The state of nature is a work of the imagination; it is the initial stage of humanity, where a theorist attempts to understand the conditions that existed prior to manmade laws and the rules that guided the universe at the time. Some of the common characteristics of the state of nature, shared by most theorists, are the equality and freedom humans enjoyed. Each theorist defined and described the state of nature based on the historical development of his/her time as they attempted to understand humanity’s transition into civil society. The state of nature is where theorists seek harmony to build new foundations.
Hobbes’ Version
“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all; continual fear, and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty brutish, and short.” Hobbes
Hobbes’ theory was based on the state of nature and its influence on the behavior of the individual. Man in the state of nature is driven by his self-interest and survival, which led to conflict with other men for resources. Each man is born with the equal power to harm the others. Each man has the right and the ability, which each other man is entitled to, and it’s being the judge in their own cases. To Hobbes, the state of nature is a chaotic one and full of conflict, humankind doesn’t have any form of liberty or ability to reason; he is in a constant state of war.
Hobbes established a theory that is based on reason, but rather than using the commonwealth as the uniting factor in such a civil society, he used the individual’s interest and the wellbeing of each person as the uniting factor in the social contract.
Locke’s Version
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Locke
John Locke used the same concept but in a different manner. To Locke, the state of nature was a state of total equality and liberty; everyone had the ability to reason. Humankind did not need the state to regulate their relations or preserve their best interest. Humankind left the state of nature as a means of preserving the property acquired through labor. Locke claimed that labor was the way to acquire property; otherwise, the property belonged to everyone. This is better known as the labor theory of value, a theory, which is considered by many scholars as the first step toward capitalism. The theory added value to the labor of the working class through wages, and it broke down the boundaries to the limited accumulation of property. Locke encouraged humankind to accumulate as much property as possible through productive labor.
“Freedom of men under government, is, to have a standing rule to live by common to ever one of that society and made by the legislative power erected in it.” Locke
Through mutual agreement and consent, humankind managed to exit the state of nature and enter into a social contract with one another for the sake of preserving their acquired properties. It is property that was the driving force to establish a civil society and a state to legislate the laws.
The rule of law takes over the state of nature in the civil society; it is superior to all, and impartial.
Rousseau’s Version
“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One believes himself the master of other, and yet he is greater slave than they.” Rousseau
Rousseau disagreed with Locke and Hobbes on several matters. Although, he used the same concepts as the two theorists, he gives them new definitions. He agrees with Locke on the total equality and liberty of humankind in the state of nature. He dissents the state of constant war in Hobbes Leviathan. Nevertheless, Rousseau saw other qualities and forms of development in the evolution of society; he recognized the compassionate and needy side of humankind. Humans could have dwelled in other lands to possess and acquire more wealth, but they remained as a part of the whole due to fear of loneliness. Yet, he claims that humankind was stripped of much greater abilities once he/she exited the state of nature. The accumulation of property was the original source of inequality and injustice; it disturbed the natural balance of life.
The state of nature gradually fell apart as humankind began to acquire property and feelings of envy and jealousy became inevitable realities. The disintegration of the state of nature led humankind to enter a social pact to preserve the social order and protect it. To rectify such defects that took place, humankind entered a social contract.
Good Will and Civic Engagement
To Hobbes, the social contract existed as a mean of self-preservation, while Locke’s reasoning depended on the preservation of property, but Rousseau’s logic differed from the two; he saw the social contract as the mean of protecting the remaining liberties and freedoms of the state of nature. The three led the creation of a state system that would be the ultimate ruler, and the body to protect the social order and mediate the affairs of citizens.
I viewed Hobbes’s work as a means of legitimizing the states’ power over citizens to empower the monarch. On other hand, I perceived Locke’s work as the means of empowering the peasants and working class by adding value to their labor as a means of protecting the aristocratic class. His work aimed to curb the growing feelings of jealousy and envy, which were the results of the wealth gap, which led to the English Civil War.
I found myself favoring Rousseau and his views. His work aimed to empower the average citizen; he also favored the political participation of all citizens rather than using a mediator or representative. The general-will is the superior and driving force of his theory. Rousseau championed good virtues, which Plato and Aristotle once spoke of; he championed the goodness of virtue as a means of building a moral society rather than wickedness and greed.
“This word finance is a slave’s word; it is unknown in the city. In a truly free state, the citizens do everything with their arms and nothing with money.” Rousseau
