Is any account of the state of nature convincing?

(Random AS level Philosophy Essay. Thought I 'd post it, because I haven't posted in a while. Read if it's your sort of thing.)

Essentially, this essay attempts to the grapple with the question “why should I be governed?” It aims to assess the different conceptions of what human nature would be like in the state of nature, using this to conclude as to whether a government is actually necessary for society to function. The state of nature is a philosophical theory used to describe the hypothetical condition of what humans would be like without a government; it is used to decide what our fundamental goals as humans are and is also used to support the need of a government. The State of Nature has three different approaches; the moral approach, the psychological approach and the anthropological approach. The moral approach attempts to use the state of nature to decide where our moral sense comes from, the psychological approach aims to analyse what the mental state of humans would be like without a government and the anthropological approach believes that the state of nature did once exist, and is evidence as to why we need a government. If one accepts that the state of nature is convincing then they are ultimately concluding that we cannot function without a government, whereas if one rejects the state of nature as convincing, you are ultimately concluding that the state of nature is a weak idea and doesn’t fully support the need of a government.

According to Hobbes the state of nature would be a “warre of all against all”, he claims that our human motivation is felicity; self preservation and that the only rational thing to do in the state of nature would be to kill and engage in violence. He then goes on to argue that in the state of nature we have the right to do whatever we deem appropriate to secure ourselves and to increase our chance of survival; we all have the equal right to life, we all have the equal capacity to kill one an another as we are all equal in strength. Hobbes also argues that scarcity will be evident in the state of nature as there would be no incentive to cultivate due to a lack of way to protect; he concludes by suggesting in order for us to finally leave the state of nature we would need to give up all our rights and will to a sovereign- a guarantor of the contract. Hobbes’ idea that our main motivation is self preservation provides a flaw in his argument as there are many examples of altruism in society today, many charities exist and people often donate organs/blood to those in need of it, this goes against his idea that humans  are only interested in helping themselves. However, Hobbes’ would argue that the only reason humans are currently willing to help each other is because of the government and if we were to actually remove the state, we would turn into the egoistic creatures he describes in his conception. Nonetheless, Hobbes’ states that the only rational thing to do in the state of nature would be to engage in violence, yet ends his conception by claiming in order to leave the state of nature a sovereign would be needed to finally eradicate the violence, surely the sovereign would have to be irrational to suggest so as Hobbes’ previously claimed the only rational thing to do would be to kill one another; going by that logic, there would be no real reason as to why anyone, in his conception, would warm to the idea of a sovereign , as it would be deemed ‘irrational’. Hobbes’ conception of the state of nature is very unconvincing as it doesn’t take into account evidence of altruism in society and holds contradictions within it.

Locke sets out a rather different conception of the state of nature; he claims that in the state of nature our main human motivation is to be altruistic; to respect life, not to harm; we would follow the laws of nature which are emanate and come from God. He claims that we would all be morally equal and no one would have the right to subordinate the other against their will. He continues by claiming in the state of nature, we have the right to punish those who transgress the law- our executive powers.  Locke states that in the state of nature agriculture will initially be abundance up until the introduction of money which will lead to hoarding, scarcity, transgressions and disputes; this will then lead to the formation of an (umpire state) government. Locke’s premise is weak as he claims our main motivation is to be altruistic and protect life, thus implying that there is ultimately one universal human nature. This simply isn’t the case, as if we look at society today, we can see many different forms of human nature, some humans are altruistic and take part in charities and volunteer work, however other humans, such as Hitler or Gaddafi, do not really have an altruistic nature and have showed many examples in which they have failed to protect, or understand the importance of life. However, Locke would rebut that argument by claiming it is ultimately the introduction of money and a capitalist state that has introduced such transgressions and negativity, not because that is truly part of our human nature. Another weakness in Locke’s argument is that he makes the big assumption of assuming God exists on which he bases his whole conception on, if God doesn’t exist his ideas on the laws of nature are invalid, which could also explain people, such as Hitler, going his against his idea of an altruistic human nature. Locke’s conception is also unconvincing, though not to the extent of Hobbes’, he is far too optimistic and his assumption that God exists ultimately undermines his argument.

By way of contrast, Kropotkin offers a very different view of the state of nature, unlike Hobbes, he claims without a government we would work well together as there would be no oppression and so no real desire to kill. He argues that in an anarchist society we would be motivated to work and pressure would be put on those who decide not to; unlike Hobbes’ he feels there would be an incentive to cultivate as helping others would be its own reward. Kropotkin addresses the idea that we all have different human natures and views by saying without a government, society would want to help each other and any disputes would be resolved through debate; not through a sovereign or an umpire state government. However, there are many faults in Kropotkin’s conception of life without a government, it is very optimistic and when he argues that there would be no desire to kill each other without a government, he also makes the mistake of assuming that there is one universal human nature, something that we can see through society, isn’t the case. Furthermore, Kropotkin rejects the idea of maniacs existing in the state of nature (an anarchist society) claiming they would be nurtured through treatment not punishment, however by saying this, he is assuming that everyone will respond well to society without a government. Just like any political state/party, there will be those who do not agree with it, and it is very optimistic of Kropotkin to think that pure treatment would change their view. Just like anarchists who actively work against a government, there will be people in anarchist society who will actively work against the idea of not having a government. In addition to this, he claims that helping each other in a state without a government would be its own reward, however, that simply isn’t fully true, humans naturally want to be rewarded and praised. On the other hand, Kropotkin would argue that saying people only work for reward is demeaning to professionals such as Doctors and teachers, who clearly find enjoyment in their field of expertise.  However, Kropotkin’s conception of the state of nature is also not very convincing as it is far too optimistic, and also assumes that there is one universal human nature.

Hobbes’ conception of the state of nature is the least convincing, as he completely ignores many acts of altruism in society in order to put forward is very negative idea of the state of nature. However Hobbes’ is right to claim that there would be no incentive to cultivate as there would be a lack of trust, and no way to protect, it is very logical to suggest that in the state of nature there would be a distinct lack of trust as even in society today in order to establish trust we use contracts and do not just assume that the other will keep to their word and not take advantage of us. Despite this, his argument ultimately fails as he claims that the only rational thing to do in the state of nature is to kill, but yet puts up the idea of a sovereign which completely contradicts his previous statement. However, Hobbes might reply that in time, the rational thing to do will change as we will realise the chaos taking place. However, this still does not account for the fact that there is no real reason to believe that the state of nature would indeed be a “warre of all against all.” Not everyone would engage in acts of violence, as it may not be in their human nature to do so.  Admittedly, Locke as stated above has flaws but he remains the most convincing of the three. If we modify his idea that our laws of nature come from God, his conception his immediately strengthened as it removes the potential criticism of not being able to be sure of God’s existence. Furthermore instead of claiming that it would be in all our nature to be altruistic, he should claim instead that the vast majority would be motivated by altruism, thus overpowering the egoist few, in addition to this, his umpire-like government should be updated into a more modern day government, one that also provides healthcare, education etc, and isn’t just there to see that the laws are kept to.

Whilst we make that Locke’s is more convincing than Hobbes’, in the end neither conception is fully plausible as other Philosophers such as Bradley believe the state of nature could never really actually exist; “identity shaped by community, no pre-social self”, there is no historical or archaeological evidence of it ever happening, therefore if it is very unlikely that the SON could or ever did exist, there is no real point in using it to decide whether or not we should be governed. In addition to this, Pascal states that main fault in the State of Nature is, it assumes that there is one universal human nature, this can’t be the case as “nature depends on social environmentalism”, and if a person believes in social environmentalism, the idea that our nature is based upon society at the time, then there is no such a thing as a fixed human nature. Overall, the state of nature as a thought process isn’t very convincing as it is 100% hypothetical, and therefore using as a basis to decide upon whether or not we need a government would be somewhat illogical; it doesn’t account for the changing society and also completely ignores the idea of many forms of human nature further making it unconvincing.