0
It depends entirely on the philosopher.
Hobbes and Locke both held that the state of nature was a violent and terrible place in which to live. People regularly killed and maimed each other for temporary benefits.
Aristotle and other classical philosophers found the question meaningless, holding that man would naturally form cities and societies since people are inherently political. The same way that oil will always separate from water, people will always evade the state of nature.
Rousseau held that the state of nature was relatively peaceable, but still much less desirable than a society held together by a social contract. As a result, people will tend to create social contracts to improve their lot, but the state of nature is not a horrible place.
What else can I help you with?
What might life be like for people living in a state of natural?
To live in a state of nature would be absolute chaos and hell. There are no rules, no laws, no government. Although it could be beneficial to have no corrupt government or dictators, one will eventually form.
Did hobbes like the idea of a state of nature?
No, Hobbes did not like the idea of a state of nature. He believed that it would lead to a "war of all against all" and chaos, where life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes argued for a powerful sovereign to maintain order and prevent this state of nature.
The court may not take a man's life without what?
Depending on the nature of their court, they might just kill him if they don't like him.
What is Hobbes' state of nature like?
Hobbes' state of nature is a condition of perpetual war, where everyone is in a constant state of conflict and competition for resources. In this state, there is no authority to enforce laws or provide security, leading to a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. According to Hobbes, the state of nature necessitates the creation of a social contract and a sovereign power to maintain order and prevent chaos.
The Courts may not take a man's life without?
Depending on the nature of their court, they might just kill him if they don't like him.
What might life be like in state of nature?
It depends entirely on the philosopher. Hobbes and Locke both held that the state of nature was a violent and terrible place in which to live. People regularly killed and maimed each other for temporary benefits. Aristotle and other classical philosophers found the question meaningless, holding that man would naturally form cities and societies since people are inherently political. The same way that oil will always separate from water, people will always evade the state of nature. Rousseau held that the state of nature was relatively peaceable, but still much less desirable than a society held together by a social contract. As a result, people will tend to create social contracts to improve their lot, but the state of nature is not a horrible place.
Why do you call nature Mother Nature?
The term "Mother Nature" is a metaphorical personification of nature as a nurturing and life-giving force, much like a mother cares for her children. It reflects the idea of nature providing and sustaining life on Earth.
Why are mexcian guys such big flirts?
It might be in their nature. They might be open to boys. They like boys obviously that is why they flirt.
Is Kansas red state or blue state?
Kansas is a red state, typically, but this election it seems like it might go blue.
Is social contract theory and state of nature the same thing?
no, social contract theory is basically a theoritical family on the origin of society introduced by Hegel and others.while state of nature rather ' original state of nature' is basically a condition, before the origine of society in which life of primitive people determine violence,struggle with each other,promisquity no consciousness of collective spirit and strength.human more or less like animal in their original state of nature.
What would life be like with a state of nature?
Life in a state of nature would likely be chaotic and unpredictable, as there would be minimal or no government control and individuals would have to rely on their own resources for survival. Social order would be based on individual strength and alliances, leading to potential conflicts and insecurity. Access to resources and opportunities would vary greatly, potentially leading to inequality and competition for survival.
How is Hobbes Locke and Rousseau understand the state of nature and the social contract differently?
Hobbes believed the state of nature was chaotic and people needed a strong central authority to maintain order, with the social contract giving up some freedoms in exchange for security. Locke viewed the state of nature as peaceful and believed the social contract should protect natural rights like life, liberty, and property. Rousseau saw the state of nature as harmonious and believed the social contract should preserve individual freedom while maintaining the general will of the community.
