Köse 1

Zeynep Didem Köse

David Christopher Butcher

ENG 102-047

19.10.2022

A Lawful Look at Men’s State of Nature

Men’s ability to function in society is quite directly linked with the age old

divisive subject, human nature. Whether it is good or evil affects the mundane life,

even if it might not appear so. Laws, regulations, decisions made etc. are often

connected with the belief that other people are deceitful or trustworthy, cruel or

helpful, greedy or generous. While being capable of positive emotions, humans are,

and will be, materialistic and selfish. I aim to prove, although men can live in a

harmonious society, they are bound to fail in their path to a non-violent and non-law

making society. Mainly through, Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s contrary beliefs on ‘state of

nature’, it can be seen that men, when under no surveillance, will act like wild

animals. In addition, Marx’s ideas on universalism will show that individual is what

makes society and law. And, therefore, an established law is the most probable way

of achieving an ideal society.

The claims that people are good is evidently false, because, without any

governing, humans would not be any different that animals in the wild. Rousseau’s

view of natural man is that one of removed from all of its “cultural clothes” (“Hobbes

vs Rousseau” 1). He thinks that in its core humanity is good and society is what

makes men depraved. Rousseau’s unfounded claim that is “society’s wicked impact

on men”, falls apart when we “take into account the positive aspects of cooperation

within a society” (“Hobbes vs Rousseau” 2). However, without a sense of society and
 Köse 2

culture, when does men differ from an animal, anyway. As simple as an example of

language is enough to prove Rousseau’s ‘good’ state of nature, wrong. Without

language human is not human no more. Marx says “man is a social animal” (Rick 2),

with elimination of language and, essentially the lack of communication, society is not

possible to begin with. As well as his ‘social animal’ term, Marx defines freedom to be

only achieved when the individual resides in a society (Rick 2). This notion clashes

directly with human kind’s individualism. Men do not share “no collective brain”, nor

do men perform “the act of passing judgement” as a commune (Rick 3). Individualism

is the backbone of human nature, and assuming men cannot have thoughts and

considerations of their own would imply that there would be no authenticity in

anything. Of course, society gives context to men. Imagine an artwork, such as an

Andy Warhol piece for example, undoubtedly, the artwork is most likely to be heavily

influenced by the pop culture of its era. Yet, to say, Andy Warhol, removed from the

context of his time, would not have had any originality or individual freedom per se,

and to think that an artist’s originality depends on the society it is bound to, would

also be absurd. With that said, the unapproachability of a universal society, because

of individuality, start to become a problem when men begin to prioritize themselves.

Human nature does not allow people to live in peace when left alone, because

men will long for self-preservation over other men. Unlike Rousseau, Hobbes

“claimed that we are selfish and concerned only with our own […], even if it comes at

the cost of others (“Hobbes vs Rousseau” 1). Consequently, in contrast to Rousseau,

his idea of ‘state of nature’ is only removed from governmental power over men. So,

when men are dismissed of order and law, the society becomes gruesome.

Machiavelli, also, had a similar idea, ‘men’s desire to acquire’. Materialism and the

need to have and accumulate more is what lies beneath men’s nature. According to
 Köse 3

Machiavelli, “man is usually content and happy, so long as he is not victim of some

terrible occurrence” (Ursillo). To Hobbes, though, men is in a “constant state of war”

(Ursilllo). They are not peaceful, ever. This shows that men will be in an inevitable

dead end, over greed and over their self-interest. That’s why, men will not be able to

preserve a peaceful and harmonious society. Discriminatory behavior is one good

example to this. For instance, imagine you boarding a flight. When the pilot speaks

through the speakers, you find out that it is a woman. No matter how open minded or

forward thinking you may be, you won’t be able to shake the feeling that she might do

something wrong. Even though, you know and believe that she had the same

education and training as any other deserving pilot, people tend to alienate others.

This, men’s rooted hunger for finding their tribes and performing prejudice on the

other, makes the dreams of a non-violent or co-operative society come to a halt.

Machiavelli’s solution to this self-defined chaos is that of an authority. Now, his

advances might be questionable from time to time, however, there is a piece of truth

in his saying “we sheep crave a status quo” (Rick 2).

Law and order is required not only to build a nonviolent society, but to be able

to form a society all together. The future is not doomed to anarchy as long as it is

governed. “Even an anarchist utopia would have some settled principles of

cooperation” (Singer 262). So, a set of basic rules like which side of the road to drive

or how one is going to gain the custody of a child, still needs to be regulated. Singer

says, “some settled decision procedure is necessary […], or else the parties to

dispute are likely to resort to violence” (262). The need to live in order and peace

outweighs any other. So that we know even in the strictest of governments there are

lawbreakers, why do we assume there would be peace in an anarchy? It is

impossible to look at laws without acknowledging that they might be flawed every so
 Köse 4

often. Singer suggests, “no sensible democrat would claim that the majority is always

right, if 49 percent of the population can be wrong, so can 51 percent” (265). But,

flawed laws do get resolved over time. They are in constant change, as well.

Women’s liberation or legalization of gay marriage are well adjusted examples to it.

Civil disobedience is one of the reasons why law might improve, but it also shows

how people can be violent. The ethics and how, when and where civil disobedience

is rightful is a different conversation. However, the validity of men’s autonomy still

stands. So, an individual will be autonomous and, by their nature, vain unless they

are inside a system of law.

To sum up, human nature is cruel and discriminatory. A society which is

universalist is a distant, but may be possible dream with laws and orders. Chaos is

always inevitable, yet, it is also preventable, just like any ‘no matter what’ statements.

from Rousseau to Hobbes, the debate on the ‘state of nature’ will continue to be

controversial. It is a divisive phenomenon, because it is so in-lined with every day

thinking and living. When it is considered, whether to choose the ‘good’ or the ‘bad’

side of humanity, I can say with confidence that law making and governing will play a

crucial part in it. Then, as hard as it is to justify violence, pacifism and a sugar-coated

world view is not the way that leads to the non-violent utopic state.
 Köse 5

Works Cited

Hobbes Vs Rousseau. portal.jarbury.net/essay/rousseau.html. Accessed 16

Oct. 2022.

Rick, Jonathan. Human Nature According to Niccolò Machiavelli, Karl Marx

and Ayn Rand. 2 May 2003, jonathanrick.com/2003/05/human-nature-

according-to-niccolo-machiavelli-karl-marx-and-ayn-rand.

Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. New York, Cambridge UP, 1993, pp. 256–75.

https://doi.org/10.1604/9780521439718.

Ursillo, Dave. Politics and Human Nature. 14 Dec. 2007,

www.daveursillo.com/politics-and-human-nature.