How Does Rousseau's Conception of Ð''the State of Nature' Differ from Hobbes'?

Question: How does Rousseau's conception of Ð''the state of nature' differ from Hobbes'?

The term Ð''state of nature' is used in political philosophy to describe the condition of human life either in the absence of some form of government, or the lack of laws. The notion itself was initiated by philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) within his book Leviathan, in which it is depicted as "the natural condition of mankind" . The state of nature is a supposed state as opposed to an actual state in that it is believed that humans have always been a part of a structure which could be considered a society, bound by some form of social contract (although some have argued there was in fact a time when humans existed in a true state of nature). The argument put forward by Hobbes is hypothetical and does not base itself on any historical evidence of such a state having ever been occupied by humanity.

Philosophers attempted to evaluate and appraise the Ð''state of nature' did so due to the belief that through anaylsing and observing the Ð''original' state of human nature, hypothetical or otherwise, it is possible to improve understanding of society itself, and as a result ascertain a superior, enhanced and further advanced society

In the 18th century, philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) disputed the conception of the Ð''state of nature' put forward by Hobbes in the 17th century. This essay aims to establish, and following that, examine, the differences between the views of both Hobbes and Rousseau on this political philosophical stance.

In Leviathan, Hobbes introduced the Ð''state of nature'. He portrayed it as a vision of the circumstances humanity would encounter should there be no laws or social contract. He extracted his proposals and thoughts not from the earliest form of human life or historical reference, but from the observation of human life at the time and the implications of a lack of laws and a system of government on society. Hobbes developed his philosophical ideas from basic simplistic concepts, which he then transformed into more complex and intricate initiatives "by deducing necessary propositions from other necessary propositions, which ultimately come from definitions"

Hobbes' Ð''state of nature' was one of conflict and divergence, "a war of all against all", a condition in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" . Man in the Ð''state of nature' is, to all intents and purposes, egotistical; the desire to protect oneself over others causing constant conflict and disruption. A lack of social structure and rule, leaving each person equal to everyone else, results in a state in which each person is an equal in terms of both need and power Ð'- a situation which, as Hobbes asserts, can only lead to conflict.

Hobbes' Ð''state of nature' is destructive. Each person is constantly competing with another for resources which are in limited supply Ð'- resources which in terms of the Ð''state of nature' belong to each individual. Having no law means, effectively, everyone is entitled to everything; nothing specifically belongs to one person. When the entire human race is taken into account, there is no possible way in which humans can live peacefully when each person fundamentally owns everything. The destructive nature of this concept can be compared to the effect of two species occupying the same ecological niche Ð'- should two species have the same niche, they constantly and directly compete against each other, one stronger species overriding the weaker species, pushing them out and taking over the niche. In Hobbes' Ð''state of nature', due to the equality of power, there is no stronger or weaker species, and because of this the only progression, should man remain in this Ð''state of nature', appears to be total destruction. In Hobbes' war there is no achievable victory.

Hobbes claims that the only way to protect human beings from falling into this destructive state is to introduce some form of political structure and laws to abide by, as a result the concept of the Ð''social contract' is introduced.

The Ð''social contract' is an unwritten agreement of individuals within a society to abide by the morals and beliefs of the society to which they belong, a contract Ð''signed' on entering and living as a part of a certain culture. It is this Ð''social contract' which, combined with the agreement of the individuals involved, creates an established and functional society.

For Hobbes, this Ð''society is the cure to the disease of the state of nature.'

Rousseau's view on the Ð''state of nature' differed from that of Hobbes, with his belief that the Ð''state of nature' is in fact a peaceful stance, the notion of a Ð''war of all against all' only coming into play as a result of the acquisition and realisation of the notion of owning property. He does not actually dispute Hobbes' claims, rather implies that his stance is taken from not the Ð''state of nature' itself, but from the point where the concept of private property is introduced. Rousseau's Ð''state of nature' comes before Hobbes', chronologically, and it is depicted as a peaceful and desirable state. In fact, Rousseau does not view the movement into society and culture as a beneficial progression, rather as a transgression.

Rousseau argues that humans in the Ð''state of nature' were solitary, living through their natural instincts and desire to survive. Although Rousseau does hold the belief that humans in the Ð''state of nature' are in a sense egotistical and practice self-preservation, his ideas concerning this self-preservation differ greatly from Hobbes. Rousseau argues that in the Ð''state of nature', humans are non-competitive, interacting purely for reproductional purposes. They act on the basis of their natural instincts, a peaceful situation and position maintained by a natural compassion. Ð''Rousseau argues that a human has a built in instinct to care for and act compassionately towards other humans. He believed that the fact that humans act morally now is proof that they have a certain degree of natural compassion, otherwise that would not be the case.' The Ð''natural' human has no desire