How do their differing conceptions of the 'state of nature' influence the philosophy of government of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau?
Chris Sealey Imagine living in a world in which life was ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’, 1 where everyone was constantly at war, where each person was both selfish and power hungry. In this world everyone had a right to everything, was strong enough to attack everyone else and lived in a state of constant fear. Everyone constantly attacked each other for gain, for glory and for safety. This is how Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) saw the state of nature. He defined humans in a state of nature as a constantly desiring ‘felicity’ which he defined as continual success in achieving the objects of desire. This stemmed from his belief, influenced by Galileo’s conservation of motion, that humans are never at rest. Hobbes believed that the ‘something’ they were searching for was ‘a restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth onely in death’. 2 This is because power is one’s present means to obtain some future apparent good. 3 Hobbes suggested that this continual attempt to increase power which is inherently individualistic, coupled with limited resources, would lead to war. He claimed that humans are equal, meaning ‘the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others. 4 This means they are in constant fear, ironically meaning everyone is attacked, even those who pose no threat, as a way of maintaining a reputation of strength and ensuring future safety. This combination of equal strength, a desire for power and scarce resources lead Hobbes to believe that the state of nature would be a state of war. Hobbes’ theory of government is based upon the assumption that in society individual rationality and self-interest must be sacrificed for the collective responsibility and rationality. He surmised that if man were to exist in this state of conflict over power and resources it would lead to disaster. Therefore, a state must be reached when people co-operate for the ‘greater good’. Hobbes had nineteen laws of nature, which can be ‘contracted into one easy sum… do not that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thy self ’. 5 However, due to man’s tendency to defect to individual rationality for personal gain, it would be impossible to enforce this rule. If one person were to act in an individualistic way disobeying the laws of nature it would be irrational and ignorant for anyone else to follow them as he would ‘make himself prey to others, and procure his certain ruine’. 6 The laws of nature would never be obeyed and would become useless. Hobbes therefore saw that a government able to uphold the laws of nature would have unlimited power to punish those who disobey. In this way collective rationality would be maintained. Hobbes envisaged that the head of this government, or commonwealth, would be a monarch who would enforce a resolute and consistent experience of political authority. Man would be driven to join this commonwealth through fear of the consequences if they do not. He stated: ‘fear of oppression, disposeth a man to anticipate, or to seek aid by society: for there is no other way by which a man can secure his life and liberty’. 7 This stems from Hobbes’ view that humans are only interested in self- preservation and are prepared to give up all of their freedoms in order to have a right to life. Therefore, we can see how Hobbes’ pessimistic view on the state of nature influences his philosophy of
1 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Touchstone Publications, 1997. 2 Ibid., 161.
3 Ibid, chapter 10 4 Ibid, chapter 13
5 Ibid, 214 6 Ibid, 215 7 Ibid, part 1
95
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker