Is Any Account of the State of Nature Convincing?

John Locke, in complete contrast to Hobbes, however, views the State of Nature with regards to 'morals'. Both Locke and Hobbes agree that the State of Nature is a state of perfect freedom and equality, and that we all have the right of self preservation, but there are limitations on what we may do, given by the 'Law of Nature'. This 'Law of Nature' is that no person may subordinate another; harm his life, health, liberty or possessions. Essentially, one can do something so long as it is not detrimental to other people. The State of Nature, therefore, is a state of liberty, governed only through the 'Law of Nature'. This Law of Nature is discovered through reasoning or through God, as we are all God's creatures and have a natural understanding that we cannot harm one another, which allows the State of Nature to be peaceful, and, by extension, the condition of mankind to be peaceful and moral. I agree with Locke when he states that there are moral codes which inspire and guide human beings in a State of Nature. However, I find his point on the Law of Nature weak, as he does not explain how it is possible to have such Law in a State of Nature since you would need an empowered man to enforce it. His argument that as God's creatures we are entitled to 'natural rights' is non-sequitur. How could Locke logically move from the premise that we are all God's creatures to the conclusion that we must then harbor 'natural rights'?

Rousseau’s point on morality, however, is dramatically different from Locke’s. 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. Rousseau’s State of Nature is rather 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. According to Rousseau, however, Hobbes and Locke overestimated the likelihood of falling in a state of war. In Rousseau’s state of nature a man would be a 'noble 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. Rousseau believes that human beings are naturally affected by another human beings’ sufferance, in other words they have “an innate repugnance a fellow creature suffer” (Discourse on the Origin of Inequality). 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. The peculiarity which distinguishes him from the animals is, according to Rousseau, the free will and capacity of self-improvement. Finally, he advocates that it is the capacity of self-improvement to have brought progress to mankind and misfortune with it.

I think that the picture that Rousseau has drawn of the State of Nature populated by “noble savages” more similar to animals than civilised human beings (such as in the theories of Hobbes and Locke)  may be a plausible vision, though I do not necessarily agree with his dark view of human development. Rousseau’s beliefs that civilization and progress led to a state of war, bringing evil and misfortune into a “purified world” which was still blessed by ignorance, is certainly coherent with his argument. However, I find more challenging trying to imagine how the state of nature would be if populated by developed and civilized human beings as in Hobbes’ and Locke’s views.

Bibliography

• The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy –
• Two Treatises on Government (Book II:  An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government [The "Second Essay"]) by John Locke –
• Notes for philosophy 166: Rousseau, Discourse On The Origin Of Inequality, Part I –
• The "Why Should I Be Governed?" Handout
• Class notes