- Key People:
- John Locke
- Related Topics:
- social contract
- Human nature
state of nature
-
What is the 'state of nature' in political theory?
In political theory, the 'state of nature' is a concept referring to the condition of humanity before the establishment of political association. It is a key element in social-contract theories, especially those of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These philosophers used the idea of the state of nature to understand why political authority is justified and how it should be limited based on individual self-interest and rational consent.
However, their visions differed sharply. Hobbes saw it as a "war of every man against every man". Locke, in contrast, believed that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Rousseau argued that the state of nature is a morally neutral and peaceful condition.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Which philosophers are known for discussing the state of nature?
The concept of the state of nature is a critical component of political theory, particularly within the framework of social-contract theories. Prominent philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are known for their distinct perspectives on this idea.
Hobbes described the state of nature as a "war of every man against every man," emphasizing a constant state of conflict and competition. Locke, conversely, posited that the state of nature is governed by reason and natural rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and property. Rousseau viewed the state of nature as a morally neutral and peaceful condition where individuals are guided by basic urges and compassion.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did Thomas Hobbes describe life in the state of nature?
According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is a constant and violent condition of competition where each individual possesses a natural right to everything, regardless of the interests of others. Hobbes famously stated that existence in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". The only laws that exist in the state of nature are not covenants forged between people but principles based on self-preservation. In the absence of a higher authority to adjudicate disputes, everyone fears and mistrusts everyone else, and there can be no justice, commerce, or culture.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did John Locke's view of the state of nature differ from Hobbes' view?
Hobbes and Locke held contrasting views of the state of nature. Hobbes saw it as a "war of every man against every man," where individuals possess a natural right to everything, leading to a "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life. He believed self-preservation was the only principle.
Locke, conversely, described the state of nature as one where individuals are free, equal, and independent, bound by the law of nature not to harm another's life, liberty, or possessions. Locke considered rights to life, liberty, and property as natural rights. People enter into a commonwealth to protect these rights via an impartial power.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why is the idea of a state of nature important to the social contract theory?
The idea of a state of nature is an essential element of social contract theories. Social contract theorists Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau used the concept to compare the advantages of organized government with the supposed disadvantages of the state of nature. They aimed to justify political authority based on individual self-interest and rational consent, and to show under what conditions government is useful and should be accepted as a voluntary obligation.
Hobbes viewed the state of nature as a state of war that could only be ended if individuals agreed to give their liberty to a sovereign. Rousseau, in contrast, saw the state of nature as a morally neutral and peaceful condition.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How does the state of nature help us understand the reasons for government?
The concept of the state of nature is a critical element in understanding the reasons for government. Political theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, used the state of nature to justify political authority based on individual self-interest and rational consent.
Hobbes characterized the state of nature as a "war of every man against every man," highlighting the need for a sovereign to escape this violent condition. Locke, conversely, saw the state of nature as governed by natural law, where individuals possess rights to life, liberty, and property. People enter into a commonwealth to secure an impartial power that resolves disputes and corrects injuries. By contrasting the drawbacks of the state of nature with the benefits of organized government, these theorists illustrate why reasonable individuals would accept government as a voluntary obligation.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
state of nature, in political theory, the real or hypothetical condition of human beings before or without political association. The notion of a state of nature was an essential element of the social-contract theories of the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78). Visions of the state of nature differed sharply between social-contract theorists, though most associated it with the absence of state sovereignty.
The social-contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau were distinguished by their attempt to justify and delimit political authority on the grounds of individual self-interest and rational consent. By comparing the advantages of organized government with the supposed disadvantages of the state of nature, they showed why and under what conditions government is useful and ought therefore to be accepted by all reasonable people as a voluntary obligation. Those conclusions were then reduced to the form of a social contract, from which it was supposed that all the essential rights and duties of citizens could be logically deduced.
The state of nature in Hobbes
For Hobbes, the state of nature is characterized by the “war of every man against every man,” a constant and violent condition of competition in which each individual has a natural right to everything, regardless of the interests of others. Existence in the state of nature is, as Hobbes famously states, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The only laws that exist in the state of nature (the laws of nature) are not covenants forged between people but principles based on self-preservation. What Hobbes calls the first law of nature, for instance, is
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far 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.
In the absence of a higher authority to adjudicate disputes, everyone fears and mistrusts everyone else, and there can be no justice, commerce, or culture. That unsustainable condition comes to an end when individuals agree in a social contract to relinquish their natural rights to everything and to transfer their self-sovereignty to a higher civil authority, or Leviathan. Each individual in effect says to every other: “I transfer my right of governing myself to X (the sovereign) if you do too.” The transfer is collectively entered into only on the understanding that it makes one less of a target of attack or dispossession than one would be in one’s natural state. Although Hobbes did not assume that there was ever a real historical event in which a mutual promise was made to delegate self-government to a sovereign, he claimed that the best way to understand the state was to conceive of it as having resulted from such an agreement.
For Hobbes, the authority of the sovereign is absolute, in the sense that no authority is above the sovereign and that its will is law. That, however, does not mean that the power of the sovereign is all-encompassing: subjects remain free to act as they please in cases in which the sovereign is silent (in other words, when the law does not address the action concerned). The social contract allows individuals to leave the state of nature and enter civil society, but the former remains a threat and returns as soon as governmental power collapses. Because the power of Leviathan is uncontested, however, its collapse is very unlikely and occurs only when it is no longer able to protect its subjects.