Freedom in the State of Nature versus Freedom in Civil Society

Freedom In the State of Nature Vs Freedom in Civil Society
by Student’s Name
Class/Course/Code
Professor’s Name
University/School
City, State
Date
Freedom In the State of Nature Vs. Freedom in Civil Society
Freedom, society, social contract, and the state of nature. These are the most common terms in the works of philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Most people will agree that human civilization is as much a mystery as life itself. Hence philosophers have dedicated their lives to understanding society. Locke argues that humans found it reasonable to leave the state of nature for a civilized society. Hobbes asserts that humans need society because the state of nature is barbarous. Rousseau holds that by departing the state of nature, humans gave themselves up to a state of eternal enslavement. According to Locke, in this essay, the author differentiates the state of nature from civil society. In addition, the author explains why he agrees with Rousseau’s argument more than Locke’s.
According to Locke, freedom in the state of nature exists when people do with themselves and their possessions as they will (Locke 2016: p. 10). However, freedom in civil society depends on how one lives with others. Hence, love is a critical condition for one to be free in a civil society. Locke viewed civil society as an essential substitute to the state of nature. He notes that in the state of nature, a lacking quality is an impartial judgment (Locke & Goldie, 2016: p. 16). In the state of nature, people have no system in place that judges wrong from right. In essence, people are governed by their rules. In such a state, people are unwilling to admit to wrongdoing because they are their own judges. Hence, it is essential to have an independent and impartial system that judges everyone equally. Such a s...