How did Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s state of nature differ from Hobbes’s view?

While both Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau viewed the state of nature as a condition of solitary individuals, they held fundamentally opposing views on the nature of humanity in that state.12

Hobbes characterized the state of nature as a "war of every man against every man," where individuals are driven by competition, fear, and self-interest. He famously described life in this condition as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," arguing that it is devoid of justice or morality.13

In contrast, Rousseau vehemently rejected this pessimistic view. He argued that the state of nature was a primitive, morally neutral, and peaceful condition. For Rousseau, original humans were not driven by social vices like pride or envy; rather, they were healthy, happy, and free, guided by basic urges for self-preservation tempered by a natural sense of compassion.12

Rousseau believed that human vices and social antagonism were not inherent to nature but were instead products of civil society and the development of dependency and property.12