Difference Between Hobbes And Rousseau

Rousseau maintained that compassion is required for mutual preservation; concern for each other is our ultimate security. But a materialistic society has desensitised us, stifling our compassionate nature.7

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

Most importantly for Rousseau, however, is not necessarily how history lets him see how men might have been or how history lets him strike a balance between grasping the intricacy of human history and succeeding fluidly from one thought to another; it is how framing his work in such a way lets him give the greatest demonstrative proof of the point he makes. The first part of the work consists in a history of mankind until the institution of the social contract, and it reads easily and freely, just as man in Rousseau’s conception was in those days. The second part of the Second Discourse, which deals with the critique of the social contract itself, however, reads much more heavily, as if Rousseau were attempting to give the reader a taste of the gravity the social contract itself imposes upon man. The opening lines of the second half already launch his scathing attack on civil society by associating this notion with a man who takes advantage of his fellow men:

Drug abuse is obviously a huge issue in our country, but how would Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions differ on it? Hobbes talks about individual self interests and punishment. Rousseau talks about education and socialization. The both believe however that the sovereign should decide these laws

“This fame study of original man, of his real wants, and of the fundamental principle of his duties, is likewise the only good method we can take, to surmount an infinite number of difficulties concerning the Origins of Inequality, the true foundations of political bodies, the reciprocal rights of their members, and a thousand other familiar questions that are as important as they are ill understood.” (Rousseau, Preface lviii)

Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative

With reference to emerging from the state of nature and entering into society, Rousseau highlights that free-will brings with it reason. As reason develops, man becomes more industrious and begins to adapt to

Born: 1712, Geneva, Switzerland Died: 1778, Ermenonville, France Major Works: Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (1750), Discourse on Inequality (1755), Emile (1762), The Social Contract (1762), Letters Written from the Mount (1764), Confessions (1770) Major Ideas Man is by nature good; society is the cause of corruption and vice. In a state of nature, the individual is characterized by healthy self-love; self-love is accompanied by a natural compassion.

In contrast, Rousseau had a generally positive view on human nature though a rather negative view on modern society. He proposed that humans had once been solitary beings and had learned to be political. He believed that human nature was not fixed and was subject to changed. Likewise, he believed that man was good when in a state of nature, but was corrupted by society as shown in his quotation, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Also differentiating himself from other humanists, Rousseau taught that the sciences and the arts were not beneficial to man. Rousseau believed the general will must always be right and to obey the general will is to be free.

The social contract theory, approximately as ancient as the philosophy, is an agreement among people through which maintained society in which they live ordered. Actually social contract theory is precisely associated with modern politics. In addition, it is given its first complete exhibition and defense with Thomas Hobbes. After Thomas Hobbes, J.J Rousseau is one of the most known proponents of this significant effective social contract theory. Throughout the history this theory has been one of the most dominant theories or ideas within political theory. According to the Leviathan which is written by Hobbes and to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right which is written by Rousseau , social contract theory differentiated in

Rousseau believes that modern society must be judged by the virtue of its citizens. As he is trying to reverse the progressivism of the Enlightenment, Rousseau suggests that our social frenzy diverts and corrupts us. According to him, modern people cannot be trusted or loved, and are not capable of knowing, as they seek to be virtuous without actually becoming virtuous. On the other hand, Rousseau’s natural man can be defined as the primal identity of subject and object. Natural man is solitary, is distinguished from animals by his free will, has no concepts of morality, and gradually transitions from the state of nature to state of society. In order to emerge from the state of nature, one could benefit from two forms of self-love: amour de soi or amour-propre. Amour de soi is a natural form of self-love in that it does not depend on the love of others. Rousseau claims that by nature, people have a natural feeling of love toward ourselves and one another. We naturally look after our own preservation and interests. By contrast, amour-propre is an unnatural self-love that is essentially relational. Without amour-propre, human beings would not be able to move beyond the pure state of nature

     Man has no reason or conscience when in contact with others. Possessions begin to be claimed, but the inequality of skill lead to inequality of fortunes. The idea of claiming possessions excites men’s passions, which provoke conflict and leads to war. Rousseau believes men are not perfect in their original state, but have the ability to live in a more perfect society with guidance of

Rousseau starts his discourse with the quote, “What is natural has to be investigated not in beings that are depraved, but in those that are good according to nature” (Aristotle. Politics. II). It is this idea that Rousseau uses to define his second discourse. Rousseau begins his story of human nature by “setting aside all the facts” (132). Rousseau believes the facts of the natural state of humanity are not necessary to determine the natural essence of human nature, and adding facts based on man’s condition in society does not show man’s natural condition. The facts don’t matter for Rousseau because to understand the essence of human nature requires looking to how man is in a completely natural state. Since man is no longer in this state,

While Hobbes and Rousseau address many of the same issues and topics in both The Leviathan as well as The Discourses, the way that Hobbes and Rousseau look at these issues such as, human nature, the state, and inequality are extremely different from each other. In some cases Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on these certain ideas are completely contradicting and opposite of each other. While it is tough to say which viewpoint, Hobbes’ or Rousseau’s is correct, one or the other can be considered sounder by their logic and reasoning. The view that Hobbes takes on the matters of human nature, the state, and inequality is sounder and more logical than that of Rousseau.

By definition, equality is the property that a set of things are the same in measure, value, and status. On the other hand, inequality represents the exact opposite of equality. This assessment is drawn from the works of Hobbes and Rousseau, whom despite addressing many of the same issues differed greatly on issues such as the state, human nature, and inequality, posing difficulty in telling who among the two represented a better view of those issues. A breakdown of the various works of both Hobbes and Rousseau will assist in examining the similarities and differences in their views on the three issues.