The state of nature is a concept used in philosophy to create an image of a hypothetical condition in which there is no authority or political association. This concept is used to describe a society in which we no longer respect the rule of law. Philosophers have used the idea of ​​a state of nature to argue that the state is based on an agreement between people to live together according to laws, or a social contract. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau take opposing positions on the state of nature and therefore have divergent views on the authority and justification of the state. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Hobbes developed his theory of the state of nature against the backdrop of the time, the English Civil War. Hobbes grew increasingly concerned about the outcome of the war and the disastrous consequences of a world without authority. He believed that the “state of nature” would become a state of war. Hobbes' argument about the state of nature is aligned with his argument about human nature. Hobbes had a negative view of human nature, with the idea that man was only interested in his own interests and was only interested in the pursuit of power. Geraint Williams' view of Hobbes's understanding of human nature was that man's obsessive pursuit of his personal passions leads only to frustration, and that in the state of nature, that nature natural human nature benefits no one (Williams, 1991). Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they would never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more. Because of this view of human nature, Hobbes believed that the natural state of nature would be lawless and violent because there is no rule of law to restrain human nature. Existence in the state of nature is, as Hobbes says, “lonely, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes, 1651). Hobbes believed that without a strong state to mediate disputes and disagreements among the population, everyone feared and distrusted other members of society. Furthermore, without supreme authority, there can be no justice or a functional society. The only way to achieve this untenable state of nature is for individuals to surrender their natural rights and self-sovereignty to a higher political authority, or state. This is called the social contract, a theory developed by Hobbes that was an exchange between individuals and a political authority, offering individuals self-sovereignty in exchange for social benefits such as state protection. The social contract is therefore a means by which individuals can leave the state of nature and join civilized society. Hobbes expresses the idea that humans can only be happy and flourish when they are locked into the social contract. Jonathan Wolff's interpretation of Hobbes' ideology was that without state protection there is no worse alternative (Wolff, 1996). It was therefore vital to have a strong government, capable of protecting its citizens, upholding the laws of nature and falling into a state of war. In contrast, Locke disagreed with Hobbes' idea that the state of nature was a state of war. . He believed that human nature was characterized by "tolerance and reason", and as such he believed that human beings could live a good life, even in the absence of a state or higher authority. Jonathan Wolff argues that according to Locke, the state of nature was, in a sense, a state of perfect freedom (Wolff, 1996). By this he meant that humans could live ina world, free to do what they want, but only if they respect the laws of nature. David Gress, in his book “From Plato to NATO,” describes that the law of nature is God's rules for how his creations should operate. (Gress, 1998). Locke, in the Second Treatise, states that: “The state of nature is governed by a natural law which binds everyone; and reason, which is that law which teaches all humanity who will only consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one must harm others in their life, their health, their liberty or their property. (Locke, 1690). What Locke meant by this is that humans are free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm others in the process. Locke believed that the law of nature was encompassed in our natural rights, which he said were "the right to life, liberty, and property." So we are all free to do what we want, as long as we don't encroach on others. natural rights. Geraint Williams said it was clear that before government, men in the state of nature were naturally free and equal. Williams goes on to point out that they were free within a structured way of life due to the existence of natural laws (Williams, 1991). Although Locke believed that in the state of nature, the law of nature cannot be truly enforced, and therefore the contract is made with a political authority to more consistently enforce the law of nature and the natural rights and to establish an impartial power capable of settling their disputes and repairing wrongs. Alex Tuckness describes that Locke's support for the social contract stems from the idea that people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights in order to better ensure the stability of their lives and natural rights. (Tuckness, 2005). This reinforces Locke's idea that humans consciously transfer some of their rights and sovereignty to a higher power in order to strengthen their natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Although Locke suggests that because government exists by consent, if it fails to protect natural rights it can be resisted and replaced by a new authority. The concept of the state of nature was also central to Rousseau's philosophy. He took a different position from Hobbes and Locke on human nature and the state of nature. Like Hobbes and Locke, he agreed that the most fundamental characteristic of human nature was the motivation for self-preservation. But Rousseau believed that Hobbes and Locke had neglected a key aspect of human nature, compassion, which he believed meant that they had misjudged the likelihood of conflict in the state of nature. Christopher Bertram states that Rousseau claimed that human beings were naturally good by nature, but had been corrupted by society (Bertram, 2010). This is a direct opposition to Hobbes, who asserted that humans were naturally selfish. Rousseau therefore maintained that the state of nature could only be the state preceding society. Rousseau believed that the state of nature was naturally morally neutral and peaceful because it was composed of individuals who act to meet their basic needs, such as hunger and the desire for self-preservation. Although Rousseau believed that the desire for conservation was also accompanied by a similar feeling of compassion towards others. In his speech on the origin of inequality, Rousseau criticized other theorists such as Hobbes and Locke for depicting man in the state of nature with attributes they found in their own corrupt societies. Rousseau asserts that individuals, 4(2), 145-162.