Hobbes's, Locke's and Rousseau's Understanding of the State of Nature (Essay Sample)

What are the differences between Hobbes's, Locke's and Rousseau's understanding of the state of nature? What do these differences reveal about their varying views of human nature? What do these differences mean for their understanding of justice? The paper will focus on the difference in perspective and understanding of Hobbes's, Locke's and Rousseau's state of nature. The three do have different views when it comes to essential aspects of the social contract. The philosophers held the view that the state or civil society emerged from a product of a contract that was invented by people living in the state of nature (Jones). The philosophers have similarities among them, but the main focus is on their differences. The study will deal with the nature of the state as they had put it down in the form of writing.
According to the writing of Hobbes, the state of nature led to the creation of a powerful state referred to as an autocratic or collectivist state. According to Hobbes, the natural state of people living together often leads to quarrels, hostility among each other and restlessness. There was no peace and security for people living in such a way. People who lived with no peace and security had no time to develop their art, literature, transport, commerce and trade (Jones). The main aim of his philosophy is to develop a powerful state that will have absolute sovereign authority with the focus of restoring peace and security and bringing out general progress to the state. According to Hobbes, the citizens could rely upon the state. He saw no difference between monarchy and tyranny. He focused on coming up with a state with absolute sovereignty at the top of power to free the society from anarchy. The individual freedom of people was not important to Hobbes, and he insisted that citizens should surrender to the will and authority of absolute sovereign power (Jones). Hobbes's ideology was not democratic, but rather it was absolutist. In addition, Hobbes had a utilitarian state whereby his aim was to achieve peace and security for every individual as long as they surrendered and adhered to the rules of the state.
According to Locke, he believed in the goodness of human nature and the danger of any government that can act without regard to the wishes of its subjects. This is the main difference between Locke and Hobbes. Hobbes's ideology involved a state of nature that lacked peace and security hence the need to come together and lay a foundation of the state. However, Locke observed that individuals' state of nature was happy, but they faced challenges that they could not overcome (Monalisa). Locke insisted on the absence of man-made laws, which led to partial anarchy and loss of life, liberty and property. The main aim is to provide security to life, liberty and property. He does not support the government as it is good for the community. Locke's philosophy aimed at providing a welfare state which was different from Hobbes's philosophy. His was for the majority opinion, which gave room for a democratic state (Monalisa). The contract theory favored constitutionalism as the relationship between the government and the citizens followed the rule of law and not arbitrary orders.