Understanding who argued that people are naturally self-interested: Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Tocqueville

Who’s really wired for self-interest? A quick, friendly tour through four classic thinkers

If you’ve ever seen a multiple-choice question that asks which philosopher is tied to the idea that people are inherently self-interested, you might instinctively think of Hobbes. And you wouldn’t be alone. But let’s untangle the map a bit—because the story behind Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Tocqueville is richer than a single checkbox on a test. It’s a story about how different minds imagined human nature, government, and the rules that keep societies from falling apart. This is the kind of thinking that sits at the heart of the OAE Integrated Social Studies (025) strands: weighing ideas, comparing arguments, and testing how ideas hold up in real life.

Let me set the scene neatly. When a question pairs four names, it’s tempting to search for a quick label—“self-interested humans” = Hobbes, “rational and rights-respecting” = Locke, “power that checks power” = Montesquieu, “democratic hopes and social fabric” = Tocqueville. But the nuance matters. In fact, the idea that individuals are inherently self-interested is most closely associated with Hobbes’s picture of the state of nature—a world without rules where survival and advantage drive behavior. Tocqueville, meanwhile, is famous for diagnosing democracy in America and the surprising power of voluntary associations. He’s not the go-to source for a blanket claim about human nature being self-interested.

A quick tour of the four thinkers

• Thomas Hobbes: state of nature, self-interest, and security

• John Locke: natural rights, reason, and cooperative governance

• Baron de Montesquieu: the architecture of power, checks and balances

• Alexis de Tocqueville: democracy, civil society, and the weight of freedom

Think of this quartet as four lenses on the same question: What makes government necessary, and what keeps it from becoming tyrannical? Each lens has a different starting point about human behavior, and that difference shapes how they propose rules, institutions, and civic life.

Hobbes: self-interest in the state of nature

Let’s start with the familiar image: a life without laws or authority, where every person acts to protect themselves. Hobbes paints this as a grim race for advantage—“every man against every man,” he famously writes. In such a world, fear and mistrust push people toward a bold move: surrender some freedom to a central authority in exchange for security and order. The Leviathan, as he calls that authority, isn’t a cheerleader for human selfishness so much as a practical acknowledgment that without a strong, impartial power, chaos reigns.

A lot of what’s taught in social studies boils down to this tension: how do you balance individual interests with the common good? Hobbes gives us a stark answer—without structure, things spiral. The self-interested impulse isn’t bad in itself; it’s a force that must be channeled through agreed-upon rules.

Locke: reason, rights, and cooperation

If Hobbes gives us the storm, Locke offers something more hopeful. He argues that humans are rational beings who can cooperate and reason their way to a fair social contract. People aren’t simply driven by raw appetite; they possess natural rights—life, liberty, and property—that deserve protection. In Locke’s view, government exists to safeguard those rights, not to crush them. This is where the idea of consent and limited government comes in: rulers derive their legitimacy from the people they govern, and when they fail, the people retain the right to change the regime.

Locke’s optimism about human cooperation matters in social studies because it helps explain why constitutions, laws, and civic norms matter. If people are capable of respecting others’ rights and engaging in civic debate, institutions can flourish. It’s a contrast to Hobbes’s fear of unmoderated self-interest, and a reminder that governance often rests on trust as much as on force.

Montesquieu: power’s architecture

Montesquieu adds a crucial dimension: even if people are self-interested, power should be designed so it doesn’t tempt abuse. His answer is the separation of powers. By dividing government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and by distributing authority among different bodies, tyranny is harder to achieve. Each branch acts as a check on the others, slowing any slide toward despotism that might arise from untempered self-interest.

In classrooms and textbooks, Montesquieu’s idea often shows up as a practical design principle: institutions shape behavior, and the right structure can discipline human impulses. This is a perennial theme in social studies—how rules and institutions steer collective life, even when people have competing interests.

Tocqueville: democracy, associations, and social life

Finally, Tocqueville invites us to look at democracy from the ground up. He wasn’t arguing that human nature is self-interested; he was keenly interested in how freedom and equality play out in everyday life. He observed the bustling network of voluntary associations, clubs, churches, and neighborly ties that people build to manage their own communities. These voluntary bonds, he argued, help sustain democracy by creating habits of cooperation and civic engagement. Yet Tocqueville also warned that democracy can breed a certain individualism that, if unchecked, erodes public spirit. In short, he shows how freedom expands personal choice while demanding responsibility to the common good.

Together, these thinkers give us a layered map of political life. Hobbes reminds us why order matters; Locke explains the moral ground for rights and consent; Montesquieu shows how to design power so it doesn’t ruin what people are trying to build; Tocqueville prompts us to look at how everyday civic ties keep a democracy healthy. None of them offers a single, universal verdict on human nature. Instead, they invite us to test ideas against how societies function—exactly the kind of critical thinking central to social studies work.

Why this matters for social studies learners

You’ll hear these names in classrooms for a good reason. They help students practice the core skills social studies prizes: compare perspectives, evaluate evidence, and understand how ideas shape institutions and behavior. A well-rounded view of human nature and government helps learners ask better questions: What kinds of rules encourage cooperation? How do different societies balance individual rights with community safety? Where do checks and balances come from, and why do they matter?

When you study these thinkers, you’re not just memorizing a list; you’re practicing the art of thinking critically about the past and its echoes in today’s politics. And that matters beyond the classroom. Whether you’re looking at civic life, public policy, or the way communities organize themselves, the questions these thinkers pose are alive in every debate about rights, responsibilities, and the design of institutions.

A few mental anchors to help you remember

• The state of nature is a thought experiment that asks: what would life be like if there were no rules? Hobbes’s answer points to fear and conflict—and the need for a strong ruler.

• Natural rights are a frame for understanding why governments exist at all. Locke puts rights first and sees government as a contract to protect them.

• The architecture of government matters. Montesquieu’s separation of powers isn’t flashy; it’s a practical guardrail against power running amok.

• Democracy grows in the soil of civil society. Tocqueville highlights how voluntary associations help people connect, influence public life, and sustain freedom, even as individualism can push people inward.

If you’re studying for the OAE Integrated Social Studies standards, these ideas aren’t just about who said what. They’re tools for analysis. You can pull primary sources, weigh arguments, and draw connections to how laws, courts, and communities function today. A good way to practice is to sketch a quick compare-and-contrast map: what each thinker believes about human nature, what they propose for government, and what risks or benefits their ideas carry in real life.

A friendly note about accuracy

A small but important point to keep in mind: the traditional association of “self-interest” is most strongly tied to Hobbes. Tocqueville’s influence is different—he’s about democracy’s strengths and the social fabric that sustains it, not a blanket claim about human nature. If you ever see a question that pins self-interest on Tocqueville, you’ve found a tricky wording. It’s okay to pause, cross-check, and then decide which thinker best fits the core idea being tested.

Where to go next if you want to deepen your understanding

• Primary sources and credible overviews: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy offer accessible introductions to Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Tocqueville. Britannica and academic companions can provide concise summaries to pair with those longer reads.

• Modern reflections: contemporary political theory often revisits these ideas, asking how trust, institutions, and civic life interact in today’s digital age. It’s interesting to compare how social media, polarization, and public discourse shift the classic questions about power and cooperation.

• Real-world examples: look at how different systems—constitutional monarchies, republics, or federations—structure power. Notice how the design of government affects public life, civic engagement, and everyday decision-making.

A closing thought

Learning about these philosophers isn’t about memorizing old slogans. It’s about sharpening your sense of how ideas travel—from a dusty page to a courtroom verdict, from a city council meeting to a classroom discussion. The more you practice weighing arguments, comparing perspectives, and linking theory to real-world consequences, the better you’ll become at understanding the world and your place in it.

So next time you see a reference to Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, or Tocqueville, you’ll know not just who they were, but how their ideas fit into the bigger puzzle of government, society, and human behavior. You’ll be able to explain why order matters, how rights are protected, why power needs guardrails, and how the everyday life of citizens helps democracy thrive. That’s the kind of clarity that makes social studies feel alive—and that’s what really matters when you’re exploring the big questions that shape our shared future.