A concept can be thought of as a lens that can be used to see a phenomenon or explain it. If the contents of the concept varies, the lenses are changed, and the same phenomenon might appear different to the observer as well. The concept of Nature sometimes is used without being defined but, according to some philosophers, it encloses at least three different meanings , and each can be considered a different glass through which the world can be observed and even defined. Some authors see nature as an inherent quality of all objects, as something that generates them or gives them their essential characteristics. Others see nature as an internal force that gives the world direction and purpose. And there is a last meaning that would define nature as the whole world or universe . These conceptions give us an idea of what authors try to say when they refer to a State of Nature but don´t necessarily express it.
Through history, many philosophers have tried to discover the primeval state of humans as species, and have sought to hypothetically remove any artificial values or conducts, acquired from living surrounded by the or institutions of society, to see the raw essence of men. According to some, humans were a cruel and selfish species who lived in miserable conditions and were almost certainly doomed to suffer and die prematurely, and such was their natural condition. Others, saw the primal stage of humanity as an idyllic state of affairs, where innocence and purity gave men no need for laws or riches, but was interrupted and lost forever since the apparition of the State. These conceptions of nature invariantly see society as an artificial construct, something outside of nature itself. This paper will discuss the visions of the time before States were formed from the three main classic philosophers, who proposed insights of the original human State of Nature, and see how different conceptions of Nature can lead to different accounts of how humans lived outside society.
The State of Nature
Philosophers have speculated since the ancient Greece about the social nature of men, and the origins of society. What makes humans get together and organize themselves has always been the subject of debate, and many have wondered if it is the nature of men to form societies, if there are natural laws governing human actions, or if anything man does is an artificial product derived from reason or social conventions that defies nature. For this work a distinction will be made between Nature as A) The essence or character of an object; B) A guiding force that is present in all objects; and C) The material world, which might or might not include human creations .
One of the first modern attempts to describe men as they existed before civilization, and why they decided to leave the freedom of solitary existence to start living in society, was that of Thomas Hobbes. The conception the author had of man is considered to be very bleak. According to Hobbes, since men are all relatively equal in strength and mind, no one could claim to have the right to rule all others, and all men had then equal rights to claim possession of anything they wanted. In consequence, they would be constantly competing among themselves, trying to subdue or outwit each other in the search for ever more benefits. The only precept that existed in this natural condition was a prohibition, derived from pure reason, for men to take any action that could destroy his own life or the means to sustain it. Logically, the best way a man had to guarantee his own safety and possessions, was to subdue or kill all other men until nobody could pose a threat to him. This would cause men to live in constant fear of every other man, a permanent war of all against all .
There was no right or wrong in Hobbes state of nature. Since justice is a concept that cannot be found in solitary men, it is something that is bound to appear only in society and not in nature. Consequently, there is no sense of morality and, since there are no treaties to be broken nor any compelling power to enforce such treaties, no justice or injustice .
Life in society, according to Hobbes, was nothing a man would want either. In fact, when together, men would compete, fear and attempt to humiliate each other, being these attitudes the main sources of conflict . But men were compelled to pursue peace, as it was too one of nature´s laws. Therefore, passion, which was given by the fear of death, and reason, which would give way to consented rules, are the driving forces of peace. However, the only way a man can reach a state of uneasy peace, is renouncing to his right to defend himself, and his natural right to limit others in causing him a loss. In other words, in order to have peace, a man would have to offer himself as prey, assuming that all others would do the same.
As can be seen, Hobbes´ view of Nature is what gave men their character, an essence that cannot be changed. The philosopher asserted that, while a man living in the safety of a civil society no longer feared the perils of a state of permanent was, States as entities inherited his violent and greedy traits , and that assumption was taken into account for many centuries to come ever since the coming of the peace of Westphalia . The human race, according to this line of thinking, was determined to act according to some intrinsic features, which made it very selfish and violent. Men had no other option but to adhere to their greedy Nature.
A very different account on the state of nature was that of John Locke, but he gave men a more benevolent and even ideal starting point. According to Locke, the condition in which men are found in nature would be one of complete freedom to order their own affairs and possessions as they please .
Property was of paramount importance to Locke´s account of human origins. It existed before the creation of the State, and everyone was entitled to the product of their own work. No other would have power over a free man and the only moral obligation a human being would have is that of self-defense. Thus, men had then the right and obligation of seeking exaction every time they saw their property or own selves damaged by the actions of other men. Indeed, according to Locke, if a man caused harm, everyone had the right to cause him harm comparable to the transgression, and to make him repair the damage so as to make it clear that the benefit of harming others is less than the punishment received. This would give criminals motives to regret having damaged others, and would set a clear and public example for everyone else .
This, however, would give way to injustice as well. If every man would be the judge in their own causes, and judgment is also subject to partialities, in a State of Nature there cannot be any guarantees that a man would not be guided by his own interests when judging other men and seeking reparations. These and other factors, such as the increase of wealth and the monetization of trading among men, made it seem that the State, or a political power greater than any man, was deemed necessary in order to legislate and enforce unbiased justice .
Locke, used a different concept of nature. Men is portrayed as free, but would generally follow a set of rules or natural laws. Most liberties defended in modern days by societies, are said to have been inherited from tradition and revered forefathers, and that would mean that people is simply following natural immutable laws , although it might be an overextension of the concept of tradition by equaling it to the concept of nature . Nonetheless, the ideas expressed by Locke are akin to the second meaning of Nature given by Williams. Nature in this case would not define the behavior of men as much as give them a set of guidelines that they could choose to follow or not.
The man depicted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is also driven by self-preservation, the satisfaction of basic needs, and fear from hunger and pain. But in contrast to Hobbes and Locke, he asserted that humans in natural state would stay pure and innocent as long as they remained outside the influence of social institutions. According to Rousseau, men would not be so different to other animals except for their ability to determine their own future once they reach certain age, and their capacity to improve themselves .
The first steps toward inequality and vice, said Rousseau, was the apparition of peer valuation and envy. Private property was another source for inequality. Men would be self-sufficient and would take care of their own needs individually, until the private property made it possible to produce food for more than one man. This made work indispensable and was the cause of slavery and inequality among men .
It can be said that Rousseau envisioned Nature as the whole world that could remain eternally unchanged, unless something artificial was introduced and corrupted it. It is not uncommon to read philosophers, from all epochs, longing for a period long gone of natural bliss, destroyed by modern men and their vices . These ideas are closer to the third meaning of the concept of Nature, but also a clear attempt to picture nature itself as an innocent being, that created and contained the human race, and has been relentlessly attacked by men. Rousseau described the nearly bestial natural status as something men should strive for.
Conclusion
The three authors not only gave different accounts of how life was like before the arrival of civilization, but they certainly made use of three different conceptions of Nature to try to explain the primeval stage of human race. Hobbes used the first concept of Nature, and saw men as an object that could not act or feel in any other way. Locke saw Nature as a lawgiver, making man a mere follower who obeyed sets of laws discovered by reason. Rousseau gave Nature a status of a perfect being that suffered the corruption brought by men. This gives evidence that the same phenomenon, when different concepts are used to define it or, in other words, when observed through different lenses, can appear very differently to the observer.
Works cited
Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Ed. John Greville Pocock. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987.
Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive: The English Version. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
—. Leviathan. Seattle: Pacific Publishing Studio, 2011.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980.
Philpott, Daniel. "Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History." Journal of International Affairs (1995): 352-368.
Rosset, Clément. L´anti-nature. Paris: Puf, 2004.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Basic Political Writing. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1987.
Savater, Fernando. Diccionario Filosófico. Barcelona: Planeta, 1995.
Williams, Raymond. Keywords; A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
