By referring to the “natural condition,” Hobbes means a simple form of social order. Personal interests and the lack of a legal framework impede social development. There is no centralized power, and this condition is close to anarchy. Regarding relationships among people, the natural condition presupposes constant enmity. Concerning the natural world, consumption forms the basis of life. The values ​​of respect for people or nature are not implied. By saying that “men live without a common power,” Hobbes means disunity. Society is anarchic, and everyone is fighting for their own life. Individual disunity is based on equality and freedom without central governance. This condition is the cause of constant and inevitable conflict. The satisfaction of individual desires is of the highest value. This is impossible to protect oneself from evil, which entails conflicts. In this condition, people are suspicious and distrustful of one another. They cannot be called friends or enemies but rather something in between. Sharing goods with others is impossible in such an intermediate state. Ultimately, people are considered equal due to equal rights to freedom. However, this equality is fragile and not based on democratic values.
Power in human relationships is seen as a tool to protect personal gains. The same amount of it means the ability to preserve one’s goods. Greater and lesser amounts are associated with opportunities to take away or lose them, respectively. In the natural condition, there are three main causes of conflict. They are competition, glory, and diffidence, which complement one another. These states are natural in the world of personal freedom and anarchy. Hobbes describes the natural condition from the perspectives of felicity and misery. Felicity implies a constant movement towards benefits, for instance, personal gain with the help of power. Misery is a lack of sovereignty and constant conflicts over power preservation. In this situation, there is a certain set of rules. Hobbes believes that the morality of this condition should not challenge conventional law. In other words, individual strength cannot run counter to the collective good. People are allowed to achieve what they want and prove their power. There is also an inalienable right to protect one’s goods. Regarding limitations, the natural condition does not allow moral development. People are limited in the set of values and priorities.
When Hobbes refers to the right to do anything, he implies poor control. There are no moral norms and values ​​that define limitations. As a result, violence becomes a social and uncontrollable norm. Concerning covenants, Hobbes implies the absence of a legislative basis. There are no prohibitions or permissions, which excludes any liability. Therefore, social injustice is not illegal in such an environment. Regarding law and injustice, Hobbes reiterates the background of the natural condition. Good and evil do not have clear frames and specific markers. Therefore, any action is the result of the struggle for the good. Regarding punishment and fear of injustice, Hobbes talks about the law. The lack of coercion is directly associated with complete permissiveness. Punishment can be a deterrent and a prohibition against breaking covenants. Hobbes’ portrait can be the description of human nature and relations. However, it does not reflect contemporary relationships with legal norms. Democracy has become part of society, and permissiveness is unacceptable. Hobbes’ perspective on human nature is more like the narrator of “Mending Wall.” The utilitarian position implies keeping livestock and individual property, and this corresponds to the natural condition.