Comparing Philosophies: Human Nature in Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke

This essay provides a comparative analysis of the perspectives of Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke on human nature, examining their views on the inherent qualities of humans, their interactions with each other, and their relationship with society and political structures. Hobbes posits that humans are inherently self-serving and driven by a desire for power, leading to a state of constant conflict. Rousseau, conversely, argues that humans are naturally good and compassionate, corrupted by societal influences. Locke presents a middle ground, suggesting that humans are rational beings with the capacity for both good and evil, guided by natural laws. The essay further explores how these differing views shape their ideas on human relationships and the ideal form of government, with Hobbes advocating for a strong, centralized authority, Rousseau favoring a society based on equality and social contract, and Locke promoting a government based on natural rights and individual freedom.

Running head: STATE OF HUMAN NATURE
STATE OF HUMAN NATURE
Name of Student
Name of University
Author note

1STATE OF HUMAN NATURE
Human nature is one of the complex theories that has made the minds wonder. The
purpose of the existence and who they actually are have been the prime subject of thought for
philosophers since the ancient times. The philosophers have provided different interpretations
of the human nature, which are different from each other according to the time they live in or
the society that they belong to. Understanding of human nature and their relationship to the
society and each other have researched over time, considering the facts how they interpret
societal changes or different interactions and emotions. However, there are three philosophers
who have deeply interpreted the human nature from the study of human interactions and their
political reactions (Murphy and Adrian). Each of the philosophers viewed human beings from
different angles and explained their impact on the political aspects of the society. These three
philosophers who are to be discussed in this assignment are Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques
Rousseau and John Locke. The discussion will compare and contrast how each of them
described human nature. It will also focus on the aspect of human nature in the political
scenarios and the relation between people. Finally a conclusion can be drawn from the
discussion which can summarise the different aspects of human nature according to the three
philosophers and how it affects the society from different points of view.
Human nature is one of the most complex ideas to understand. According to Hobbes,
the human beings have the urge for the desire of power and to sustain their life in a good
manner. Moreover, Hobbes believed that human nature was always power hungry and cannot
be satisfied with little power. Humans always craved for more power which satisfied them
(Hobbes). The gain of power creates more desire, the desire for glory, luxurious life and
recognition from others. Hobbes believed that man by nature was solitary, nasty, brutal, and
poor and savage who craved for power for a better life and in the process can do anything to
achieve that.

2STATE OF HUMAN NATURE
However, in this context Rousseau held a different view of human nature. Rousseau
believed that human nature was shaped by the nature of the society in which it survived.
Before human nature comes in contact with the society and is shaped by it, it possesses two
natural feelings or sentiments. The first one is amour de soi which means love for oneself,
and the other is pitie which means sympathy or pity (Rousseau). The first sentiment of self-
love can be seen as the quality which develops self-respect or honour in a person. However, if
exposed to negative atmosphere, the self-love turns into false ideas such as pride. The self-
preservation is an aspect of the self-love which focuses on the development of the self
without being harmed. The second feeling, which is pity, is the natural sympathy that man
has in him as the desire of not harming others. So it can be seen according to Rousseau’s
belief human nature is by default pure and has sympathy for others. However, circumstances
and the society can bring in negative changes in the human nature.
John Locke however, presents a different idea from the other two philosophers.
Locke’s views looks upon human nature as rational and equal that possess the ability to do
whatever they want. Human nature is neither good nor bad but has a rational outlook towards
the laws of nature. According to Locke, the laws of nature are the universal laws and every
human should abide by these laws (Gorman). It depends on the person’s will whether to abide
by the law or not. It is not the inner evil or inner goodness which makes the human take a
decision, but the rationality present in human nature which makes the person take a decision
to do good or evil. Hence, a person is responsible for his own actions and should be
accordingly rewarded or punished based on the outcome of his actions in response to the laws
of nature. It can be either good or evil.
The discussion of human nature further investigates into the nature of human
relationships. Hobbes believed that human beings by nature interacted with each other for
self-benefits. He was of the idea that if a certain desire is similar for two persons the

3STATE OF HUMAN NATURE
relationship between them will turn into enmity and would seek to destroy each other for
their personal gains. Hobbes believed that the history of mankind has proved that war and
violence is the natural state of mind of a human being. The selfish motives are the main
causes of war and violence. This violence is done with the sole purpose of achieving power,
glory and fame (Marturano). According to Hobbes the peace that prevails in the society is not
a natural law as it is gained through agreement.
Rousseau however, believed that human nature is peaceful and pitiful. The savage
nature that has been discussed by Hobbes develops only when they interact with other people
who spread a negative influence on the peaceful man. Even in hatred and wars, a human can
feel empathy if focuses on the evils of violence and war. The true nature of the human is then
reflected when surrounded by all the evils. Rousseau believed that love of one self, the self-
respect is the key to love others (Rousseau). Interacting with others and loving them is the
true nature of the human self.
Locke had a different idea about how interaction between people can reflect the
human nature. Locke was of the idea that human nature being rational interacts with people
with the notion of proving their own ideas right. These interactions can give birth to a system
in the society which develops into an idea to rationality, social justice, right to live and
morality (Locke). The reactions to the universal laws of nature are influenced by the
interactions with people. Human beings themselves decide what is good for them and what is
evil (Hodas). This rational interaction is the part of Locke’s thought process. The universal
laws cannot setup the society without the humans and so the responsibility of creating the
society falls on the human nature whose interaction and development shapes the society as
desired.

4STATE OF HUMAN NATURE
Rousseau’s famous statement that man is born free but is bound by chains, denotes his
depiction of the state of nature in which human beings survive. Rousseau believed that the
society was in jeopardy which forced the men to turn away from sympathy and love towards
hatred and evil. He believed that the society needed a social contract which can be formulated
with the values that were already instilled in the human nature. These ideas were particularly
influential for the French Revolution which took place to throw away the weak monarchy and
establish a society which will value every person equally (Huet). It inspired the movement of
freedom that according to Rousseau is the natural attribute of a human being.
Hobbes however, viewed man as savage and proposed the idea of a government
which would have the power to unite men and control them to maintain peace in the society.
The government would be responsible for creating an artificial harmony among the people
who would otherwise go to war and disturb the peace (Eriksen). Contrary to Rousseau’s ideas
of a liberal and equal society, Hobbes government proposes the idea of a ruler, whose strong
will would bind the citizens and make them obey the rules of the society for maintaining
peace and security.
Locke describes society as the unification of the rational people. They can address the
distresses of the society and judge the punishment of the people who do not abide by the laws
of nature (Locke). Locke believed that every human was a part of the state of the nature and
they form a political society for governance by making a uniform agreement between
themselves. No person can have control over another and it is the natural laws that the human
beings have to submit to in order to form a peaceful and ideal society.
The above discussion highlights different points on the state of human nature and how
they interact with each other. Moreover, it also decides which kind of society is suitable for
the sustenance of the human beings. Hobbes believed that human by nature is savage and is

5STATE OF HUMAN NATURE
always in a state of war for self-benefits. Rousseau on the other hand believed that man is
pure by nature and has the positive qualities of love and sympathy which gets destroyed by
the evil society in the future. Locke has a completely different theory in which he believed
that human nature is rational and must follow the rule of nature to survive. Hobbes proposes a
government of a ruler who would dominate the subjects to follow the rules of the society.
Rousseau believed in a more liberal form of government where equality would prevail and
Locke believed in a system where human beings would govern themselves by abiding to the
laws of nature. It can be concluded that the three philosophers viewed life from three
different angles and has seen society from different angles which provide a varied insight into
the state of nature and the nature of the human beings.

6STATE OF HUMAN NATURE
Reference:
Eriksen, Christoffer Basse. "Circulation of Blood and Money in Leviathan–Hobbes on the
Economy of the Body." History of Economic Rationalities. Springer, Cham, 2017. 31-41.
Gorman, Jonathan. Rights and reason: An introduction to the philosophy of rights. Routledge,
2014.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. A&C Black, 2006.
Hodas, David. "The Laws of Science, Constitutional Law, and the Rule of Law." Widener L.
Rev. 22 (2016): 135.
Huet, Marie-Hélène. Mourning glory: the will of the French Revolution. University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2015.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original,
Extent and End of Civil Government. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
Marturano, Eric. "Glory-Seeking: A Timeless and Puzzling Craving of the Human Soul."
(2014).
Murphy, Anthony, and Adrian Stoica. "Sovereignty: Constitutional and Historical Aspects."
Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov. Series VII: Social Sciences. Law 2 (2015):
219-226.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "A discourse on inequality, trans. Maurice Cranston." (1984).
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract (1762). na, 1968.