Much of our day to day lives revolve around working to fit in with society. Our culture, interactions and government provide rules which we must follow in order to remain a member of society and reap the rewards of being part of it. Furthermore, some believe that this connection to society leads to issues with human behavior and interaction. To truly understand how humans behave, we must figure out which of our traits we are born with and which ones are the product of our societies. Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Discourse on the Origins of Inequality” both provide theories as to the origins of human social structures as well as how they affect our human nature.
Hobbes and Rousseau both make contrasting claims regarding the basic nature of humans in the absence of any social order. Hobbes’ argues that humans are born solitary and self interested, void of any moral inclinations. By establishing that humans are all more or less equal in terms of our skills and abilities, Hobbes derives the basic sources of human conflict. One source is competition, which results from a limited resource desired by two individuals. “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies,” he explains. Two individuals engaged in conflict while in their natural state will suspend their isolative tendencies and use their mental and physical abilities to gain a favorable outcome. Hobbes also explains diffidence, which comes from humans’ ability to relate to the emotions of others. We understand our own capacity for self-interested action, so it is easy for us to project this onto others. We recognize that others are unlikely to help us if it does not serve their self interest, therefore it is difficult to establish trust with others. Finally, we have a natural tendency to prove to others that we are at minimum their equal, if not greater than them. This attribute can be used to describe many actions that do not appear to be self interested. If a man knows that others are donating to charity, he too my donate to show that he has the abilities and resources to donate as well. He may even give a significantly larger donation to show that he is better at managing his self interests than others, to the extent that he can afford to give this kind of money. These conflicts, Hobbes argues, are what drive humans to form governments and social orders.
Rousseau also offers her views on the behavior of humans in their natural state, although her view is notably different than Hobbes. While Rousseau may accept that Hobbes’ ideas may represent a modern human, he believes this is humans in an “artificial” state created by society, and that the natural state is much different. He claims man in his natural state only strives basic needs and will be content once those needs are met. Modern humans are constantly struggling to make more and more money, even once their basic needs are met. Rousseau would claim that this is simply the result of our society training us to constantly want more. Additionally, Rousseau asserts that humans are naturally sympathetic to the suffering of other living beings and have moral issues with the suffering of others. This is sharply different from Hobbes’ views that humans are solely self interested. Rousseau believes have been changed by the social orders we live in to lose some of these attributes like pity for others. He claims this social structure allows us to rationalize the suffering of others, escaping us from the burden of feeling pity towards others. For example, one might see an injured man on the ground, but avoid the pity towards him by rationalizing that they did not hurt the man, or that it is the government's responsibility to provide medical services to him. Rousseau provides other problems that social structure has caused, such as the constant desire for wealth and property. He goes as far as to state that the type of human relationships we have are only the product of society training us to treat others like resources to acquire. He believes in the natural state, our interactions would be much more transient with long term relations not existing.
Given the natural state of humans as described by Hobbes and Rousseau, humanity has developed social structures and governments to serve the mutual benefit of men. The development of social structures can be imagined as two natural individuals each possessing a resource the other desires. They wish to make a deal to exchange resources, but can not trust that the other person will not lie and act in their own self interest. However, a higher social power, such as a government, could oversee the deal and enforce the execution of the promises made. This would be the ideal government to Hobbes, one dedicated to enforcing contracts between individuals. By forming this type of social system, the men would no longer have the total freedom they would in their natural state. Hobbes believes man can justify this loss of freedom as a means of gaining the protection and order of a governed society.
While learning about Hobbes and Rousseau’s ideas regarding the natural state of humans and the development of societies, I couldn’t help but think of how modern biology and anthropology could shed more light on this topic. Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” was written in 1651 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” was written in 1754. Over 100 years later, in 1859, Charles Darwin would publish “On the Origin of Species”, the famous piece describing the ideas of evolution and natural selection. These ideas can be used to expand, and in some cases reject, the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau. The key idea of evolution is that the attributes of all animals have developed as a way to help the animal survive until the point in which they can reproduce. While Rousseau believes that humans will naturally feel pity for a fellow man who is suffering, there is little reason for a solitary man to relate to others from an evolutionary point of view. Compassion for others develops only when there is a social structure to provide mutual benefit for helping others. Modern evolutionary theories tend to support Hobbes’ ideas more than Rousseau's, as self-interested action is more likely to lead to successful reproduction than compassionate action. Hobbes and Rousseau provide thoughtful explanations for the foundations and problems with modern societies, however modern science should not be ignored when describing the basic nature of humans.
