In the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau describes what he believes is the state of nature and the social contract that human beings form in civilizations. This discussion takes place mainly in his book entitled “Social Contract”. The first area that will be treated is what Rousseau considers the state of nature. This will then be followed by what he believes is the social contract that human beings enter into to live in a normal society or civilisation. The last part will serve to criticize and summarize his findings. One of the interesting things about Rousseau was that he had different views than previous philosophers, such as Hume and Locke, on the state of nature. From Rousseau's point of view, man in the state of nature would be very similar to a noble savage. This means that Rousseau believed that in the state of nature, humans were naturally good and driven by basic appetites or feelings. This would also be a prehistoric place where humans would not have discovered rationality or morality. This applies primarily because Rousseau believes that these prehistoric humans made, as discussed below, decisions based on feeling and not reason, so since morality requires the ability to choose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral. Rousseau believes that evil begins to manifest itself when civilizations are created. This is mainly due to the increasing dependence on others and the need for unnecessary luxuries. Indeed, another possible reason why this evil arises and what distinguishes prehistoric man from other animals is the need for self-improvement. Prehistoric man would thus live in a solitary state, in complete autonomy and as his own sovereign. Other than that they would not work for anything outside of their immediate… medium of paper… then someone else in the family or social group might attack what they were attacking. This would then allow one person to harm another if a situation arose where the other lacked the ability to fight back. Overall, Rousseau's explanation of the state of nature and the social contract is extremely interesting and appealing. That said, it seems hard to believe, given the supporting data, that humans are not social animals and that there was a time when humans were completely good. If either of the two main points were to fail, since they are truly the foundation of Rousseau's arguments, it seems that this would also fail his conclusion. Unfortunately his arguments do not have the support they need to create a truly foolproof or beyond a reasonable doubt argument. This does not at all suggest that his ideas are false or unsupported, only that they stand on shaky ground.