Introduction
The state of nature refers to the state of humans before there was a social order. Many views on the state of nature in the political and philosophical framework have been discussed for centuries. The concept of the state of nature itself is closely related to the emergence of government or the state, a superior understanding of power, and of course the social contract. In this essay, I will discuss Hobbes’ ideas on the State of Nature and Government, and how they are interrelated from different perspectives.
State of Nature
The notion of the state of nature is used as a philosophical term. When we look at the term’s meaning, it usually refers to the primitive state of society before the law, politics, and social order. The concept of the state of nature has been defined from different perspectives by thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Immanuel Kant, and Marx.
“The natural state is more hypothetical than historical. It is a situation or a working hypothesis” (Zelyüt, 2010, p. 31). Discussed ideas on human nature offer a different perspective on the meaning and organization of life based on various human prototypes. According to Hobbes, in the state of nature man is completely free and this freedom includes everything he will do just to maintain his existence. Hobbes speaks of a primitive design in which people live without norms and laws, on a speculative plane of thought. In this speculative plane, it is concluded that, in his words, “human life is lonely, poor, bad, wild and short-lived”. From this point of view, a kind of chaotic barbarism environment is formed in which life is very worthless and meaningless for human beings. With the fictional paradigm he developed, Hobbes describes human nature as if it is outside of all social and political determinations, and evaluates the effects and consequences of social life on humans in this direction. (Leboeuf,2014,p.84)Hobbes uses abstractions in his approach to human nature and treats human beings as individuals by isolating them from all social relations. It describes human nature in isolation, excluding the entire social and political sphere. If I evaluate Hobbes’s ideas of the concept of human nature, essentially the matter in man is reduced. It becomes easier to judge the essence of the human being, who is evaluated by ignoring sociality. To accept the existence of human nature or to take it as a measure is to deny the effects of education, environment, and historical conditions on people.
Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature; is closely related to the interpretation of human nature. Hobbes preferably adopts analytical methods and rational thoughts in illuminating human nature. Therefore, he starts by observing the real empirical behavior of people and then draws general conclusions about the main principles of regressive and inductive motivation. The ‘state of nature’ theory that Thomas Hobbes claims to defend the social organization model on a deterministic basis can be categorized as malignant and dystopian. In Hobbes’ fiction, human life in conditions where everyone is fighting everyone is knitted with negativities that are not worth living (Davies, 2010, p. 139). Thomas Hobbes talks about the mutual distrust and fears that people have. But this state of mutual fear and distrust does not follow from the conclusion that people are inherently evil. According to Hobbes, in the absence of absolute authority, people tend to fight. At this point, ‘man is the wolf of man’, ‘the war of all against all is possible’. But the source of this possibility of war is not the evil or sinfulness of man, but the fact that each individual has more or less equal capacities in body and mind and has the ability to choose freely. At this point, it is the possibility of a person who follows his desire to encounter and conflict with an individual of equal capacity. Expressing that insecurity arises from this equality between people, Hobbes states that the aforementioned insecurity puts people in a state of war (Hobbes, 2017:100). In the final analysis, although Hobbes did not define man as evil or sinful, he was pessimistic about the consequences of human actions.
Social Contract
The idea of the social contract was also discussed by ancient Greek philosophers, but it was most prominently developed by the 17th-century philosopher’s John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It has been generally stated by the thinkers that this contract was made in order to protect and secure certain rights and freedoms of the members of the society, to share their power, and to ensure social order. We can define the concept as a political philosophy term consisting of the members of a society coming together and making a certain commitment or contract among themselves. Hobbes defines the primitive state before the social contract as war and chaos in the state of nature. He explains the reason for the formation of chaos and chaotic environment in this state of nature by the fact that human beings are created equal from birth. In this situation of equality, according to Hobbes (2007b, p. 27), “Every person should want what is good for himself and avoid what is bad, especially death, which is the greatest of natural evils; It is as strong and natural a necessity as a stone falling to the ground”. In this respect, Hobbes is based on the negativity of being created equal. Because according to him, equality leads to insecurity, and insecurity leads to war and chaos. Hobbes’ human paradigm is based on the fact that in this insecure and chaotic environment, individuals created in equal capacities will conflict because of their desire and will for power. Hobbes builds his theory of the social contract as the basis from which we can resolve this “war of all against all”. Hobbes reaches the conclusion that only a strong and autocratic administration will save the society from falling into chaos and disorder with the effect of the approach that includes a pessimistic view of human nature (Heywood, 2004, pp. 22-23). The environment Hobbes describes is essentially immanent in the political structure. The concept itself, which he refers to as the social contract, necessitates the formation of the state and at the same time gives it legitimacy. In this sense, Leviathan exists for purely pragmatic reasons and the existence of the state is justified (Newman, 2006, p. 87). The fact that order and security can be provided is conditioned by the existence of the state. Hobbes argues that the existence of absolute authority can hold the members of society together by concentrating the power of the state on a single person or institution. Thus, absolute authority ensures the functionality of the social contract by providing the control necessary for the establishment of social order. The Leviathan state, an absolute authority proposed by Hobbes, inhibits human aggression in the state of nature accordingly. In this sense, the state’s monopoly on fear becomes a condition for people to lead a safe and stable life.
Evaluation of Hobbes’ Understanding of the State
Hobbes believed that individuals would be compelled to abide by the rules of society and that order and stability could be maintained. However, Hobbes’ emphasis on the need for a strong, centralized government has been criticized for its potential to lead to authoritarianism and the suppression of individual liberties. Hobbes’ idea of the state as an absolute authority that demands obedience from its citizens can be seen as a justification for tyranny and the subjugation of the people. Another weakness of Hobbes’ understanding of the state is its lack of consideration for the role of civil society and other forms of governance beyond the state. Hobbes saw the state as the only legitimate authority in society, with no room for the influence of other actors such as civic organizations, religious groups, or local communities. This narrow focus on the state as the sole source of political power ignores the important role that civil society can play in shaping public policy and holding the government accountable. Additionally, its narrow focus on the state as the sole legitimate authority in society has ignored the important role that civil society can play in shaping public policy and holding the government accountable.
Hobbes’ ideas on the state of nature and government were controversial in his time, and they continue to be debated today. Critics of Hobbes’ ideas argue that his view of human nature is too negative and that people are capable of living in harmony without the need for a strong government. They also argue that an absolute monarchy is not the best form of government because it gives too much power to one person and can lead to tyranny
In conclusion, Hobbes’ ideas on the state of nature and government were influential in the development of modern political philosophy. He believed that the state of nature was a state of war and that the purpose of government was to maintain social order and protect its citizens. While his ideas are controversial, they continue to be debated and discussed today, and they have had a significant impact on our understanding of politics and human nature.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Davies, B. (2010). Theoretical Perspectives on Human Nature. [Publisher-Amazon].
Heywood, A. (2004). Political Ideologies: An Introduction. [Publisher Amazon], pp. 22-23.
Hobbes, T. (2017). Leviathan. [Amazon], p. 100.
Leboeuf, R. (2014). Philosophical Concepts in Human Nature. [Publisher details not available], p. 84.
Newman, J. (2006). Political Thought and its Discontents. [Publisher details not available], p. 87.
Zelyüt, F. (2010). Philosophical Perspectives on the State of Nature. [Publisher details if available], p. 31. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
