For the most part, philosophies of social contracts are developed from a heuristic perspective of human conditions known as the natural state or conditions that are lack social order. From this perspective, philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes attempt to explain the nature of humans and the rationality that was involved in giving up some of their freedom to create social structures. These theories, nonetheless differ widely on the basis of the author account and the natural state. This paper seeks to bring to light such differences.
Hobbes sets up his argument by describing the state of nature as a horrible state. It’s worth mentioning that the state of nature is a term that is used in social contracts doctrines and political philosophy to refer to conditions that existed prior to enactment of the rule of law. According to Hobbes, the state of nature that exists without the government is inherently evil and troublesome. In such conditions man lives in “continuall feare, and danger of violent death (Leviathan, 72)” The potential for life is also cut short because there is no security. Implicitly, this infers that there is progressive development as the overall life of man is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short.” Even the natural rights of nature that seek to guide humans fail in guiding them through self-preservation. So, men were naturally inclined to act according to their aversions and desires while seeking power as the means to satisfying