Unpacking the Wilderness: The State of Nature Hypothesis

Have you ever paused to consider why we bother with rules, laws, and the complex machinery of government? Why do we surrender some of our individual freedoms to a collective authority? The answer, or at least a powerful intellectual framework for exploring it, often leads us back to one of philosophy's most enduring and provocative thought experiments: The State of Nature Hypothesis. This isn't a historical account of how humanity actually began, but rather a conceptual tool, a hypothetical baseline, used by thinkers throughout history to understand the fundamental reasons for political society and the justification of the State. It's about stripping away the veneer of civilization to see what remains, and then asking: why did we ever leave that primal existence?

What Exactly Is This "State of Nature"?

At its core, the State of Nature Hypothesis posits a condition of humanity without any established political authority, laws, or social conventions. Imagine a world where there is no police force, no courts, no legislative body – just individuals, living according to their own instincts and desires. This hypothetical scenario serves as a crucial starting point for political philosophy, allowing us to:

  • Understand Human Nature: What are people like when unconstrained by external rules? Are we inherently good, selfish, rational, or savage?
  • Justify Political Authority: If the State of Nature is undesirable, it provides a powerful argument for the necessity of government. If it's tolerable, it raises questions about the legitimate scope of state power.
  • Define Rights and Obligations: What rights do individuals possess purely by virtue of being human, before any laws are enacted? What obligations, if any, do we owe to others in such a condition?

The answers to these questions profoundly shape our views on justice, freedom, and the very purpose of the State.

Visions of the Untamed: Philosophers and Their Hypotheses

The Great Books of the Western World are replete with profound explorations of the State of Nature, each offering a starkly different vision of what life without government might entail. Let's delve into a few of the most influential perspectives:

Thomas Hobbes: The Terrifying Anarchy

In his monumental work, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes paints a grim picture of the State of Nature. For Hobbes, human beings are fundamentally driven by self-preservation and a ceaseless desire for power. In a world without a common authority to enforce rules, life would be:

  • A War of All Against All: Bellum omnium contra omnes. Every individual is a potential threat, and trust is non-existent.
  • "Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short": This iconic phrase encapsulates Hobbes's view of a life devoid of security, industry, or culture. There's no incentive to build, farm, or create, as anything you produce could be taken by force.
  • No Morality or Justice: In this primal State, there are no universally recognized rights or wrongs, only what one can take or hold.

For Hobbes, the only rational escape from this horrifying State of Nature is to form a powerful, absolute government – a Leviathan – capable of imposing order and ensuring peace, even if it means sacrificing significant individual liberty. The fear of death drives us to seek security above all else.

John Locke: Rights and Reason, Yet Inconvenient

Writing his Two Treatises of Government in response to absolute monarchy, John Locke presented a much more optimistic, though still problematic, State of Nature. Locke believed that individuals in this State possess inherent natural rights:

  • Life, Liberty, and Property: These rights are not granted by government but are intrinsic to being human, endowed by a divine creator or natural law.
  • Governed by the Law of Nature: Reason dictates that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. People are capable of understanding and generally adhering to this law.
  • Inconveniences and the Need for a State: Despite natural rights and reason, the State of Nature is still "full of fears and continual dangers." The main problem is the lack of a common, impartial judge to interpret the law of Nature and enforce it. Everyone is their own judge, leading to biases, retaliations, and disputes.

Thus, for Locke, people enter into society and form a government not to escape utter chaos, but to better protect their pre-existing natural rights. The State is legitimate only if it serves this purpose, and its power should be limited and accountable to the people.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The "Noble Savage" and Societal Corruption

Rousseau, in works like Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract, offers a more complex and romanticized view of the State of Nature. He argues that humans are naturally good, compassionate, and independent, living as "noble savages":

  • Amour de Soi and Pitié: Driven by self-love (amour de soi – a healthy self-regard) and pity (pitié – an innate aversion to seeing others suffer).
  • Freedom and Simplicity: Individuals are free from societal constraints, living simple lives in harmony with Nature, without the corrupting influences of property, ambition, or social hierarchy.
  • Society as the Corruptor: The introduction of private property, division of labor, and the development of complex societies lead to inequality, envy, and the loss of natural freedom. It is society, not the State of Nature, that makes us vicious.

Rousseau's solution isn't a return to the State of Nature, but the creation of a legitimate political State based on the "General Will" – a collective will aimed at the common good, which can restore a form of moral freedom and equality.

(Image: A detailed classical oil painting depicting a diverse group of philosophers, perhaps in an academic setting or a grand library, engaged in animated discussion, with ancient scrolls and texts visible around them, symbolizing the rich tradition of philosophical inquiry.)

Why This Hypothesis Continues to Shape Our World

The State of Nature Hypothesis is not a historical fact to be proven or disproven; it is a profound philosophical tool. Its enduring relevance lies in its ability to:

  • Challenge Assumptions: It forces us to question the foundations of our political systems and ask if they are truly just and necessary.
  • Inform Debates on Rights: By considering what rights exist prior to government, it informs discussions about universal human rights.
  • Influence Political Structures: Whether advocating for strong central government (Hobbes), limited government protecting individual liberties (Locke), or a participatory democracy reflecting the general will (Rousseau), these theories have profoundly shaped political thought and action.

By contemplating what life would be like without the structures we often take for granted, we gain a deeper appreciation – or sometimes, a deeper critique – of the State, society, and our place within them. It's a journey into the wild heart of human existence, revealing not just what we might be without rules, but what we become because of them.

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: "Hobbes Locke Rousseau State of Nature comparison"

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: "Political Philosophy introduction Great Books"

Share this post