Essay Sample: How Is the State of Nature Related to the Social Contract?

The term State of Nature is philosophically used to imply to the order of events and the relationship between people and resources before societies are created. The term describes what the picture is before the institution of leadership or civil society is put in place. The state of nature is the primitive way of life that is marked by harmonious co-existence between people who did not care about what their fellow men were doing (Skyms, 2014, 13). In other words, it is the world right after creation, when nothing in the nature belonged to a particular person or a group of people. Rather, natural resources like water, forests, and land belonged to the nature just like human beings and other animate objects did. The state of nature ceases to exist when people create a kind of social order. This order defines how people relate with each other and establishes a society. Unlike the state of nature, a society is more organized and definite. There are people of different classes in the society who differ in wealth ownership and influence of resources. A society is formed when people in a state of nature agree with each other to enter into a community rather than leading separate lives. This agreement to form a society is called the social contract. The contract requires that people in a state of nature relinquish their individual powers to a central source of authority that governs their daily lives. The authority in which the powers of the people are vested is thus referred to as the government, a council, civil authority or other similar terms that denote leadership. The relationship between the state of nature and the social contract is, therefore, that the former gives rise to the latter through a process of mutual agreement and relinquishment of individual powers to a central authority.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Being philosophical concepts, state of nature and social contract have been discussed by prominent philosophers and sociologists like Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke. Each of these men gives different perspectives on the relationship between the two concepts as discussed below.

Thomas Hobbes in his philosophical works offers a peculiar interpretation of the state of nature. He gives a rather specific argument on the state of nature that narrows down to the human character. According to Hobbes, the nature of human beings is selfish. Men, he argues, are driven by the desire to achieve the best in life. The egocentric character of humans is the reason why people seek what best suits their interest. They are likely to show attraction to the things they like and repulsion to what they consider offensive. Hobbes argues that the human nature is appetitive and more oriented to things that offer intrinsic personal happiness. Bringing up children, he says for example, is motivated by the fact that parents acquire a sense of obligation which is ultimately to their favor (Whittle, 2016, 36).

Human beings in their nature, according on Hobbes, operate mechanistically. Their behavior follows a universal trend that governs all other cosmic phenomena. He believes that all matter operate through motion. Walking and talking, he opines, are actions consequent to internal forces operating within human beings (Whittle, 2016, 75). Fundamentally, Hobbes reasons that every macroscopic action has microscopic beginnings that mark the implicit stages of the action. The transition from the state of nature to the civil society, according to Hobbes, is thus inspired by the self-centered ness of human beings. Because of their desire to live independently and optimally, human readily yield their power to rational central authority that promises them continued preservation of their interests. It is from here that the social contract develops from the state of nature.

John Locke had a completely strange yet convincing argument. Locke in his treatise Of Political or Civil Society states that the relationship between a man and a woman lasts longer than the one between any other couple of creatures. He argues that this arrangement is motivated by the obligation to raise children that the two bring forth (Locke, 2014, 33). The long lasting relationship resembles a society in which two beings are brought together by shared interests. Nonetheless, this conjugal society is in the state of nature. Both the man and the woman have conflicting interests that cannot be judged upon by either of them (Locke, 2014, 44). Unlike the male chauvinist argument that would cite that the man in the conjugal society has absolute rights in the family, Locke thinks that vesting power in either partner will disintegrate the society. Therefore, for the conjugal society to last, both parties must give up their powers to a higher authority that will judge over them in case a conflict of interest arises.

The relationship between a master and his household, regardless of its perfect organization and clear separation of roles does not befit a social contract (Locke, 2014, 35). The master exercises absolute control over all his servants as well as over his wife and children. There is no agreement that dictates the limits of power that the master can exercise other than the conjugal contract between him and his wife. The masters household exists in a state of nature and can only belong to a society when the master yields power to a higher authority- a power than can judge upon conflicts arising between him and his servants. Lockes state of nature follows the laws of the Creator. God has given human beings the power and liberty to enjoy all his creation, as long as they do not interfere with the liberties of fellow men. In the words, strict morality must exist in the state of nature as men relate with each other. According to Locke, a state of nature can descend to a state of war if the law of God is violated.

Another modern philosopher that voices his opinions on the relationship between the state of nature and the social contrast is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This French thinker concurs with the universal description of the state of nature: a period of harmonious co-existence where natural resources are equally shared. According to Rousseau, the initial human communities were marked by low competition, and the abundance of land and other resources. As the population density expanded, competition for land escalated. Consequently, unbalanced ownership of resources and wealth emerged. Social classes came into play and acrimony between people increased. The landowners, after facing competition from their kind and resistance from the proletariats, enter into an agreement to form a government to oversee their interests and protect their property (Whittle, 2016, 98). In a nutshell, Rousseau argues that the transition from the state of nature to a social contract is sponsored by the rich rather than the poor.

From the above discussion, the relationship between state of nature and social contract is temporal. The common thing that comes out from the discussion is that a state of nature always precedes a social contract. Apparently, people in a state of nature are in relative calm. However, a disruption of this harmony drives the need to have social order to control the disruption. In all cases, a state of nature is characterized by the abundance of basic needs. In particular, there is adequate food for everyone as the land is productive. The population density is not as much as to result in the exhaustion of natural resources. As the men in a state of nature increase in number, the previously adequate resource become scarce and competition for them arises. The previously harmonious state escalates into chaos. These affairs prompt the members in a state of nature to agree to a contract that establishes an impartial figure to adjudicate in their problems. In some cases, the decision to establish an adjudicating authority is not guided by a state of war. Peacefully coexisting people may decide to appoint a central power to avert any possible crisis that may rise in the course of their existence. This cautionary measure is akin to Lockes argument that conjugal societies must join a civil society to facilitate peaceful coexistence and prevent possible domination by one partner.

Conversion from a state of nature to a civil society is not a simple move. The contracting parties must agree to put aside their differences and find a common ground. However, finding this ground for people with persistent diversity is close to impossible (Bruner, 2014, 14). Additionally, cooperation between people with similar characteristics is occasionally impossible, and some social contracts are formed when people are compelled to collaborate (Riolo, Cohen, &Axelrod, 2001, 442).

Although the details of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Lockes concepts are different, all of them point to common idea that a social contract is the ultimate solution to conflicts that arise when people share resources. Regardless of whether the contract secures the interest of a few people while violating those of the others, a central authority ensures that conflicts are arbitrated in their initial stages before they escalate into full blown violence. For instance, Jean-Jacques Rousseau maintains that a social contract preserves the property of the wealthy class from the wrath of the working class. According to Karl Marx, the working class may revolt against the oppressive policies of the wealth class by staging a revolution (Laski, 2014, 10). This implies that a social contract can potentially avert a revolution that would steadily arise in a state of nature.

In conclusion, a state of nature usually precedes a social contract. People would rather stay in a state of nature rather than enter into social contract. In the former state, men have relative freedom to exploit the natural resources regardless of the impact their actions have on them or other human beings. Practically, a state of nature is not easy to come by due to self-interest that is inherent in human beings. Therefore, a social contract is established to keep the egocentrism of human beings at check. In this manner, any arising conflicts are readily arbitrated while warring parties are fairly adjudicated upon in a social contract. Rousseaus, Lockes and Hobbes perspectives of the relationship between a state of nature and social contract all point to the preference of social contract to a state of nature.

List of References

Bruner, J.P., 2015. Diversity, tolerance, and the social contract. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 14(4), pp.429-448.Laski, H.J., 2014. Communist Manifesto (Works of Harold J. Laski): Socialist Landmark (Vol. 14). Routledge.Locke, J., 2014. Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. John Wiley & Sons.Riolo, R.L., Cohen, M.D. and Axelrod, R., 2001. Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature, 414(6862), pp.441-443.Skyrms, B., 2014. Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge University Press.Whittle, C.E., 2016. A political analysis of the social contract theory in the works of T Hobbes, J Locke, JJ Rousseau and J Rawls.