Philosophers on the Development of Pre-Civilization to Modern Society

Eddie Zheng

Throughout history, philosophers have debated on the natural state of humans, and how it is the characteristics of humans in this state develop into our modern civilizations. Many differing viewpoints emerge when we question what type of lives humans are drawn to when living in a pure, untouched state of nature, and whether this life coincides or clashes with the modern societies. In Aristotle’s Politics, men possess natural instincts to form social associations with others to enjoy the benefits of a community. Aristotle argues, that the “final and perfect association” between humans is the polis, or city, which naturally exists to promote the good life. In contrast to this idea of a natural state of association, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes characterizes the state of nature as a cruel and savage battle between humans. Realizing the dangers and deficiencies of this state, Governments are formed as protections against them. Arguing against Hobbes is Thomas Locke, who defines certain “unalienable rights” that men possess by nature. States are voluntarily formed to preserve these rights. In the far east, Confucius focuses on the idea that certain character qualities exist naturally, but must be cultivated through family values and upbringing, emphasizing the importance of a well valued society.

Aristotle opens book one of Politics by stating that “all associations come into being for the sake of some good,” and that all actions taken by men are in order to do something perceived as good (Aristotle 7). This assumption is to inform Aristotle’s view of the nature of humans and the way societies form. Aristotle claims that men are “political animals” (10), and differentiates the human and animal from the beast and god, stating that humans are programmed towards forming connections and bonds that form into cities. He references the unique human ability to utilize language, which conveys not only pleasure and pain but “a possession of good and evil” and right or wrong (11), distinctions that facilitate the associations that form groups of people into families or cities. Thus, humans are destined to form societies as they are drawn towards the good created by associations with other humans. The primary benefit of such an association is the establishment and upholding of justice, which protects the members of a society against the tools given to humans which were originally intended to promote “wisdom and goodness,” but which can be used to the opposite effect in an unjust way (12). The duty of justice resides with the state, for the definitions of just and unjust are determined through the association of men. Those who do not seek these connections between men are isolated, and lack the necessity for justice and law. For this reason, Aristotle notes that they must be “a beast or a god.” Thus, the natural state of human existence for Aristotle is in the polis, or the city, to which humans are drawn, forming bonds and associations to enforce law and justice.

In bleak contrast to the natural attraction of men to the state that Aristotle promotes is Thomas Hobbes’s depiction of the brutal state of nature that predates the establishment of a commonwealth in The Leviathan. Hobbes introduces the work as a study into the development of a state, or leviathan, from the original state of man in nature. The intended purpose of this state, characterized as an “artificial man” made up of smaller limbs of natural men, is for “protection and defense,” lending reward, punishment, laws, and reason (Hobbes 1). The primary contrast between the ideas in Politics and The Leviathan lie in Hobbes’s “natural condition of mankind” (183). Because of the needs and desires of men and the natural conflict of these between men, enemies are created, force is used, and a state of war is attained. Such is the perpetual state of war in nature. Hobbes writes, “if any two men desire the same thing, [...] they become enemies, and [...] endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another” (184). In the state of nature, “we find three principal causes of quarrel: First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (185). Without “a common power to keep them all in awe” (185), men are left to fight for their values and needs themselves, leading to a condition of war, a severely limited state that does not allow for aspects of civilized life such as industry, culture, trade, science, arts, or society at large. Greatest of all is the “continual fear” and “danger of violent death” that the warring state of nature provides, prompting Hobbes’ famous declaration of “the life of man (as) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (186). It is thus out of this violent state that men seek to become governed, relinquishing certain rights in exchange for the protection against and access to certain aspects of life. For what the man in the state of nature fears most is death, and desires most are “such things as are necessary commodious living” (188). The progression from the state of nature to a state of governed rule consists of a contract between the ruled and ruler, through a voluntary “renouncing or transferring of his rights” (191) to the organizing party that can rule and protect over the people. In contrast to Aristotle’s faith in the natural existence of a city, so much so that the bond and association between people exists as part of the state of nature, Hobbes’s vision is one of a violent and undesirable state of nature that humans must work together to escape through the establishment of a government that preserves certain rights and needs in exchange for other liberties.

Locke’s exploration of the state of nature and the society replaces it in The Second Treatise of Government runs opposite to the ideas of Hobbes, and more parallel to those of Aristotle in that man in nature are bound to “the law of nature.” This natural law obliges everyone, and enforces the idea that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions,” and that no man may “take away or impair the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another” (Locke 5-6). Contrary to Hobbes’s implication that men left to their devices would resort to violence and the violation of such rights, Locke believes that men, who are bound by the law of nature must act to “preserve mankind in general” by restraining and punishing only “the offender and the executioner of the law of nature” (7). It is interesting to note that Locke refers to his state of nature as one “also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another” (4). This individual sovereignty contrasts to Hobbes’s vision of men fighting against each other, motivated by their needs; in comparison to the natural coexistence and associations between men proposed by Aristotle, the idea of this state of men not under the rule of a common superior yet governed by reason has a similar essence of a more peaceful state of pre-civilization. Yet another state of existence is noted by Locke: the state of war. Separate from the state of nature, war is established when a “sedate, settled design upon another man’s life” is declared, forcing the attacked party to “destroy that which threatens” the destruction, acting to preserve one’s own life (11). The “strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination” (44) that face humans in the state of nature or war bring them to form societies. Through a commonwealth comes the power to establish transgressions against members of society and their punishments, forming laws (49). Furthermore, a person’s voluntary entry into the pact of society forfeits their authority to “punish offences against the law of nature in prosecution of his own private judgment,” thereby leaving the process of justice to the laws of the commonwealth. The responsibility of the government in processing and enacting justice draws another parallel between the analyses of Locke and Aristotle.

The final work in comparison, Confucius’s The Great Learning, highlights the origin and methods of development of values conducive to a productive and successful civilization. Confucius is focused on the cultivation of values in a member of society that will promote the order of the state. This cultivation is the “way of learning to be great,” and “consists in manifesting the clear character, loving the people, and abiding in the highest good (Confucius 86). Confucius’s reference to “the ancients” compares well with the former ideas of the state of nature. He states that it was those who “wished to manifest their clear character to the world would first bring order to their states (86). Thus, the orderly state of modern living was derived from those in the past who brought regulation, order, and a “rectified mind” to their states. This practice is what Confucius regards as “cultivating the personal life.” The ultimate result of the cultivated personal life is i peace, as Confucius states: “when the personal life is cultivated, the family will be regulated; when the family is regulated, the state will be in order; and when the state is in order, there will be peace throughout the world” (87). Thus, the key element of a functioning society is the ability for the individuals to “regard cultivation of the personal life as the root or foundation,” as the roots of a tree develop and nurture the branches above. This idea of focusing on finding the values of an individual in order to refine the society as a whole relates to Aristotle’s idea of the whole preceding the parts. He states, “the city is prior in the order of nature to the family and the individual,” for “if the whole body is destroyed, there will not be a foot or a hand” (Aristotle 11). Thus, in Aristotle’s view, the society must exist before the individuals that make up the population. However, in Confucius’s terms, one must cultivate their individual values and essence before an ordered society can arise. This presents a key difference in Aristotle’s and Confucius’s concepts of the development of a society out of an ancient state.

Beginning with Aristotle’s polis, or the natural state of existence that humans find themselves in as they naturally gravitate towards forming associations with each other to protect and uphold justice, the ideas of Hobbes, Locke, and Confucius all relate back to the formation of a commonwealth out of an ancient time predating any form of civil society. Hobbes’s bleak and pessimistic view of the violent and warring state of humans unbounded by written law and a common ruler contrasts heavily with both Aristotle’s idea of association of men and Locke’s establishment of natural laws protecting certain human rights and the distinction of a separate state of war distinct from the default state of nature. Confucius’s eastern philosophy relates to the hierarchy of existence between the individual and state, contrasting with Aristotle’s notion that the state predates any individual or family unit through establishing the personal cultivation of individual character as paramount to the eventual development of an orderly society. However, in the study of the development of our modern societies, the many theories, viewpoints, and explanations share a common ground of understanding the need for a collected civilization that protects the rights and liberties of the people.

Works Cited

Confucius, and James Legge. Da Xue = The Great Learning. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017.

Hobbes, Thomas, and Christopher Brooke. Leviathan. Penguin Books, 2017.

Locke, John, et al. Second Treatise of Government ; and A Letter Concerning Toleration. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Plato, et al. Republic. Hackett, 1992.