In political philosophy one of the basic topics that we examine is why

human beings form states with leaders in them. But a question we can ask before
this one is: How would human beings be in a state without authority (a state of
nature)? The reason we can ask this question first is because it helps us to have a
better idea of how and why we started having the need of a state in which political
power exists, if we ever lived in a state of nature before, and why we ended up
forming states in which there is always someone ruling. We dont know if a state of
nature ever existed but we make a hypothesis that it did, so that it is easier for us
to understand our nature, human nature. This leads to a new question which can be
asked even before the state of nature question: What is human nature? It is
obvious that since our environment and society influence us, we cannot answer
these questions because our nature is re-invented through society, but we can still
make theories.

Thomas Hobbes considered self-knowledge the first key to understand

human nature and knowledge of principles of physics the second. As for self-
knowledge, he considered it so essential because it identifies the nature of human
thoughts, which are a basic factor of the behavior of human beings. As for the
principle of physics, believing in the concept of materialism, he claimed that
everyone has to understand the matter from which he is made so that he/she
understands his/her nature because everything is in constant motionless something
else stops it, according to his words in his major work Leviathan and this fact is
happening in human beings too since they always want more. Basically his theory
said that a human, in a state of nature, would seek satisfaction and power and
would be very competitive. Therefore he would do anything in order to survive, he
would be very selfish and because he would be governed by felicity and would seek
for power he would finally conflict. He also claimed that, he would have fear of
death since everyone would fear others around him including himself and there
would be no morality,

John Locke believed that morality among human beings was natural and that
there was a moral law for every human. He claimed that the basic characteristics of
men in the natural condition are perfect freedom, equality, and independence and
at the same time protection since no-one harms the other. A state without
competition and with the concept of individuality in it. But though he mentions
these theories, he also claims that human being might harm other without even
realizing it. This is because in the state of nature everyone is an executor of the law
so autonomy of every individual exists and we all have the right to judge, therefore
it is unavoidable to have inconvenience finally since each one understand liberty
and independence in a different way.

Jean-Jacque Rousseau presents us his theory of the noble savage, the man
we used to be in the natural condition. The basic characteristics of the noble savage
are that he never wants more than what he needs, he does not have a language, he
is not expressing any emotions, he does is invent, he doesnt know when and how
he will die so he does not fear death, and can, in a way, feel what the other
feels(empathy). But Rousseau claims that he develops through self-improvement, to
achieve subsistence because of the increase of population, innovation, which
awaken his pride and his will to cooperate, leisure time, which makes him
dependent on luxuries, that were not important for him at the beginning, language
development, which leads us to compare our talents and that generally we actually
become more savage because we realize it is better to create societies but, we
forget empathy and equality. He claims that since we become members of society
the only way to fell free is by remembering empathy and equality.

Among those three philosophers, Hobbes could be characterized as the most

pessimistic and conservative. If we try to imagine the state that Hobbes describes
we will picture a kind of dark cruel, unfair state in which the only way to survive will
be competition and conflict. Especially because of the fact that no leader exists
under these conditions it will be very easy for this conflict to become a big war in
this state of nature, of Hobbes.

On the other hand, Locke suggests a more optimistic theory just at the
beginning but his basic idea is finally quite pessimistic too. He consider morality and
individualism the healthy part of the state but finally , because of the autonomy of
each one, we start to fear the others as everyone comprehends this law of morality
in a different way, because of his nature. SO it is unavoidable not to have some kind
of conflict too.

The basic concept in J.J. Rousseaus theory that helps human beings to avoid
conflict is empathy and solidarity. But still, though we used to have these
characteristics it was just a part of our nature. Because of other characteristic such
as the ability to invent, we started getting closer and since we started having
intelligence it evolve to antagonism, because of intelligence, and finally we had rich
and poor people since the more antagonistic we are, the more powerful we will want
to become.

Although all three of them present the evolution of a state like that in
different ways basically, they all end up on the same conclusion. We will have to exit
the state of nature. Hobbes says right from the beginning that it is a state of war,
Locke suggests what we interpret laws differently so we finally conflict, which makes
us exit and Rousseau claims that we forget compassion so as a result we compare
out talents we gradually have unequal, we conflict and finally we exit the natural
condition.