The Hobbesian State of Nature
Without any government or authority, what would human life look like? And if the answer is genuinely terrible, what does that tell us about how much power we should grant the state?
Thomas Hobbes described a hypothetical condition of humanity without political authority in Leviathan (1651). His state of nature is not a historical claim but a logical argument: strip away government and you reveal the conditions that make government necessary. The result, Hobbes thought, was a life 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Chapter XIII.
Why the state of nature is so bleak
Hobbes's argument begins with equality, but not the kind anyone celebrates. In the state of nature, every person is roughly equal in their capacity to harm others. The weakest can kill the strongest, given cunning and opportunity. This equality of vulnerability means no one is ever safe.
From this equality comes diffidence: mutual distrust. If you know others can harm you and have reason to, you must strike first or arm yourself constantly. There is no basis for trust because there is no authority to enforce promises. Agreements are worthless when no one can compel compliance.
Add scarcity to distrust and you get perpetual conflict. Hobbes didn't claim people fight all the time. He claimed that the disposition to fight is constant, like bad weather that makes all outdoor work uncertain. That uncertainty is enough to prevent anyone from building anything lasting.
The social contract that follows
Hobbes's way out is rational: people in the state of nature would agree to surrender their natural freedom to a sovereign in exchange for security. The sovereign can be a monarch or an assembly. What matters is that the authority is absolute. A weak sovereign cannot protect anyone and defeats the purpose.
This is not a contract with the sovereign. It is a contract among the people themselves: each agrees with each other to authorize a common authority. The sovereign stands outside the contract and cannot be held to it by the subjects.
The implication is stark. Once you have accepted the sovereign, you cannot rebel, even against unjust laws. The alternative is the state of nature, and nothing the sovereign does is worse than that.
The critical objection
Is Hobbes describing how humans actually are without government, or designing a worst-case scenario to justify absolute power? Critics have pressed this for centuries.
Anthropological evidence doesn't support the picture of universal warfare. Many pre-state societies were cooperative. Hobbes's "state of nature" looks less like a description of prehistoric life and more like a thought experiment engineered to produce a specific conclusion: that any government, however authoritarian, is better than none.
The objection matters practically. If the state of nature is less dire than Hobbes claimed, then the argument for absolute sovereignty weakens. We might have reason to limit government power, remove bad rulers, or distribute authority, without collapsing into chaos.
Discussion questions
- Do you think Hobbes's bleak picture of human nature is basically right?
- Would you give up significant personal freedom for genuine security?
- Is there evidence that human life without government really is as terrible as Hobbes describes?
Take it to the dinner table.
Get 3 thought experiments for memorable conversations, designed for dinner, with friends, at events, or anywhere small talk has gone on too long.