This essay will address the political philosophy of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau particularly their concept of political society. I aim to establish, what it is that each of them looks to resolve and then what the resulting advantages are from this process. The essay shall begin by outlining the issues that each of the philosophers perceive there to be in, non-political society and how each of them regard the state of nature. I shall draw attention to how they differ and then explain the different concepts of political society that each of them, have developed in order to overcome these issues.
Hobbes famously described non-political society, or as it has also been come to known, the State of Nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1651: 1.13). To understand this it is important to grasp the nature of man in the State of Nature. A concept central to the comprehension of this is the equality of all men; despite having different strengths, men are equal, meaning no man has superiority over another. Man’s dominant passion is described as being self-preservation, all man’s wants, and desires lead back to their want to preserve their lives. Hobbes saw this not only as a passion but a right, all men are born with the natural right to do what they need in order to preserve their own life which Hobbes calls ‘the right of nature’. This right inevitably leads to conflict as, men are equal and so when they desire the same thing that only one of them can have they