c

c
c
c
STATE OF NATURE
in
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

By

m
 m

III ² ¶B·

School Of Excellence in Law

Introduction:-

Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are
the most famous philosophers of contractarianism.State of nature is a term
in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical
condition of humanity before the state's foundation.The state of nature is the
condition before the rule of positive law comes into being, thus being a synonym
of anarchy. The idea of the state of nature was a part of a classical
republicanismtheory as a hypothetical reason of entering a state of society by
establishing a government.

According to a few Philosophers, we would live in a state of nature, where each

person has unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus
the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an
endless "war of all against all". To avoid this, free men establish
political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each
gains civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political
authority.

Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the
obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do
so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often
identified with arguments about military service.

The social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither "natural rights" nor
permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end ³ the
benefit of all. Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to
change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. Locke theorized
the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.

Hobbes advocated absolute monarchy, Locke advocated a liberal monarchy, and

Rousseau advocated liberal republicanism. Their work provided theoretical
groundwork of constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy and republicanism.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

bellumomnium contra omnes - war of all against all

The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English
philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan.

Hobbes wrote that

"during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they
are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against
every man" (1).

In this state any person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to
preserve his own life, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a

state of nature.Within the state of nature there is no injustice, since there is no law,
excepting certain natural precepts, the first of which is "that every man ought to
endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it"[2] ; and the second is "that a
man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of
himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be
contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men
against himself"[3] .

From this, Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into civil government
by mutual contracts.

Using the Galileo·sprinciple of conservation of motion, Hobbes explains that a

human being is perpetually seeking for something. ´Life itself is but Motion, and
can never be without Desireµ.
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
a
 
c


a
 
 c

a
 
 c
It is the search to secure felicity that brings human beings at war with each other,
and only the fear of death can lead to the creation of a State. Hobbes pictures a
state of nature where all are at war against all. The search of felicity leads men to
constantly try to increase their power.Hobbes described the concept in the Latin
phrase ´bellum omnium contra omnesµ, (meaning war of all against all) in his
work De Cive.
In his greatest work Leviathan, Hobbes writes that nothing could be worse than a
life without the protection of the State.Hobbes is a materialist and draws on
Galileo·s theory about the principle of conservation of motion. Hobbes writes that
´an object will eternally be in motion unless somewhat stays itµ[4].
Moreover, according to Hobbes, human beings are by nature made equal, in a sense
that human·s possess are equal in terms of skills and strength.
´The weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret
machination or by confederacy with othersµ [5].
Human beings are motivated by three reasons to attack somebody else in a state of
nature: for gain, for safety, and for glory or reputation.
In Hobbes· theory there is no room for morality, because in a State of Nature there
is no space for the Unjust. Everything is somehow justifiable. Hobbes calls this the
Natural Right of Liberty.
Hobbes contrasts individual with collective rationality. The peculiarity of the so
called ´prisoners dilemmaµ is that when individual and collective rationality
diverge, it is hard to achieve co-operation. Instead, Hobbes believes that the
individually rational behaviour leads to attack others. In other words, we have a
duty to obey to the Law of Nature when others around us are also obeying to it too.
But if we are insecure about the others· stance, then we act selfishly. In Hobbes
theory the level of mutual suspicion and fear in the state of nature is so high that
we are excused for not obeying the Law. We are expected to act morally only when
we are sure that others are doing the same.
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

a
c

ëa
c
John Locke (1632-1704)
John Locke considers the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil
Government written around the time of the Engagement controversy in England
during the 1680s.

For Locke, "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is
Reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in
his life, health, liberty or possessions"; and that transgressions of this may be
punished.

This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief; unlike
Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology. The reason we
may not harm another is that we are all the possessions of God and do not own
ourselves.Locke,in a different position compared to Hobbes, believes that we could
live in a State of Nature, and life would be possible even without the government.

The state of nature for Locke is a state of perfect freedom, a state of equality bound
by the Law of Nature.
Locke adds a theological and moral aspect to the theory, stating that being all
creatures of God we have a clear duty not to harm others (except for limited
purposes of self defence) and we even have a duty to help them if we can do so
without damage to ourselves (6).

Regarding the concept of liberty, we are given the freedom of doing what is morally
permitted. His view is clearly in contrast with Hobbes· who stated that in a state of
nature everyone has the right over everything, including others· bodies.

As far as the Law of Nature is concerned, both Locke and Hobbes seem to agree that
the very concept of law implies a law-enforcer, otherwise it would simply be an
empty concept.

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

ü
c
Having a law-enforcer in a state of nature means to give power to somebody and
therefore create a governed system. Nonetheless, Locke who advocates equality
among human beings, claims that everyone would be empowered to enforce the Law
of Nature in a state of nature.

Locke believes that harming somebody is allowed in case of self-defence and

punishment is a natural right to be implemented against those who breach the law
of nature. ´Each Transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much
Severity as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the Offender , give him cause to
repent, and terrifying others from doing the likeµ (7).

In a state nature there are a number of rights to be secured and for Locke the most
important is the private property. He claims that since God put us on earth, surely
He did not mean it so that we would end up starving.Along with this ´religious
claimµ he also states that there is a natural reason for justifying private property. It
would be absurd, Locke thinks, that in order to use the earth, a man had to ask the
permission to all others and, again, the result would be that everyone ends up
starving.
Lock picture of the state of nature sounds very optimistic, though eventually he
tries not to portray it in idyllic tones.
Locke advocates that the reasons which pushed mankind to opt for the creation of
the state are linked to an increase scarcity in resources and the invention of money,
which granted people a non-perishable means of exchange. When human beings
used to exchange the produce of the land, there was an equal risk to have it spoilt.
Money gave people a reason to increase the yields and eventually accumulate
wealth, unavoidably creating imbalances that lead to what Hobbes had defined as a
state of war.

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

 
  c
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78)

Rousseau·s State of Nature is different from the ones explained by the

predecessors.He agrees with Hobbes and Locke that in a state of nature men·s main
drive is towards self-preservation but according to Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke
overestimated the likelihood of falling in a state of war.
In Rousseau·s state of nature a man would be like a savage, whose actions are
primarily determined by immediate needs food, sexual satisfaction, sleep and fears
only hunger and pain. The savage man is also motivated by self-preservation and
pity. In fact, he thinks that human beings are naturally affected by others· human
beings· sufferance, in other words they have ´an innate repugnance a fellow
creature sufferµ (8).
So it is compassion which acts as a powerful mean to restrain people to harm
others.

Rousseau pictures the savage man as a solitary human being, able to survive alone.
His speech is not yet developed and cannot express opinions on things. He does not
have the need of luxuries and do not consider anything outside his immediate needs
as vital.The savage looks like any wild animal but the peculiarity which
distinguishes him from the animals is, according to Rousseau, the free will and
capacity of self-improvement.healso advocates that it is the capacity of self-
improvement to have brought progress to mankind and misfortune with it.

Rousseau believes that civilization and progress have somehow polluted the
goodness which was reigning in the state of nature and there is not any chance to go
back to that state. ´God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they
become evilµ (9).

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

 




 c

l     c
Rousseau·s point on morality differs. He states that in a state of nature there is no
room for law, right and morality. Rousseau simply means that we tend to avoid
harming others because of our natural aversion to pain and suffering. Therefore, if
men are in a state of war they would feel terrible for all the harming caused to other
fellows.
In the state of nature man are equal. Rousseau sees the private property as a source
of inequality, mutual dependence and jealousy: ´The destruction of equality was
attended by the most terrible disorders. Usurpation by the rich, robbery by the poor,
and the unbridled passions of both, suppressed the cries of natural compassion and
still feeble voice of justice, and filled man with avarice, ambition, and vice. Between
the title of the strongest and that of first occupier, there arouse perpetual conflicts,
which never ended but in battle and bloodshed. The new-born state of society thus
gave rise to a horrible state of warµ (10).

Hobbes's view was challenged in the eighteenth century by Jean-Jacques Rousseau,

who claimed that Hobbes was taking socialized persons and simply imagining them
living outside of the society in which they were raised. He affirmed instead that
people were neither good nor bad. Men knew neither vice nor virtue since they had
almost no dealings with each other. Their bad habits are the products of civilization.
Nevertheless the conditions of nature forced people to enter a state of society by
establishing a civil society.

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

 




 c
Conclusion:-

Delineating or Defining the realm of Human Nature had been a red-letter topic for
the Philosophers even since the Pre-Socrates times to the Present.
In spite of their Noble efforts, many a Philosophers had Axiomatic Beliefs rather
than rational assertions with regards to Human Nature.

Of the Views on State of nature by the three fore-mentioned Philosophers, Hobbes

was a Conservative who was also Cynical in his conception of Human nature.
Rousseau on the Other hand, was too liberal and optimistic. He believed that
everything in a Human society is Perfectible and Idyllic without any concrete base
for his ideas.

Locke sounds More Commonsensical than the other two, while he does not personify
the Human nature as statically Virtuous or Vicious. He says men are capable of
doing both Good and evil depending upon the necessity and that necessity is the
need for self-preservation. If there is no harm upon an individual of sound mind,
there is no reason for him to be Brutish or nasty to his fellow beings.

Politically Locke was a Representative Democrat, who had eventually proved by

present times to be prophetic.
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
 c
c
c

c
c
c
 c
 

cc
cc
cc
c 
c 
 c
Ê     )      )    
  
  
  *        (




  

    
Ê       
 
         " !

 c
c  c      

  
%  !
 +
% $
-

, 
 ! 
    
+     * 
c
" # $ 
#

  %
*    
" % $ &' 
%   

, 
(

c   
c
Ê *  
   Ê   
% Ê !%* *
 
r 
c
c
 *
   
c 
.* *   
Ê   



c

! 
c   "/  
ü

$
c
/
   ' *      ' *    
 %   
  %
    %
-,   
 
 *  
c  * 
   
%   
 
* *

' *     
Ê ! 

 

c
 %%  


**  
c 



'  

      
    %  



c
/
 !  
ccccccc/
 !  
ccccccc/
 ! 
 %  *     %  *    * 

* *
  


c  * *
   
%  
%
 
c %  



c
÷ c

c 
ccccccc
'% 
ccccccc0 *
# 


c !   
c    
c

ccccccc



 
!    
%  
ë






c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
   c c
c 
c
c
u
c"     (

  
  ! 


$ë
u 
c        (
ë
u 
 c")!  1
    $ë

 c
c
 c
c
u
c!       *  ë 

%


ë1 % % 2 2  "* * $     
  ë

u 
c     (

* *
 
  !   



  ë
a  3  ë
+    *
*   
"Ê 


r
'
    
/
 

 % ü 
 +   



$ë4

u 
 c *
     * * ë
ü%  

 
!     !  ë



c
c
u
c'%  3
!      *   *  
     
ë
a! 3!     
*  ë

u 
c  *          *   *   *  
!  
  3

a! 


 
")! %! ! *

Ê
 *  5  


$ë4

u 
 c     ! 
"




! %!   (
$ë

r
c
c
u
c   !   %       
 2   
    *  ë

u 
c* *     
!   
    ë6

Ê   **    

   *  
ë4
"


0 * a a! 
 $ë4
"& -   
  !0  




  
*  
   * *  

 ) !  +  $ë4

u 
 c%  * 
! !  * 
 
  !  *   ! # !
!  

 ë4

 
  c



  
 
a


   
   
!" 

  # 

  


 


a  
  
   
$ %
&'()**+


,  # -# .


 

 
/  %0
  

%  (!"1


 (
 / '
!1
23 %
%
% 45  %  
6  7 %
87
9
+-+1


: / '
!""
2

;5  %  
6 ))1-")


  # 
!"
  


 
 
 
 
 

&'(