- Created by: Lewis Ryan
- Created on: 07-05-12 15:06
Hobbes, State of Nature
- Believed life in a state of nature is 'nasty, brutish and short'.
- A state of nature is equivalent to a state of war.
- This is because we are only interested in ourselves.
- And this is because we are essentially evil.
- In a state of nature we have the right to defend ourselves from exploitation, and so our brutality grows.
- We are all equal in the sense that we are equally capable of killing someone to defend ourselves or to exploit others.
- To escape this, we commit to a social contract.
- And so we commit to a social contract out of fear.
1 of 3
Rousseau, State of Nature
- Rousseau puts forward the concept of the noble savage.
- In a pre-society, we are innocent, we have no pride and have limited wants.
- We were savage because we had no laws and that is why we were noble.
- Society is what corrupts us.
- We are free and Rousseau agrees with Locke here. He Disagrees with Locke when Locke claims we had rational powers.
- The noble savge has no concpetion of justice. Evil is simply not a factor.
- Laws implant temptation towards evil within us.
- In a State of Nature we are free and naturally good, but we are weak.
- We moved to a social contract because we, society, felt unfullfilled.
2 of 3
Locke, State of Nature
- As a pluralist, Locke believes that State of Nature is a state of perfect and complete liberty and freedom.
- He believes people are essiantally good and moral, the opposite to Hobbes and what he claims.
- Our morals were implanted within us by God.
- Property is actually what corrupts us.
- A state of nature, to Locke, means pre-pollitical and not pre-moral.
3 of 3