Dmitriy Pilipenko

1
 In this paper, I will first explain the notion of what is the “state of nature”. Next, I

will introduce what the philosopher Thomas Hobbes had envisioned the state of nature

to be like as well as explain his rationality for such a view. Finally I will critically analyze

Hobbes’ conclusion on what the state of nature would be like as well introduce a valid

objection to Hobbes’ conclusion in order to challenge his view.

State of nature is a hypothetical situation of how humanity was prior to the

establishment of a government. In addition to lacking a form of government, the state of

nature also lacks any form of morality as well as any concept of what is right or wrong.

In the state of nature, people can do anything and everything they desire to do. This is

because there is no such thing as morality yet, so an action cannot be considered as

being morally right or wrong. Additionally, because there is no government, people do

not have any rules that they are expected to follow. People are completely free to carry

out any action that they feel inclined in doing. The state of nature can be seen as a vital

building block for a society. It represents the most basic and primitive form of how

society can be.

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, man is in constant struggle with one

another and refers to it as a state of war. His conclusion is drawn from his three main

premises. The first is that resources are scarce. Hobbes brings to the attention that

there exists a finite amount of resources in the world and that there is not enough for

each and every person to have as much as is necessary for them to be satisfied. His

concept of resource ranges greatly and includes natural resources such as fossil fuels

and timber as well as other resources that are not necessarily physical such as

2
recognition and mating partners. Because such resources are finite and scarce,

competition over these resources is bound to occur.

Hobbes’ second premises is the observation that all persons have roughly equal

physical and mental endowments. This means that everybody is more or less the same

and no one can just assume superiority and control over one another. According to

Hobbes, no one person can expect to assume authority over others and order them

around. If disgruntled, the subjects can form a coalition and challenge their ruler. Since

everyone is roughly equal, the ruler would not be able to adequately defend himself

against a coalition, either physically or logically. In Hobbes’ state of nature, nobody can

just assume control over everyone else. This premise also completely voids the divine

right of kings doctrine that claimed that monarchs were chosen by God and derived their

authority and power to rule over, from God.

Hobbes’ third and final premise deals with the motivational system that cause

humans to act the way they do. Hobbes says that humans all have the same types of

desires such as the desire for food, the desire for recognition amongst others as well as

the desire for finding and having a mate. And even though the specifics of what we

desire can vary, we all have the same passions to some extent. This is one of the more

important premises because it establishes that multiple people would aim for the same

goal resulting in competition amongst each other. And because everyone is roughly

equal to each other in terms of physical and mental endowments, no one person would

be able to successfully dominate and hold control of a resource from the rest of the

members. These three premises lead to Hobbes’ conclusion that the state of nature

3
would consist of constant competition amongst each other, leading to a state of war “of

every man against every man” (Leviathan, Ch. 13; W: 170 - 71).

I agree with Hobbes’ view of that if a state of nature existed the members in that

state would be in a constant state of war amongst each other, with each individual man

fighting against every other man. And even on the international scope of things, each

state would be in a constant struggle against the other states of nature, just as if they

were individuals themselves. The best evidence for that becomes more apparent when

Hobbes was listing off the various desires that all humans share such as also the desire

of “ease and sensuous pleasure” (Leviathan, Ch.11; W:160), the desire of knowledge

and industry (Leviathan, Ch.11; W:160) and the fear of self-injury and death (Leviathan,

Ch.11; W:160). All of the desires that motivate people, that Hobbes had listed, were of

self-regarding nature. All of the desires concerned only the individual’s self-being and no

where did any of the desires concern themselves with trying to better society as a whole

or even solely trying to improve the lives of others around them with complete disregard

for their own self-being. Hobbes had accepted the view of psychological egoism,

whereas humans are only motivated by improving their own well-being and could care

less of how others are living.

An objection can be risen that challenges Hobbes’ conclusion that in the state of

nature man must necessarily be in constant competition against each other. Even

though certain resources are finite and limited and not enough of resources exist for

each and everyone to be completely satisfied, does not automatically lead to the

conclusion that the men would compete against each other. Take for example the

4
Prisoner’s dilemma. Two men are arrest for a crime. An offer is made to both prisoners.

If Prisoner A testifies against Prisoner B and Prisoner B does not testify against Prisoner

A, then Prison A can go free and Prisoner B would be sentenced to 10 years in jail. But

if Prisoner B also decided to testify against the other (Prisoner A), then both would serve

5 years in jail. On the other hand, Prisoner A can decide to be loyal to Prisoner B and

choose to not testify. If Prisoner B also chooses to stay silent, then both would only have

to serve 6 months in prison. But if Prisoner B betrays Prisoner A and does testify

against him, Prisoner A would be sentenced to 10 years and Prisoner B would walk free.

Prisoner A has two choices, to stay silent or to betray Prisoner B and testify

against him. If Prisoner A testifies, he can either go free or be sentenced to 5 years in

prison. If he chooses to stay silent, Prisoner A would have to either serve 6 months or

10 years. In Hobbes’ state of nature, Hobbes assumes that each prisoner is only

concerned with himself and Prisoner A would most likely choose to betray Prisoner B in

hopes that he can walk away free. But when reexamined from a completely rational

point of view, both prisoners should choose to cooperate with each other and stay silent,

in order for each to only have to serve 6 months in jail as opposed to 5 years or even 10

years. It benefits the prisoners for them to work together towards a common goal rather

than compete against each other. This same conclusion could be expanded to cover the

state of nature. Rather than competing over scarce resources, rationally, the men should

instead choose to work together and cooperate towards a common goal. Although the

payoff maybe less than the payoff of competing against each other, the risks that each

individual runs in minimized when they all cooperate and don’t have to worry about

5
rogue agents betraying them. Therefore, it would be rational to conclude that through

reasoning and understanding, the men in the state of nature would naturally choose to

cooperate with one another rather than be in a constant state of war.

While that may seem like a solid objection to Hobbes’ view of what the state of

nature would be like, one key piece of information is missed. In order for the prisoners to

feel safe with cooperating, they must be very certain that the other prisoner is going to

cooperate or else they would face the 10 year sentence all by themselves. Same with

the men in the state of nature. In order for it to be rational for the men to cooperate with

one another, they must be assured that all parties would cooperate as well. But without

a government or any authority to help enforce and ensure cooperation amongst each

other, the cooperating men run the risk of being taken advantage of and losing

everything. With that risk looming overhead, it would be rational to choose to not

cooperate. In order for reason to dictate that cooperation is key, an authoritarian figure

must be installed in order to create law and order and help enforce contractual

agreements made between one-another. Otherwise, the state of nature would consist of

a constant war “of every man, against every man.” (Leviathan, Ch. 13; W:170-71).