The State of Nature and Its Implications for Civilization in Hobbes and Rousseau
Essay Preview: The State of Nature and Its Implications for Civilization in Hobbes and Rousseau
Report this essay
The State of Nature and its
Implications for Civilization in Hobbes and Rousseau
In his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes expresses a philosophy of civilization which is both practical and just and stems from a clear moral imperative. He begins with the assertion that in the state of nature man is condemned to live a life “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” It is in the interest of every man to rise above this “state of nature” and to give up certain rights so that the violent nature of the human animal can be subdued. Jean-Jacques Rousseaus vision of the state of nature parallels that of Hobbes but for its more optimistic tone: “I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater than the strength that each man has to preserve himself in that state.” In general, Rousseaus words prove reasonably less severe than Hobbess.
According to Hobbes the bestial rights that a man is forced to give up must also be given up by every other man if civilization is to quell the state of nature. This surrendering of rights then forms covenant of peace which mankind has agreed upon collectively to rise above the state of nature. Hobbes argues that it is human reason that has necessarily led men to embrace this covenant: “And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement . . . .” These Articles of Peace Hobbes calls “Laws of Nature” and argues that while they do not exist in a state of nature they are nonetheless natural laws which potentially exist there. “A Law of Nature (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.” That is, a natural law is a result of a reasoning which commands that each man protect his own life.
With the state of nature as terrible as Hobbes describes it, it is reasonable for a man to wish to put an end to it, as he then has a greater chance of protecting his own life. Without certain agreements between individuals they interact in a manner in which they are all a constant threat to one another. Therefore Hobbes arrives at the first fundamental law of nature: “That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of war.” Hobbes suggests a natural desire for peace arising out of reason, but he is wise enough to recognize that this desire is still a self-serving one, and that men are still required to defend themselves when others show no sign of attempting peace.
Hobbes argues for the rule of a monarch for his peace centered civil society. He believes that a monarch who understands the basis for the covenant, who adheres to it and truly recognizes the importance of justice for all of humanity, is the most efficient and trustworthy method of transcending the state of nature. For Hobbes the most important aspect of justice is keeping the peace through adherence to the natural law. Peace reigns supreme in his vision of civilization and a strong ruler who can pass laws to ensure that his subjects respect the covenant is needed. Although such a government might be granted a dangerous amount of power, nonetheless an overarching sovereign with knowledge of the natural laws is needed to keep in line those who would abuse the liberties granted them through the covenant, thus threatening the society with a return to the state of nature.
Rousseau, in contrast, sees a true transcendence of the state of nature as including more than simply peace. His goal is more ambitious than Hobbess. Because in Rousseaus philosophy humans in a state of nature are not suffering as directly as Hobbes suggests, their goal is more than just the peace described in Leviathan: “How to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before.” For Rousseau, it is possible that all subjects of a government not feel oppressed but instead liberated by their rulers. They are not following laws because they are ordered to, but because they recognize that they are benefiting from the laws.
Rousseau is idealistic in his vision of a universal respect for the liberty of all citizens following the rise of civilization out of the state of nature. In his view “Surely it must be admitted, then, that might does not make right, and that the duty of obedience is owed only to legitimate powers.” With the introduction of “legitimate powers” Rousseau elevates the status of justice in a civilization. He first finds it necessary to discriminate between force and right and obedience and duty. When one uses force he is recognized as acting unjustly. Right implies that those receiving his actions also accept his right to perform them. Duty implies that not only is one doing as another might command, but doing it willingly, out of an understanding of some sort. Rousseau is essentially broadening the idea of natural law.
For Rousseau then, civilization extends beyond peace. He hopes to show that a society is not ordered by control but by agreement. His goal is to portray society as a universally accepted condition which all members freely choose as a welcome alternative to the state of nature. “We might also add that man acquires with civil society, moral freedom, which alone makes man the master of himself; for to be governed by appetite