State Of Nature Nature Of Man Sovereignty

Thomas The "natural Human beings are As per Hobbe’s

Hobbes condition of physical objects,
mankind" is what according to Hobbes,
would exist if there sophisticated machines
were no all of whose functions and
government, no activities can be
civilization, no laws, described and explained
and no common in purely mechanistic
power to restrain terms. Even thought itself,
human nature. The therefore, must be
state of nature is a understood as an
"war of all against instance of the physical
all," in which human operation of the human
beings constantly body. Sensation, for
seek to destroy example, involves a
each other in an series of mechanical
incessant pursuit processes operating
for power. Life in within the human nervous
the state of nature system, by means of
is "nasty, brutish which the sensible
and short." features of material things
produce ideas in the
brains of the human
beings who perceive
them.
view that a
sovereign must be
‘self-perpetuating’,
‘undivided’ and
‘ultimately
absolute’. The
sovereign has a
right to command
the subjects. It is
the duty of the
subjects to obey
the sovereign. The
duty of obedience
is generated
through consent.
The unlimited
powers to the
sovereign are
provided to ensure
that peace is
achieved and in
turn the subjects
have a moral as
well as a prudential
obligation to obey
the sovereign.

The sovereign is
preferably a single
person and can
legitimately do what
all is required to
secure peace. The
sovereign is
responsible for
making as well as
enforcing the law.
For Hobbes, ‘the
sovereign is
created by, but is
not a party to, the
compact. He
therefore cannot be
got rid of because
he is in breach of
the compact. If he
could be, his power
would not, after all,
 be sovereign.’

John Locke ohn Locke discusses the The Second

John
idea that until we Treatise of
Locke considers
experience a situation in Government places
the state of nature
our life, we can develop sovereignty into the
in his Second
certain knowledge on that hands of the
Treatise on Civil
experience. There are people. Locke's
Government written
two truths of knowledge, fundamental
around the time of
which can be gained argument is that
the Exclusion
through both fact and people are equal
Crisis in England
opinion. The knowledge and invested with
during the 1680s.
that is gained from one natural rights in a
For Locke, in the
another is not always state of nature in
state of nature all
accurate due to not which they live free
men are free "to
knowing if it’s true. This from outside rule. In
order their actions,
type of knowledge is the state of nature,
and dispose of their
known as an opinion. The natural law governs
possessions and
knowledge gained from behavior, and each
persons, as they
life experiences is more person has license
think fit, within the
accurate because we to execute that law
bounds of the law
have gone through it- (we against someone
of nature." (2nd Tr.,
know what the situation is who wrongs them
§4). "The state of
really like). Going through by infringing on
Nature has a law of
an actual experience will their rights. People
Nature to govern it",
allow us to develop a take what they
and that law is
clear understanding of the need from the
reason. Locke
truth of the situation. This earth, but hoard
believes that
is more of a factual type just enough to
reason teaches that
of knowledge. Although, cover their needs.
"no one ought to
it’s the way we use the Eventually, people
harm another in his
knowledge from our own begin to trade their
life, liberty, and or
experiences that shapes excess goods with
property" (2nd Tr.,
who we are as human each other, until
§6) ; and that
beings. Our knowledge they develop a
transgressions of
on the aspects of life common currency
this may be
shapes our reason, for barter, or
punished. This view
judgment, and lastly our money. Money
of the state of
attitudes, which later eliminates limits on
nature is partly
affects our actions, and the amount of
deduced from
therefore can affect property they can
Christian belief
everyone in the bigger obtain (unlike food,
(unlike Hobbes,
picture. The whole money does not
whose philosophy
conflict, which is what spoil), and they
is not dependent
Locke explains, is that our begin to gather
upon any prior
human nature is that we estates around
theology).
are selfish. I believe that themselves and
Although it may be until we accept the truth their families.
natural to assume about ourselves- (that we
that Locke was are selfish and strive to
 responding to be the best) we can
Hobbes, Locke change our human
never refers to nature, by putting an end
Hobbes by name, to the competition.
and may instead Without coming to a point
have been of accepting who we are
responding to other as human beings, we will
writers of the day, eventually fall apart as a
like Robert society. '
Filmer.In fact,
Locke's First
Treatise is entirely
a response to
Filmer's Patriarcha,
and takes a step by
step method to
refuting Filmer's
theory set out
in Patriarcha. The
conservative party
at the time had
rallied behind
Filmer's Patriarcha,
whereas the Whigs,
scared of another
prosecution of
Anglicans and
Protestants, rallied
behind the theory
set out by Locke in
his Two Treatises
of Government as it
gave a clear theory
as to why the
people would be
justified in
overthrowing a
monarchy which
abuses the trust
they had placed in
it.

Jean- Hobbes' view was To develop his critique of Strictly defined, a

Jacques challenged in the existing society he asked sovereign is the
Rousseau eighteenth century what humans would have voice of the law and
by Jean-Jacques been like before the the absolute
Rousseau, who institution of society. authority within a
claimed that Rousseau saw society given state. In
Hobbes was taking as unnatural, and a social Rousseau's time,
socialized people sense is therefore also not the sovereign was
and simply natural but artificial. In usually an absolute
imagining them other words to define monarch. In The
living outside of the ‘human nature’ we have to Social
society in which think about what humans Contract,however,
they were raised. would have been like this word is given a
He affirmed instead before society. new meaning. In a
that people were healthy republic,
neither good nor Note that many political Rousseau defines
bad, but were born philosophers (not just in the sovereign as all
as a blank slate, the Enlightenment) used the citizens acting
and later society the device of conjecturing collectively.
and the a ‘state of nature’ as a Together, they
environment starting point for their voice the general
influence which theories. will and the laws of
way we lean. In For some it seems to have the state. The
Rousseau's state of been an actual historical sovereign cannot
nature, people did condition – for others be represented,
not know each merely a useful divided, or broken
other enough to hypothesis. Either way, it up in any way: only
come into serious was a popular device - all the people
conflict, and they after all, once something speaking
did have normal has been labeled ‘natural’ collectively can be
values. The modern it is very hard to oppose or sovereign.
society, and the reject it… It has been said
ownership it entails, that the word ‘natural’ was
is blamed for the a central concept in
disruption of the Enlightenment thinking.
state of nature
which Rousseau Using evidence from the
sees as true writings of travellers and
freedom. naturalists such as Buffon,
he explores the nature of
man: natural man would
be roving individuals; there
would be no permanent
relationships, but a "loose
companionship"; there
would be no love, no
family, no morality, and no
property; people would be
free, but without
knowledge, language,
morality, or industry – they
would be neither moral nor
vicious: in a word –
“innocent”. (Berki)

For Rousseau, then, the

‘savage’ in the state of
nature was not selfish (as
in Hobbes) nor even
 rational (as in Locke) – for
these abilities, he argued,
arose as a result of our
interaction with others, and
especially in ‘civilisation’.
Rousseau’s view of
human nature (before
society changes it) is that
we all have two natural
(pre-social) sentiments or
feelings (sensibilité).
Again, and most
importantly, unlike the
other Enlightenment
thinkers, Rousseau does
not attribute reasoning
powers to us as ‘natural’ or
pre-social… We have
feelings first, and he
identifies two such
sentiments/feelings: amour
de soi, and pitié:

Sources:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3x.htm
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/leviathan/terms.html
http://humannature.wikia.com/wiki/John_Locke
http://www.imagining-other.net/enl4humannaturerousseau.htm