Political Scince Essay edit

How does Rousseau's of nature compare

and contrast with Hobbes's state of nature?

The vision of the state of nature differs between many social theorists. In political theory state of nature is the actual or hypothetical condition of individuals without political association. Social contract theorists such as Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes relied on this aspect to research on the limits of political authority and the legitimacy of the human society. Rousseau relied on the notion to examine the legitimacy of human society while Hobbes relied on the concept to examine the limits of the political authority (Ryan, 1). This essay is to highlight the difference in the views of the state of nature between Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes.

For Hobbes, the ‘ war of men against men’ defines the state of nature and this is the most important characteristic. Hobbes further maintains that each is in a constant state competition and no one usually cares about the interests of other people. Existence according to him can be described by various adjectives such as poor, short, nasty and solitary. The laws of nature are principles which are based on self-preservation and are not agreements which may be forged between people (Boucher, 25). The first law of nature according to Hobbes states that every individual has the obligation to peace so long as he has the urge and hope of getting it. It further states that failure to endeavor peace makes a man use all help and advantages of war to get it.

Hobbes also maintains that when there is no authority to sort out certain disputes and misunderstandings in the society, people usually fear and do not trust each other.  The absence of authority leads to lack of justice, culture, and commerce in the society.  Peace in the society comes only when individuals decide to drop the notion of the right to everything or when people decide to employ higher civil authority to solve the self-sovereignty cases. The sovereign is above all the authority that is present, and the will of the sovereign is law. The power of the sovereign, however, is not encompassing entirely. People usually have the freedom to act and do things as they please if the law does not address or give regulations on the actions they take part in. The social contract is the main reason behind people entering civil society and leaving the state of nature (Boucher, 54). State of nature is, however, a threat and may come back if the government or leadership of any society collapses.

The political philosophy of Rousseau was dependent on the state of nature. He strongly criticized with Hobbes on the perceptions he had on the state of nature. He disagreed with the fact that a state of nature is usually based on social antagonism. According to him the state o9f nature precedes socialization and does not have traits such as envy, fear for other individuals and pride. The state of nature is a peaceful state where people usually act according to their urges such as the need for food and the natural need for self-preservation. According to him, the only way of leaving the state of nature is by becoming civilized. In other words, the only way of leaving the state of nature is by becoming dependent on one another.

 Rousseau defines the state of nature as the prehistoric time and place where individuals live in a society which is not corrupted. The defining factor about the state of nature according to him is that people have the ability and freedom to do w hat they like without any governance (Masters, 1). He maintains that human beings are yet to attain morality or rationality. One of the benefits of the state of nature according to him is that it gives individuals physical freedom and thus allowing people to influence and dictate the general state of the society. His perception differs from Hobbes as it is more optimistic and positive.  Hobbes as earlier state viewed the state of nature as a state of savagery and war. Furthermore, he maintains that it is hard for people to go back to the state of nature and the only way that the society can achieve this is by understanding the whole aspect of the state of nature. Understanding the state of nature is critical to the society.

Rousseau ‘s  notion convincing compared to Hobbes’ thought. It is hard for individuals to attain back the state of nature and the only way to achieve this society which is not corrupted is by adjusting and understanding it. I agree with this because even the leadership that governs us still may be corrupt and thus discrediting the notion of the state of nature by Hobbes. We are past the age of savagery and war and using this concept would mean going back to those states. What I like about Rousseau’s idea is that it is positive and accurate since morality and rationality are lost in the world. People are independent and do what they want, and even with authority, there is still the freedom to do as you like.

Work cited

Ryan, Alan. "11. The Nature of Human Nature in Hobbes and Rousseau." (2015).

Boucher, David. "State of Nature." The Encyclopedia of Political Thought (2014).

Masters, Roger D. The political philosophy of Rousseau. Princeton University Press, 2015.

Carnoy, Martin. The state and political theory. Princeton University Press, 2014.