Compare And Contrast John Locke And Jean Jacque Rousseau

John Locke believed in a democracy and expressed that humans have the ability to govern themselves. However, Hobbes believed that humans are selfish and need a single leader(king) that should govern all affairs. Post French Revolution people lived under Hobbes theory, but wanted to become a Republic.

Rousseau sees the first step of exiting the state of nature and getting closer to origin of tyranny is when man decides to leave the lifestyle of being alone and always wandering to settling down and making a house and trying to provide for his basic needs and the ones that are not as necessary as: nourishment, rest, shelter and self-preservation. This is the stage where you see the element playing a part in man’s life and in the way civil society came to be. Man is no longer just worried about himself he has to provide not only for himself but for his entire family which he is searching for. Natural man or savage man lives within himself whereas Rousseau argues that civil man lives in the judgement of others. This is one of the big reasons has to how inequality fomed. All the inequalities Rousseau does take about or basically economic things that happen in nature. This type of economic ineuality is among the many other inequalities but is one of many that inequality originated from. If man had stayed restricted to working by themselves they would have remained free, healthy, good and happy as

Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should

According to Locke, the state of war occurs because of destruction and enmity, which results from the perfect freedom and liberty found in the state of nature. This idea is similar to Hobbes’ reasons for the state of war, yet, Locke believes that it also occurs because of the “presence of a common authority that fails to act justly, the only possible state is a state of war, because the arbitrating power in place to stop war is itself in violation of the laws of nature and justice.” However, Locke’s law of nature that governs this state goes against Hobbes’ idea of self-preservation, because it does not allow for man to harm another’s life, liberty, health or possessions. This natural law is based on the idea that every man may be free in the state of nature, but everything belongs to one omnipotent power, “the Maker”. This natural law aids in the peace and preservation of all mankind, and is a responsibility that is given to every man and along with that the authority to punish transgressors of this law. This is another natural right of man, but it is one that could never be truly enforced in the state of nature. Since Locke established that all men are created equal by the same omnipotent power, he is also saying that no one man has the power to

Rousseau thought that man was born weak and ignorant, but virtuous. It is only when man became sociable that they became wicked. (Cress, 80) Since civil society makes men corrupt, Rousseau advocated “general will”, more precisely the combined wills of each person, to decide public affairs. General will would become the sovereign and thus it would be impossible for its interests to conflict with the priorities of the citizens, since this would be doing harm to itself. Virtue came from the freedom of men to make decisions for the good of the

These intellectuals attempted to generate an explanation for the purpose of government and expressed their ideal political structure to find a solution to the inequalities in the distribution of power. The changing intellectual and social perceptions of the human condition led to new insights and questions of the way in which humans were ruled: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau 2). This conveys The Philosophe belief that liberty is lost when political rule is too strict, to the point where one is unable to truly live. John Locke deduced in his two Treatises on Government that humans have natural born rights to life, liberty and property (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). His ideal government protected these natural rights and permitted the freedom of its people to conduct their lives in a way that they see as best fit. He believed that the government existed to serve the people’s will, thus the power laid in the majority (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). Thomas Hobbes had an opposing view to that of Locke’s government. Hobbes advocated for the monarchy and absolutism, as this form provides strong political stability (Elahi 2). He believed that the people were indebted to the government and protected by the ruler, only if they surrendered their rights and freedoms under a social contract (Elahi 3). Jean

Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.

Hence, the institutions and laws of civil society exist under the mandate to protect the “life, liberty, and estate” of each member. Therefore, liberty, for Locke, requires certain enabling conditions to allow it to be enjoyed, and these conditions are put in place by law.

If one compares Locke and Rousseau noticeable similarities and differences can be found. Both men advocate similar ideas with different outcomes regarding the state of nature. Furthermore, Locke and Rousseau both come to distinct actualization and prophecies. Regarding the progression and advancement of mankind. Therefore, by comparing and contrasting these two distinct teachings one can find the true principles behind the state of nature and the natural laws inherent in mankind.

Locke stresses individualism in a society, while Rousseau bases the majority of his political theory on the submission to the general will, which is a collective unit. Locke emphasizes that in a society, one should still preserve life, liberty, and property. He claims that instead of being one

Enlightenment philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had different theories about the social contract between government and the governed. John Locke believed in the government while Hobbes believed that the government should have full control. John Locke view on government proved successful than Thomas Hobbes.

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain

This then lead to some jobs being looked at as more honorable or important than others. From this people began to develop social classes and that eventually leads to oppression and inequality.

On the other hand, Rousseau is of the idea that human beings are good in nature but they are latter to be vitiated by the political societies which are not part of the man’s natural state. Men need to live in collaboration and help each other to face life challenges. However, with the establishment of political and social institutions, men begin to experience inequalities as a result of greed. Rousseau claims that, in man’s natural state, they only strive for the basic needs and once those needs are satisfied they are contented in that state (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Additionally, Rousseau points out that after the inception of social and political institutions, humans began to be self-centered

While both Hobbes and Locke wrote extensively about The Social Contract, their theories were in stark contrast in a number of instances, most notably on issues relating to human nature and resources. By reading their works on the subject, one can draw out the differences and significance of the dissimilarities on a number of topics.