What Is the State of Nature?

Question

What is the state of nature, and why is it central to social contract theory? The question arises because the state of nature serves as a theoretical baseline for evaluating the legitimacy of government.

Quick Answer

The state of nature is the hypothetical condition of human life before the establishment of political authority. It is a thought experiment designed to reveal what human beings are like in the absence of government and what they would agree to in order to escape it. The three classic accounts — Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau — paint dramatically different pictures, each designed to support a different political conclusion. Hobbes's terrifying state of nature justifies absolute sovereignty. Locke's law-governed state of nature justifies limited, constitutional government. Rousseau's peaceful state of nature justifies radical democracy. The state of nature remains a powerful philosophical tool for thinking about the foundations of political authority.

Historical Wisdom

Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651) offers the most famous and frightening account. In the state of nature, there is no government, no law, no property, and no industry. The natural condition of humanity is a war of all against all, driven by competition, diffidence, and glory. Life is, as Hobbes wrote, 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' The only law in the state of nature is the right of nature: every person has the right to do whatever is necessary for self-preservation.

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) offers a contrasting picture. The state of nature is not a state of war but a state of peace, governed by the law of nature, which requires that no one harm another in their life, health, liberty, or possessions. The state of nature has inconveniences — there is no impartial judge, no established law, no enforcement mechanism — but it is not a state of war.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755) offers a third picture. The original state of nature, Rousseau argues, was a condition of solitary, peaceful existence. Humans were healthy, strong, and content. The problems of human life — inequality, conflict, corruption — arise not from the state of nature but from the development of society, property, and civilization.

Philosophical Perspectives

Contemporary philosophers use the state of nature in various ways. Some, following Hobbes, use it to model the logic of anarchy and the necessity of government. Others, following Locke, use it to model the foundations of natural rights. Still others, following Rousseau, use it to critique existing social arrangements. The state of nature is also used in game theory, where the prisoner's dilemma models the logic of Hobbes's state of nature: rational individuals pursuing their own interests end up worse off than they would be if they cooperated.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Hobbes: the state of nature is a condition of insecurity and fear; government is necessary for peace. From Locke: the state of nature is not a war but has inconveniences; government is necessary for justice. From Rousseau: the state of nature is peaceful; human corruption is a product of society, not of nature. From all three: the state of nature is a philosophical device for thinking about what we owe to government and what government owes to us.

Practical Application

The state of nature is not merely a philosophical abstraction. It is implicit in the way we think about international relations, where there is no global government and states interact in a condition of anarchy. It is also implicit in the way we think about the limits of government: when we ask whether a government has exceeded its legitimate authority, we are implicitly asking what we would have consented to in the state of nature.