Unpacking the State of Nature: A Philosophical Journey Before Government

The State of Nature Hypothesis is one of the most foundational and enduring thought experiments in political philosophy. It asks us to imagine humanity's existence prior to the formation of any organized society, laws, or government. This crucial intellectual exercise, explored by titans whose works populate the Great Books of the Western World, isn't an attempt at historical accuracy, but rather a powerful tool to understand the origins of political authority, the essence of human nature, and the very purpose of the State. By envisioning life without rules, we gain profound insights into why we choose, or are compelled, to live under them.

What is the State of Nature Hypothesis?

At its core, the State of Nature Hypothesis posits a hypothetical condition of humanity without any political structure. It's a mental construct designed to strip away the layers of societal convention and reveal what human life would truly be like. Philosophers use this thought experiment to derive conclusions about:

  • Human Nature: Are we inherently good, evil, or neutral?
  • Natural Rights: Do we possess rights independent of any legal system?
  • The Need for Government: Why do we form societies and submit to authority?
  • The Legitimacy of Power: What justifies the State's power over individuals?

This hypothesis serves as the bedrock upon which various theories of political legitimacy and social contract are built.

Voices from the Great Books: Three Perspectives

The State of Nature is not a monolithic concept; its characteristics vary wildly depending on the philosopher describing it. Let's delve into the iconic interpretations from the Great Books of the Western World:

Thomas Hobbes: The War of All Against All

In his seminal work, Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes painted a stark and terrifying picture of the State of Nature. For Hobbes, without a common power to keep all in awe, life would be:

  • A "War of Every Man Against Every Man": Not necessarily constant fighting, but a perpetual readiness for conflict, driven by competition, diffidence (distrust), and the desire for glory.
  • Driven by Self-Preservation: Individuals are rational egoists, constantly seeking to protect themselves and their interests.
  • Devoid of Morality, Justice, or Property: "Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice." There is no ownership, only possession.
  • "Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short": Life without the protection of a sovereign Government is utterly miserable and precarious.

For Hobbes, the only escape from this dreadful State of Nature is through a powerful, absolute sovereign – the Leviathan – to whom individuals surrender their rights in exchange for security and order.

John Locke: Natural Rights and Inconveniences

John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government (1689), offers a more optimistic, yet still problematic, view of the State of Nature. He argues that even without government, humanity is bound by a Law of Nature, which dictates that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

Key aspects of Locke's State of Nature include:

  • Natural Rights: Individuals possess inherent rights to life, liberty, and property (which he considered an extension of one's labor).
  • Reason and Natural Law: Humans are capable of reason and can discern the Law of Nature, which obliges them not to infringe upon others' rights.
  • Equality: All individuals are born equally free and independent.
  • Inconveniences: Despite natural law, the State of Nature suffers from "inconveniences." There's no established, impartial judge to resolve disputes, no executive power to enforce the law, and individuals are often biased in their own cases.

It is these "inconveniences," rather than outright war, that compel people to form a civil State and establish a government to protect their natural rights more effectively.

(Image: A detailed, allegorical painting depicting a chaotic scene of individuals struggling against each other in a wild, untamed landscape, with no visible signs of civilization or order, contrasting with a faint, distant vision of an organized city on the horizon.)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Noble Savage and Social Corruption

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, particularly in his Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1755), presents a radical departure from both Hobbes and Locke. For Rousseau, the original State of Nature was not a war zone or a realm of natural rights, but a state of primitive innocence and self-sufficiency.

Rousseau's "Noble Savage" in the State of Nature is characterized by:

  • Amour de Soi (Self-Love): A natural, healthy self-preservation instinct, uncorrupted by vanity or competition.
  • Pitié (Compassion): An innate aversion to seeing others suffer.
  • Freedom and Perfectibility: Humans are born free and possess the capacity to improve themselves, but this perfectibility can also lead to their downfall.
  • Lack of Society, Property, and Language: Individuals are largely isolated, without complex social bonds, private property, or advanced communication.

For Rousseau, it is the development of society, particularly the introduction of private property ("This is mine!"), agriculture, and metallurgy, that leads to inequality, envy, and the corruption of human nature. The formation of government and laws, in his view, was often a trick perpetrated by the powerful to solidify their gains and perpetuate inequality, rather than a genuine improvement for all.

A Comparative Glance: Different States of Nature

Philosopher Key Characteristics of the State of Nature Primary Reason for Forming Government
Thomas Hobbes War of all against all; no morality; fear of death Security and survival; escape perpetual conflict
John Locke Governed by Natural Law; natural rights (life, liberty, property); inconveniences (no impartial judge) Protection of natural rights; establishment of impartial justice
Jean-Jacques Rousseau Primitive innocence; "Noble Savage"; self-sufficiency; compassion; no private property Escape inequality and corruption introduced by society; achieve true freedom through the General Will

The Enduring Relevance of the Hypothesis

The State of Nature Hypothesis is far more than a historical curiosity. It remains a vital tool for contemporary political discourse. By understanding these different philosophical frameworks, we can better analyze:

  • The Role of Government Today: Is government primarily for security (Hobbes), protecting rights (Locke), or fostering collective good (Rousseau)?
  • Human Rights Debates: Are rights inherent (Locke) or products of social contract?
  • International Relations: Is the global arena a Hobbesian State of Nature among nations?
  • Ethical Foundations: How much of our morality is innate versus socially constructed?

Exploring the State of Nature forces us to confront fundamental questions about ourselves, our societies, and the very structures that govern our lives. It reminds us that the State is not a natural given, but a deliberate construction, born from humanity's complex interaction with its own nature and the fundamental desire for order, justice, or freedom.

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: "What is the Social Contract Theory?"

Share this post