I believe Locke has the most convincing account of the state of nature, as his description
of it makes the most sense to me. I disagree with both Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s description of
the state of nature, as I don’t believe they are very practical and display a very rudimentary way
of thinking unlike the analysis that Locke does for his state of nature. First I will analyze some of
the claims made by Hobbes and Rousseau about the state of nature and describe why I don’t
think they hold true. Then I will analyze some claims made by Locke and detail why his account
of the state of nature is more convincing.
Hobbes made this claim about men in the state of nature, “For as to the strength of body,
the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by
confederacy, with others that are the same danger with himself” (Hobbes 74). I don’t believe this
to be true because no sane person would go killing others for the benefit of his own pleasures.
The ultimate goal is to have a fully functioning society, and in a setting where the members are
constantly committing acts of violence against each other this cannot be achieved. There must be
some sense of order and reason in order to govern a society, as rudimentary and crude as it may
be, and Hobbes’s state of nature ignores that key aspect of how a society should ought to be
governed. Hobbes also describes conflict in the state of nature, “And therefore if any two men
desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in
the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation
only, endeavor to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes 75). Looking at a state of nature from
a very basic and crude perspective, yes this belief that Hobbes has may stand true. But, in reality
we have reason to govern these things. If two men want the same thing, they don’t have to kill
each other for it. They can create a system that allows both men to have that one thing. Either
through bartering or sharing the item through the confines of reason. Through using reason as the
governing force in the state of nature, men in the state of nature do not have to kill one another.
Also, to be clear, in a state of nature conservation is never the goal. The goal is to create a fully
functioning society that has a basic form of laws and principles that govern the society without
actually having a common authority. If the goal for the men in the state of nature is conservation,
it would be a war zone and there would be no order. Due to this there must be some order and the
state of nature must be rooted in reason.
Moving on the Rousseau now. Rousseau believes that in the state of nature man is an
animal. “If nature has destined us to be healthy, I almost dare to affirm that the state of reflection
is a state contrary to nature and that the man who mediates is a depraved animal” (Rousseau 42).
I don’t believe this is true because man is incomparable to an animal in the state of nature. An
animal lacks instinct, knowledge, and reason, and men have evolved from animals to develop
these things. Man in a state of nature can’t be seen as an animal because he isn’t one, he is a fully
functioning being who does have instinct, knowledge, and reason, that which an animal lacks.
Due to this it cannot be said that man is comparable to an animal in a state of nature, because
even in that setting men have principles that guide them to be who they are. Rousseau also
believes that the men of today are not the same men in a state of nature, “Therefore we must not
care to confuse savage men with the men we have before our eyes. Nature treats all animals left
to their own devices with a partiality that seems to show how jealous she is of that right”
(Rousseau 43). I referenced this examples previously, and I will stand by it because I believe it
holds true, but think back to the Caveman time period. This is a time when there was no
government, so there was a state of nature, but this was also when men were the most like
animals. Even in that time period, there was a very crude system of government and laws. There
was bartering, groups of men that would go hunting whenever food was low, and kids in that
time were indoctrinated with the same sort of rules and laws that their ancestors followed. As
crude as it may be, there was a government during that time period. The cavemen, being very
similar if not as close to an animal as possible, used human nature to its advantage by building
shelter and using resources. Lastly, Rousseau makes this claim about the state of nature, “It is
therefore no great misfortune for those first men, nor, above all, such a great obstacle to their
preservation, that they are naked, that they had no dwelling, and they lack all those useful things
we take to be so necessary” (Rousseau 43). I don’t believe this is true because though technology
may have developed our minds have always been the same and haven’t changed. Men always
have instinct and principles that they can use to guide themselves. They don’t lack the useful
things we take to be necessary, because the only useful thing you need is your mind. Other than
that there is nothing else that is useful that you may need because one’s mind is the greatest tool
they can have.
Now I’ll analyze some of Locke’s claims and describe why I agree with them. Locke
believes this about the state of nature, “But though this be a State of Liberty, yet it is not a State
of License, though Man in that state have uncontrollable Liberty, to dispose of his Person or
Possessions, yet he has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his
Possession, but where some nobler use then its bare preservation calls for it” (Locke 270).
Unlike Hobbes, he believes the state of nature is not a state of license, and though he may have
uncontrollable liberty he must not use that liberty to destroy himself or those around him. I agree
with this because even in a pre governmental society such as a state of nature, there must be
some order. Unlike what Hobbes believes, you cannot kill everyone for your own self
preservation. You must sacrifice your liberty for the common good, and to have a fully
functioning society. Locke also believes that the state of nature must be governed by reason,“The
state of nature has a Law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: And reason, which is
that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no
one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions” (Locke 271). I agree with
this, and this should hold true in a state of nature. In order to maintain a society that is governed
by reason, the people in a state of nature must not act out of self-preservation. Rather they should
work together to create a society where everyone can have their way and be respected. Men must
not harm each other in a state of nature because that defeats the purpose of trying to have a
society with no common authority in the first place. Everyone must be held accountable in order
to carry themselves under reason and make sure that they do not enter a state of war. Men must
not enter into a state of war because then that person is separated from society. This is how the
real world, today, functions as well. If you commit a crime you get arrested and go to jail and are
separated from the people in society who want their society to prosper. Locke’s beliefs can still
be applied today, and even most societies show many similarities to the rules he describes. I feel
Locke’s account of the state of nature is the most realistic, and therefore, to me, it is also the
most convincing.