Comparing Hobbes, Rousseau, And The French Revolution

The word Social Contract theory was first used by Thomas Hobbes to define royal authority. However John Locke who wrote the two treaties on government” in the 1680’s reinforce the meaning of a new social contract theory. In his version of social contract, he stated “men surrendered a part of their right to govern them selves in order to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law”(Foner, 149). In his argument, natural right such as life, liberty and proper play a huge role. According to Locke, Government or political system is form by equal individuals (mainly men of a household). Although men surrendered part of their right to govern to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, they do retain the natural right of protecting of liberty, life and property against any local or foreign enemies. According to Locke and the

The revolution generated radical changes in the principles, opinions, and sentiments of the global people. New ideas and issues affected political ideas. In addition a new government was also changed. A few of the many enlightenment thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Everyone has their own very unique views on everything in the world. What’s right and what’s wrong is a good example of how humanity views different subjects let’s say a man kills another man to protect his family from harm he may see it as okay to do but in the bible it says “thou shall should not kill” so it’s all how you look at it. In this paper I will be discussing the different view point of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the most basic tenets of classical liberalism. For example the states of nature, the social contracts, and the sets of view of the rights and obligations of citizens and states. My first topic that I will be discussing is the different views of social contracts. It will go in order from Hobbes to Locke then to Rousseau.

When it comes to human nature, many people like to make their own philosophies. They talk about what people think, or why they would say things. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two philosophers that had opposing ideals - ideals about revolutions, and how people would behave in trying to make their own governments. I will be talking about Thomas Hobbes. His belief was that people could not always get along in harmony, that they would always try and one-up each other, and people would always end up on top somehow. I believe these ideals apply more strongly to revolutions, as well as human nature in general, than Locke’s.

France stood as the center for the Enlightenment because it was in a constant dichotomy between “the desire to censor dissident ideas and the desire to appear open to modernity and progress” (Hunt, 4098). Parliament hindered the monarchy’s reform efforts by using their own words of Enlightenment influence against them. This was a paradox that showed how the Enlightenment affected all levels of French life, but was applied to achieve different results. While the American Revolution and the resulting new republic was regarded as a successful application of the Enlightenment, the unstable, failed attempts at change and reformation in France led to early signs of revolution as revolts “in the name of liberty” from 1787-1789.

Thus, small groups invite invaders and foster dissent. Hobbes to accepted that man bestowing his power in one leader, “is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.” (CWT III, 38). The preceding quote was Hobbes’s opinion of a social contract. This, Hobbes believed, was essential to man escaping the state of nature, and to the formation of a responsible government.

like. Hobbes believes we are inherently evil while Locke says we are born good. According to

What is common in Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau is state of nature. In the state of nature all people are equal – although they have different talents they are equal, because having different talents doesn’t prevent equality - and have same rights but in time they try to command each other and make domination upon them. Hobbes associate this desire with the effort to dispel the insecurity which is caused by equality between people. According to his opinion, if two people desire the same thing that they can not possess at the same time, they turn on each other. – we can affirm that this hostility is generated by equality-. Mainly for the purpose of protecting their entity, sometimes only by enjoying they try to destroy or dominate each other.

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion

The outliers of the political spectrum retain on one side, a political society without civil obedience to directives contained in human laws that devolves into lawlessness. On the opposite side, a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau each philosophically slide across this spectrum in attempting to determine liberty’s margin of error. Where the “State of Nature” enacts liberty as a right to self-preservation, attempting to formulate the functional line between “the Right of Nature” and “the Right of the Sovereign” . For Thomas Hobbes, his worldview consisted of a violent place, with men as sordid and erratic masses,

From the mid seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, there was an ‘Enlightenment' movement that swept across Europe. The theorists behind this act rejected the ‘original sin' concept, maintained the argument that humans could grow and progress, and stated that humans could reorganize society on the grounds of equality, justice, and freedom. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were all members of The Enlightenment movement, and each had their own idea on how human society should be structured and run. Locke and Hobbes lived around the same time, and some of their political theories were the same, however, by the time Rousseau came along, much had changed.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from those perpetuated by other natural law theorists. On the other hand, Locke’s perspective of human nature wasn’t quite as fine as Hobbe’s, although it was much simpler to understand based on its logical foundation. This essay compares and contrast

The original Social Contract tradition has had many authors, but for the purposes of this paper I will focus on John Locke’s work as one political system that might be used by a nation and the problems it entails that would have to be discussed for modern uses. Locke begins by describing a state of nature that entails equality and a state of perfect freedom for mankind to live as they want within the laws of nature (Locke 2009, 370). Locke’s work argues for his view of property, where a man has the right to the fruits of his labor but not to another man’s (Locke 2009, 372). In his view, the government is meant to prevent on man from seeking punishment that is unfit for the committed crime and that people join together for protection for themselves and their property (Locke 2009, 371-372). He argues also that no one man should be in charge and that a democracy should be used instead (Locke 2009, 371).

Through time people have always wondered what it is that makes us who we are. It has been our human nature that has kept us intrigued with ourselves, and our relationships with others. With this curiosity came various interpretations as to our human nature, each changing the way we see the societal world we live in. With each interpretation came a new understanding of people and the relationship they hold with each other. Human nature has been one of the most studied elements of the world we live in. From our nature came the interest of how we as humans interact with each other, through the development of our nature some have served and others had ruled. Three philosophers that have focused their political ideas around human nature

Words have evolved, within the political sphere. For instance, the notion of democracy as it is known today is diametrically opposed to Plato's definition of democracy. One can also note the same variation, as far as equality and inequality are concerned. For the sake of this essay, the definitions provided by Hobbes and Rousseau, on the notions of equality and inequality, as well as their views on the state of nature and the idea of a social contract will be analyzed.