My understanding of Rousseau's state of nature is that natural law had not governed natural man since he cannot conceive of it yet, considering that (according to Rousseau) man doesn't naturally have reasoning ability. So when our prof. asked us whether there is a natural law in the state of nature, I thought there wasn't. But according to our professor as he interpreted it, natural law had always been present in the state of nature (may it be of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau); only that in Rousseau, the natural law is followed not through reason but by feelings (i.e., following their innate compassion that maintained the state of peace in the state of nature). I m still in doubt of this interpretation by our professor, so is there anyone here who are expert or intellectual enough to point out which or what interpretation is correct? Is there really a natural law in Rousseau's state of nature?