How did Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau differ in their views of human nature?

In political theory, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau utilized the state of nature as a hypothetical tool to justify political authority, yet they held fundamentally different views on human nature.12

• Thomas Hobbes: Viewed humans as inherently self-interested and driven by psychological hedonism—the desire for pleasure and self-preservation. In his view, the state of nature is a "war of every man against every man," where the absence of a sovereign leads to a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".312
• John Locke: Offered a more optimistic perspective, arguing that humans are naturally free, equal, and bound by the law of nature to respect the life, liberty, and property of others. For Locke, the state of nature is not a state of license but one where individuals possess natural rights that precede civil society.124
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Criticized Hobbes’s view of inherent antagonism. He argued that humans in the state of nature were solitary, peaceful, and morally neutral, guided by basic needs and a natural sense of compassion. He believed that negative traits like pride and envy only emerged as humans became increasingly civilized and dependent on one another.12