TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background of Study
1.2 Statement of Problems
1.3 Research Objectives
1.4 Research Question
1.5 Research Hypothesis
1.6 Scope of Study
1.7 Significance of study
1.8 Limitation of study
1.9 Definition of terms
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature Review
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Research methodology
3.1 Research Design
3.2 Population of study
3.3 Sampling Design and Procedure
3.4 Data Collection Instrument
3.5 Administration of Data Collection Instrument
3.6 Methods of data analysis
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 Data Presentation and Analysis
4.1 Data Presentation
4.2 Test of Hypothesis
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Summary
5.2 Conclusion
5.3 Recommendation
References
Questionnaire
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 THE STATE OF NATURE
The notion that man is a creature equipped from birth for society is a view implicit in Plato and expressly formulated by Aristotle in the genesis of his politics.
Man is by nature, a political animal. Anyone who by his nature and not simply by ill-luck has no state is either too bad or too good, either sub-human or super- human[1]
Thomas Hobbes regards the assumption that man is by nature political animal as false. In his view, man became a political animal only after the institution of the civil society. The period prior to the civil society is what Locke, Rousseau as well as Hobbes called ‘the state of nature’ – the apolitical state of man. In the hypothetical state of nature, there lacks a central and sovereign power. Life in this state is unrest, misery, constant fear, war, and insecurity and is ruled by egoistic law of self- preservation. This is because in this state, all men are equal and equally have the right to whatever they consider necessary for their survival. On this Hobbes notes:
The right of nature is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself… and consequently of doing any thing which in his own judgment and he shall conceive to be the aptest means there unto.[2]
Equality here means simply that anyone is capable of hunting his weak neighbour and taking what he thinks he needs for his own protection.
In Hobbes’ state of nature, there exists the survival of the fittest for instance, a physically strong man could overcome the physically weak and take what belongs to the weak, but the weak could by his intelligence gain advantage over the strong by joining forces with those in the same danger with him. Therefore, a lack in one aspect could be compensated with some other thing. We have to note also that the right of all to all that prevails in this state does not mean that one man has a right whereas others have corresponding duties. The word right in the state of nature is man’s freedom:
To do what he would, and against whom he thought fit and to possesses use and enjoy all that he would or could get”. [3]