Discuss the concept of State of Nature as it evolves through the period covered by the course. What are the various conceptions of it, and how do they relate to the development of the state, government or commonwealth? Discuss in relation to concepts such as peace, liberty, fairness and equality.
Introduction
The “state of nature concept” is the thought of living without a government, laws or state. The imagination of the state nature goes hand in hand with living in a society without the police, laws, and government. The concept has been in existence for a long time in political philosophy and can assist in establishing the need for laws in the society where people live. It might appear as normal that there are things which people are not allowed to do and no one is allowed to breach the provisions of the law and whoever does it is liable for punishment and that it is the people who developed this legislation. Why is it important to establish laws which they abide obey? Is it important? The paper seeks to provide a discussion on the “state of nature concept” its various facets, how it relates to the growth and development of the state, commonwealth or government. The analysis will connect with the aspects of equality, fairness, liberty, and peace.
When people think of living without a state, they should also imagine the process of creating one. The philosophers have applied the concept to postulate that the establishment of a state as an agreement between people to live together under specific laws guiding them. The state of nature assist scholars in answering another question- it provides a narrative on how a group of people living freely without any limitations becomes obliged to abide by the regulations of the state (Carnoy, 2014). Nevertheless, the story is not expected to be practical. Perhaps people have never lived together without binding group regulations and loyalty to someone in authority to enforce the rules. Nonetheless, people can finally comprehend what validates the situation- the reason it is a noble idea and why individuals embrace it- by thinking about the situation without an administrative authority (Carnoy, 2014).
However, some thinkers hold that the state of nature cannot answer such questions, because it is not an image of a false thing, but something poised to work against human nature. People naturally co-exist and lives as per the provisions of the law or some other agreements. A political and social organization is a natural fit for humanity (Carnoy, 2014). The imagination of a society without rules will not be helpful for a community of people, the reason which makes them essential. Besides, there are no parameters which can justify life without the state. It is not possible to trade real freedom for obedience. For instance, it is significant that people start living as children (Lloyd " Sreedhar, 2002). The situation has several implications- that it is almost impossible to survive alone without having someone to take care of children; it requires two individuals to bear and that to raise them efficiently it needs this couple or a large group of people (Lloyd " Sreedhar, 2002). Hobbes appears to think that people can be imagined as individuals before any social engagement. However, individuals come from some groups of people and must belong to some groups to survive. If people are naturally social, then the state of nature needs to take this into consideration and its implication for the psychology of people. Conceivably, countries develop free and not by consent (Lloyd " Sreedhar, 2002).
Hobbes: the state of nature as the state of war
According to Thomas Hobbes, understanding the components of society (people) is the first step of recognizing the political community. Individuals need to understand the agreements which build a nation, and it is from these agreements that it is possible to comprehend the tenets of the state. Moreover, Hobbes posits that the imagination of the state of nature helps provide the real qualities of human qualities (Lloyd " Sreedhar, 2002).
The inherent nature of “self-preservation” is the ultimate desire of humankind; and if legislation or authority to protect the freedom of this desire, no one to guide on how people should live. Then according to Hobbes, individuals have the liberty to use their freedom to fight for their survival (Morris, 2000). Besides, Hobbes holds that one person’s natural rights conflict the right of others. Fundamentally if a person enjoys some freedoms, others have a responsibility to respect it (Morris, 2000). For instance, if an individual has a right to life, then others have the burden of not killing that person; if some people have the rights to the property they own, then others have the responsibility of not stealing that property (Morris, 2000). However, in the state of nature, no one has the discretion to postulate how or how not to exercise the freedom to stay alive. If one person holds that the best way of staying alive is to kill all people around him/her, then they are free to do exactly that and everyone judges individually how they can execute that. There is no duty to compel them not to steal or kill. Thus, everyone’s freedom for self-preservation contradicts that of others (Paust et al., 2000).
Moreover, in the state of nature, each one person must rely on their intelligence and strength to survive. The result of this scramble is war; individuals will fighting against others, but everyone will be set or disposed of ready for war if the need arises and people will live in a society full of fear and risk of death. In such conditions, people will not have the peace to study, work or create anything (Paust et al., 2000).
The causes of war
Human and the conditions of the state of nature are two fundamental facets which precipitate the eruption of war. According to Hobbes’ state of nature, the following two reasons inform the emergence of war:
First, the desire for power: the concept of power in this situation implies people’s quest to obtain what they yearn for or the being in control of the means of one's wants in the future. The quest for power implies that people desire for anything-all things they may think of; thus this means that a means of getting them must be available (Ritchie, 2014). There are several conditions which grant people authority including the perception of others on an individual. For instance, if people love somebody or if they fear them, then they may give them whatever they want (Ritchie, 2014). Secondly, people have unending desires: after the fulfillment of one wish, another one emerges. Hence, people do not try to satisfy their present cravings, but they always plan and work to meet their future wants (Ritchie, 2014).
The conditions for the state of nature postulate that all people in the community are roughly equal; none has the strength of dominating others and overwhelm all the resistance (Ritchie, 2014). Any mismatch in physical force can be overcome by one individual seeking support from others to help, or by superiority in intelligence, or by prior experience in battle or in dealing with similar situations (Ritchie, 2014). Further, there is scarcity; it is not possible that everyone can manage to get what they desire, mainly when what they yearn for entails some power to get it in the future. Moreover, humanity is vulnerable- other individuals can stand in one’s way of attaining what they want to satisfy their quest (Ritchie, 2014).
All these events result in a vicious cycle. People may opt not to attacks others, but they must bear in mind that others may attack them. The best defense and the most effective strategy of getting what one wants is striking first (Ritchie, 2014). Moreover, the surest way of getting more influence is acquiring more power than fellows. In this scenario, people who are naturally violent have the reason to develop aggression because of the anxiety of losing what they set sight. Hobbes says that in the state of nature people will fight: to meet their needs, to ensure they are safe, to secure their future, and for glory- the prestige of being an authority by being in control or because they enjoy (Ritchie, 2014).
John Locke on the state of nature
In his book, Second Treatise of Government, John Locke holds the same view as Hobbes that state of nature is a state of absolute equality and freedom. However, his understanding of these terms is entirely different (Locke, 2008). Hobbes holds that equality entails the ability to gain influence and meet our desires, and liberty involves the everyone has the freedom to do what they perceive significant to ensure self-preservation. Locke’s viewpoint at a moral perception of the terms (Locke, 2008). According to Locke, equality implies that no one has the discretion to hold power over others. Locke continues that while everyone has a right for self-preservation, there are barriers on what people can do (Locke, 2008). The law of nature states that no individual should subordinate others, hurt their welfare, possessions, liberty or health. Besides, Locke espouses that people should assist each other, meaning that harm is not an option. Thus, Locke implies that the state of nature is the state of liberty, and not a condition of “license” since it is still under the law viz. the state of nature (Locke, 2008).
Nevertheless, legislation is made by the government, and in the state of nature, there is no government. Thus, one is compelled to enquire to the origin of the Law of life; lock holds that God grants the state of nature and that humanity is the creation of God, they should not harm one another. Nonetheless, Locke elaborates that if people do not want to revert to God, then the natural law can be understood by nature (Rommen, 2012).
It is debatable and subject to rejection that the law of nature is not optimal for the state of life to remain peaceful; people’s obedience to it is fundamental. On the contrary, Hobbes holds that individuals need power and people’s acts are informed by fear put forth by the characteristics of the state of nature. Therefore, even if humanity is poised to obey the law of nature, it is difficult to make it (Simmons, 1989).
However, the concept of scarcity held by Hobbes as one of the reasons wars start contradicts the viewpoints of Locke. In the state of nature, there are adequate pieces of land for everyone to access enough for themselves which they can till and provide enough food for their survival and shelter (Vallentyne, 2014). Many individuals will prefer this plan rather than attacking others to steal what they have worked hard to produce, thus implying at a possibility of living together in harmony (Vallentyne, 2014). Locke’s view suggests that everyone has a right to own land because ownership is the shortest and most comfortable way of securing personal desires. Given that there is enough land for all other people then taking some pieces for personal use does not breach the law of nature (Vallentyne, 2014).
Jean Jacques Rousseau and the state of nature
In his philosophical work, Rousseau handles the theme of freedom more than any other concern of political thinking and concentrates on explaining how people in the state of nature are blessed with absolute freedom (Cooper, 2010). Rousseau postulates that this freedom is total because of the following: first, the man in the state of nature is physically unconstrained from oppressive state instruments or dominance by fellow men with more powers (Cooper, 2010). Secondly, the man in this context is spiritually and psychologically free because he is not held back some artificial needs which dominate the modern society. The third element of Rousseau’s philosophy talks of freedom from lack provides a revolutionary component of Rousseau’s perspective. Rousseau’s model postulates that the modern man’s slavery to personal emanates from various forms of social ills, exploitation, and domination from other people (Cooper, 2010).
Besides, Rousseau postulates that a competent government grants all citizens freedom as its most critical element. The social contract is explicitly Rousseau’s effort to reflect the model of government which protects freedom of its citizens, with some limitations typical in modern complex civil society (De Maistre, 1996). Rousseau talks of the contemporary culture and holds that as long as the issue of property and laws are involved, it is difficult to grant absolute freedom in the modern society as it is in the state of nature, a perspective later approved by Marx and other leading anarchist and communist thinkers. However, Rousseau firmly held in the existence of some government principles which can grant some degrees of freedom to the society is enacted and implemented (De Maistre, 1996).
According to Rousseau, the most significant feature of the state of nature is the absolute physical freedom which people enjoy. However, according to Rousseau, the state of nature has some limitation because at its era human beings had not fully developed morality or rationality (Rousseau " Jason, 2015). In other writings, Rousseau stresses on the benefits and limitations of the state of nature. However, he reverses this limitation for the physical freedom it accords people, granting them the liberty to stay from the coercion and pressures of the government (Rousseau " Jason, 2015). In comparison to Hobbes, Rousseau’s analysis of the state of nature is more favorable than the one held by Hobbes. Hobbes, the founder of the “state of nature” phrase perceives it as a condition of savagery and war. The divergence in definition advances two implications: according to Rousseau, it is good and to Hobbes it is basically brutal and violent (Rousseau " Jason, 2015).
The danger/ risks of needs
Rousseau provides an analysis of people’s needs as a single element in his comparison of the state of nature and the contemporary society. Rousseau postulates that human needs emerge from the passions which compel them to desire an activity or object. The concept of nature talks about human needs which are limited to those necessities which ensure reproduction and survival such as food, shelter, sex, etc. (Rousseau " Jason, 2015). On the contrary, the division of labor and cooperation is paramount in the modern society; the needs of men multiply to involve some non-essential things such luxury products, entertainment, friends, etc. (Rousseau " Jason, 2015). As time evolves, these increasing needs become part of daily life and hence deemed necessities. Even though these things are pleasurable in the beginning for humanity at the onset, people in the modern society become slaves to these unessential wants, and the entire humankind is knit together and influenced through their pursuit. As such, unessential wishes form the base of the contemporary “moral inequality” because the desire of these stuff means some people will strive to fulfill the needs of others thus providing a chance of some group dominating others (Rousseau " Jason, 2015).
Rousseau’s view of need particularly the more artificial ones which dominate the present day society makes his school of thought entirely applicable to the present day (Scott, 1992). Given the massive wealth which exists in some countries such as the United States and the degree with which consumerism is influencing the modern society, Rousseau’s views should provoke reflections on any individual interested in mays which the American lifestyle raise a population of people significantly enslaved by artificial and temporary needs (Scott, 1992).
The state of nature and the Treaty of the Commonwealth
Hobbes devoted the first two chapters of the Leviathan to discuss covenants and contracts between sovereigns and their followers, and he held that justice calls for obedience to these agreements (Jahn, 2016). The interrelationships and significance of adherence to these treaties have always been overlooked in moving forward to the civil society. Hobbes states that the rational and prudent rules of the state of nature (Lex Naturalis) offered savages with the strategies of avoiding it (Jahn, 2016). Natural laws are general rules found out by reason which protect life by illegitimate actions which harm or destroy life. According to Hobbes, seeking peace by every individual but war being an option of self-defense is the first law of nature (Grotius, 2012). In pursuit of peace, people have to put aside their natural rights in all issues and hand them over to the sovereign who in exchange will provide security for all- this is the second law of nature. The third law provides that when handing over their natural rights to the sovereign, both sides must be ready to respect and obey the covenant (Henderson, 2000). The concept of entrusting natural rights to a temporary man-state is the foundation of Hobbes’ civil society. However, it is fundamental in establishing peace between sovereigns in the rule of a nation: obligations are created when rights are transferred (Henderson, 2000).
Hobbes states that it is only through elaborate and binding agreements between subjects and the sovereign that the state of nature transcends. In the presence of covenants, men of strength would be sovereigns and will always stay as enemies (Kramer, 2008). The temporal man state together with civil society emerged to correct the limitations of natural interactions which guided the state of nature (Locke, 2014). The evolution took place through covenants made by people who were keen on advancing from the state of nature. Without these agreements, men interacted within the guidelines of the natural, where all actions were deemed right. The civil society freely established by the treaties and wills of people was referred as “the Commonwealth” by Hobbes. The process formed the foundation of international law and the law of nations (Lloyd " Sreedhar, 2002).
Conclusion
The paper sought to provide a discussion on the concept of the state of nature and the various elements which surround it from the viewpoints of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The analysis of these scholars intertwines the issues of peace, liberty, fairness, and equality. The three thinkers advance the same thought concerning the state of nature but with slightly different viewpoints. They begin their analysis by offering a description of the state of nature and man’s advancement to the civil society. All the three agree that people existed in the state of nature before invented the rule of law which inform all their activities. Moreover, they have provided valuable insight into the ownership of property, peace, and the conditions which precipitate the beginning of wars. Besides, they offer an explanation which results in the establishment of the state and the Treaty of the Commonwealth.
References
Carnoy, M. (2014). The state and political theory. Princeton University Press.
Cooper, L. D. (2010). Rousseau, nature, and the problem of the good life. Penn State Press.
De Maistre, J. (1996). Against Rousseau: On the State of Nature and on the Sovereignty of the People. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Grotius, H. (2012). Hugo Grotius on the law of war and peace. Cambridge University Press.
Held, D. (2013). Political theory and the modern state. John Wiley " Sons.
Henderson, J. (2000). The context of the state of nature. Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision, 11-38.
Jahn, B. (2016). The cultural construction of international relations: the invention of the state of nature. Springer.
Kramer, M. (2008). Russian policy toward the Commonwealth of Independent States: recent trends and future prospects. Problems of Post-Communism, 55(6), 3-19.
Lloyd, S. A., " Sreedhar, S. (2002). Hobbes's moral and political philosophy.
Locke, J. (2014). Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. John Wiley " Sons.
Locke, J. (2008). Questions concerning the law of nature. Cornell University Press.
Morris, C. W. (Ed.). (2000). The social contract theorists: critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Rowman " Littlefield Publishers.
Paust, J. L., Scharf, M. P., Sadat, L., Bassiouni, M. C., Gurulé, J., Zagaris, B., " Williams, S. A. (2000). International criminal law (p. 8). Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Ritchie, D. G. (2014). Natural rights: a criticism of some political and ethical conceptions. Routledge.
Rommen, H. A. (2012). The Natural Law. Liberty Fund.
Rousseau, J. J., " Jason, N. (2015). Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality among Men. Naxos.
Ryan, A. (1996). Hobbes’s political philosophy. The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, 208-245.
Simmons, A. J. (1989). Locke's State of Nature. Political Theory, 17(3), 449-470.
Scott, J. T. (1992). The Theodicy of the Second Discourse: The “Pure State of Nature” and Rousseau's Political Thought. American Political Science Review, 86(3), 696-711.
Vallentyne, P. (2014). Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In Central Works of Philosophy v5 (pp. 108-125). Routledge.
