State of Nature vs. Nature of essays

State of Nature vs. Nature of essays The philosophical concept of the state of nature is that all men are inherently good or evil. Down to their very essence, in the wild and surviving on instinct alone, man was believed to have behaved in a manner that was either purely good or purely evil. The nature of man is the philosophical concept of when man moved from living in a state of nature to accepting a social contract. It argues at what point and for what reason did man renounce his personal freedom and become part of a society. According to Hobbes, men are inherently evil and that by their very nature people were constantly in a struggle for power and wealth. In the state of nature, people were always at war with one another, a war of all against all. Each individual was endowed with the right to do anything they pleased. Hobbes asserted that this went on until people discovered through reason that they could prevent their demise by behaving toward one another in mutually beneficial ways. In conclusion, according to Hobbes, men for the sake of peace, made a contract to renounce their natural liberty, and people depending on promises, accepted the social contract. According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, men are inherently good. He described the people in this primitive state as living free, healthy, honest and happy lives. He says that in the original state of nature there is no direct relationship between men. Henceforth, savage man was peaceful and did not wish to harm others. According to Rousseau, men entered a civil society by act of free and rational agreement called first agreement because civil society defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with common force, and by which every one is the sovereign of himself and remains free. John Locke believed that all governments derived their power from the people and that the government itself was based on a social contract. He also advoc ...