.” These Articles of Peace Hobbes calls “Laws of Nature” and argues that while they do not exist in a state of nature they are nonetheless natural laws which potentially exist there. “A Law of Nature (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.” That is, a natural law is a result of a reasoning which commands that each man protect his own life. With the state of nature as terrible as Hobbes describes it, it is reasonable for a man to wish to put an end to it, as he then has a greater chance of protecting his own life. Without certain agreements between individuals they interact in a manner in which they are all a constant threat to one another. Therefore Hobbes arrives at the first fundamental law of nature: “That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtain... ... middle of paper ... ...iety, both agree that their contemporary world is not a world of the human animal.
As stated before, Rousseau’s natural man has no intention of harming his environment, except for cases in which he must do so in order to survive. Natural man may have originally begun in the most primitive of states as an herbivore, but was unable to stay put in a state of nature that is always changing. For as prey is almost the unique subject of fighting among carnivorous animals, and as frugivorous ones live among themselves in continual peace, if the human race were of this latter genus it clearly would have had much greater ease subsisting in the state of nature, and less need and occasion to leave it. (Rousseau 188) Had man been a true part of the fru... ... middle of paper ... ...ends to destroy or upset it,” (Rousseau 113). Rousseau adds that man acts as a free agent, which contrasts the typical animal, but overall it is suggested that each organism acts in his best interest of survival.
According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of nature is based around the equality of authority and control. Each man has the authority to judge and punish themselves, but they do not have “…license to abuse others…” On the other hand, Hobbes’ definition of equality is based around the equality of man physically and mentally because “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of the body and mind…” Nevertheless, the natural equality in both Hobbes and Locke’s states of nature contribute to man’s urge and want to join a civil society. In the state of nature, equality creates a state of war amongst men. Hobbes’ believes that the cause of the state of war is the nature of man, perfect equality and self-preservation. The idea self-preservation in Hobbes’ state of nature consents to man to harming one another in the name of survival, because it is also in man’s nature.
Immanuel Kant, an 18th century philosopher argues that human beings have an intrinsic worth that makes them valuable above all else, especially animals. In his argument, Kant postulated the soul as necessary for giving unity to the human person and found that it is not the human body that gives human beings their dignity, but their rationality and their status as rational beings and moral agents. Animals in Kant’s state of mind are a means to an end (the end being man) and overall have no importance. But if rationality is the key to being dignified, then animals are dignified organisms and in turn have great importance to this world than Kant gives them credit for. Animals are rational.
He believes that without outside laws or government (in the sate of nature) humans are awful and destructive creatures. He theorizes that in a natural state men are essentially created as equals, even if one man may seem more physically fit or more mentally capable than another. He believes that
Locke did not think humans are good or evil because he viewed the human mind as a tabula rasa, meaning it is blank at birth and completely shaped by its environment. His belief was that the State of Nature has actually existed and will continue to as long as there are kings and queens governing independent communities (Locke 2005, 6). Right of Nature is an entitlement of all people; it is the right to live, the right to liberty, and the right to property, in respect to everyone else’s same rights. Infusing the resources provided by nature with one’s labour creates private property, but due to the Law of Nature, one cannot take more from nature than he can use, to make sure others have enough left. However, the State of Nature does not preserve people’s property.
“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” The wild man in the state of nature is innately asocial, at peace and without morality, only with the materialization of society does man fall to become cruel and brutish. However, Rousseau does not argue for a return to the state of nature, he acknowledges the need for cooperation. According to Rousseau's work, the formation of inter-human relationships is the proximate factor behind the emergence of disorder and vices that have since their arising, generated conflict. The causes of inequality and disorder in civilized society are direct repercussions from the formation of private property, the gathering of people in societies, and laws to ones property. Inequality arose from laws created to enforce the rights of property owners,... ... middle of paper ... ...g yourself to be free.
The one thing on which Locke lays great emphasis throughout the Treatise is that the chief end or purpose for which the state or commonwealth is formed is making secure to the citizens the natural right to life, liberty and property which they had in the state of nature. In this state of nature, according to Locke, men were born free and equal: free to do what they wished without being required to seek permission from any other man, and equal in the sense of there being no natural political authority of one man over another. He quickly points out, however, that "although it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license," because it is ruled over by the law of nature which everyone is obliged to obey. While Locke is not very specific about the content of the law of nature, he is clear on a few specifics. First, that "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" and second, that it teaches primarily that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life liberty or possessions."
However, once “the actual force is over, the state of war ceases,” (15) and both sides are once again bound by natural law. For Locke, the entire body of people is not the problem; rather the problem occurs when a “degenerate” violates natural law. Because natural law is the law of reason, for someone to break natural law is to “[declare] himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity…and so he becomes dangerous to mankind” (10). Unlike Hobbes, Locke gives more weight to man as a social being within the state of nature. For Locke, a big part of why natural law obliges even within the state of nature is because it is enforceable.
In this paper, I will argue that men do not always have to go from power to power, always trying to subjugate all beneath them. I will raise and support two objections against Hobbes theory on man in the state of nature and freedom, and argue that John Locke’s theory on the state of nature and freedom is rational, as it applies to man. Hobbes presents an argument that all men are equal in their natural facilities, that there is no natural inequalities so great as to give a benefit to one, that another cannot claim as well. Hobbes construes the state of nature as a continual war of all against all, where a man can do what ever he can get away wi... ... middle of paper ... ...ving” (sec. 95).