Hobbes 58). Hobbes explains that when “any two men desire the same thing ... they become enemies ... and endeavour to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes 75). Men actively attempt to conquer other men because they compete with one another for limited resources to survive. Consequently, a condition of war where “every man [is] against every man” characterizes the Hobbesian state of nature (Hobbes 76). However, Rousseau characterizes the state of nature as a condition of relative peace, the exact opposite of Hobbes’s state of nature. Rousseau reveals that natural man’s “innate repugnance to seeing his fellow men suffer ... tempers the ardor he has for his own well-being” (Rousseau 36). Therefore, the universal natural virtue of pity “contributes to the mutual preservation of the entire species” because men empathize with one another and assist one another during times of hardship (Rousseau 38). Hobbes would concur with Rousseau that man ultimately wishes to achieve and maintain his well-being, but Hobbes would dissent from Rousseau in regard to the medium through which natural man achieves his well-being. For Hobbes, man achieved self-preservation through violence; for Rousseau, man achieved it through peace.

Hobbes and Rousseau find identical drawbacks of the state of nature, albeit for different reasons. First, both philosophers would agree that the state of nature lacks industry. Hobbes attributes the lack of economic progress to the inability of men to protect private property. Since men can easily plunder from one another, they have little incentive to acquire property. Hobbes claims that “the fruit [of industry] ... is uncertain” in a condition of war because keeping goods relies on man’s ability to defend it (Hobbes 76). On the other hand, Rousseau claims that “there [would be] neither education nor progress” because man cannot “communicate [his discoveries] to others” (Rousseau 41). Language only developed as men began exercising reason to cooperate with one another.

Hobbes traces the lack of industry to the absence of private property while Rousseau traces the lack of industry to the absence of a language through which men could communicate their findings. There would also be a lack of art, culture, trade, and innovation because these problems arise from the lack of industry. Both states of nature share these obstacles to progress. Second, both thinkers reject the existence of morality in the state of nature. Hobbes believes that men cannot commit injustice because the law principally dictates morality. The law does not exist in his state of nature, and natural man has no innate morality. Thus, “where [there is] no law, [there is] no injustice” (Hobbes 78). While Rousseau concurs that natural man has no innate morality and that society establishes morality, he disagrees about the effect of its absence. Rousseau criticizes Hobbes because he “wrongly injected into the savage man’s concern for self- preservation the need to satisfy a multitude of passions which are the product of society” (Rousseau 35). Basically, Rousseau criticizes Hobbes for using societal bias to form his supposed conclusion that man “is naturally evil” because he “has no idea of goodness” (Rousseau 35). Instead, Rousseau asserts that man’s “ignorance of vice prevents [him] from doing evil” (Rousseau 36). However, Rousseau’s criticism and assertion contradict each other. Men in the Hobbesian state of nature cannot be evil if they do not have a morality to abide by just as Hobbes contended. If Rousseau were referring to an absolute standard of morality instead, then it would not make sense for men to be unaware of it because Rousseau claimed that natural man’s “heart asks nothing of him” (Rousseau 27). Hobbes would consider the possibility that he formed a distorted opinion, but he would highlight the flaws in Rousseau’s argument. Nevertheless, both thinkers would agree that the state of nature lacks industry and morality.

Both philosophers also acknowledge the effect of unlimited liberty in the state of nature. Hobbes defines liberty as “the absence of external impediments” on what man can do (Hobbes 79). Since the state of nature has no laws, morality does not exist. Furthermore, in a state of war, “every man has a right to everything, even to one another’s body” (Hobbes 80). Therefore, private property cannot exist because men can forcefully steal it. The Hobbesian state of nature does not guarantee private property rights. Rousseau defines liberty as the ability to deviate from freedom. He says that an animal “chooses or rejects by instinct” but natural man “by an act of freedom ... often to his own detriment” (Rousseau 25). Freedom, according to Rousseau, simply means not behaving on instinct but reason. Rousseau defines reason as a response to difficult conditions. For example, Rousseau says that men in cold regions exercise reason by covering themselves “with the skins of animals they had killed” (Rousseau 45). Reason eventually allows men to recognize their physical differences and this realization leads to material inequality because the physically superior men could amass more property. Hence, Rousseau considers the development of private property as a byproduct of reason which does not exist in the state of nature. Because men do not need reason nor private property to satisfy their physical needs, private property does not exist in the Rousseauian state of nature. Additionally, reason causes men to lose their innate pity because men become envious of one another due to their physical and material inequalities. It “engenders egocentrism” and “turns man in upon himself” (Rousseau 37). Hobbes ascribed the lack of private property to unlimited liberty while Rousseau ascribed the lack of private property to the ignorance of reason in the state of nature. Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau concludes that unlimited liberty gives men the opportunity to adopt reason.

Hobbes and Rousseau highlight two distinct types of equality in their opposing states of nature. Hobbes observes an equality of vulnerability because “nature [has] made men so equal in the faculties of body and the mind” to where the strongest can kill the weakest and “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest” (Hobbes 74). In other words, men who can overpower others with strength might be outsmarted with cunning. On the other hand, Rousseau recognizes an equality equated to a lack of inequality. He reasons that “inequality is hardly observable

in the state of nature” because “all [men] nourish themselves from the same foods, live in the same manner, and do exactly the same things” (Rousseau 42). Men live the same lifestyles because they do not recognize their physical inequalities, and therefore, do not assert superiority to subjugate others.Additionally, the “law of the strongest” does not apply because natural man does not depend on any other man to live (Rousseau 43). Thus, no inequality between master and slave exists in Rousseau’s state of nature but can in that of Hobbes because men would use their physical advantages to improve their own welfare without the consideration of others’. In their respective states of nature, Hobbes observes an equality of vulnerability that results from constant war while Rousseau observes an equality of rank that results from relative peace.

Hobbes would largely disagree with Rousseau’s depiction of the state of nature because Hobbes considers man as naturally vicious while Rousseau considers man as peaceful. Although both thinkers would acknowledge an absence of industry, morality, and private property, they would do so for different reasons. Both believe that unlimited liberty can lead to violence, and both hold unique perspectives on equality. Since the opposite of the state of nature is political society, Hobbes’s political society would be generally peaceful while Rousseau’s would be generally violent. Hobbes’s assessment of Rousseau’s state of nature would simply be a comparison of the two. Given that bloodshed has decreased in the long run in a world full of political societies, Hobbes’s assessment of Rousseau’s state of nature is persuasive.

WORKS CITED

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1688.

EDITED BY

Edwin Curley, Hackett Pub., 1994. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Translated by DonaldA. Cress, Hackett Pub., 1992.