Hobbes And Rousseau 's Theory Of Ownership

In both Marx’s depiction of society and Rousseau’s, humans have developed through a succession of stages to act in self-interest, oppressing other humans for the sake of material gain. They agree that property is a human construction created by the strong to solidify social status and sustained through illegitimate legal and economic systems. For both philosophers, illegitimate property leads to labor becoming deeply dehumanizing. The craving to own illegitimate property comes from human greed, appetites, and socialization. On the surface, Marx and Engel’s theory is compatible with Rousseau’s.

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

Hobbes believed that people each have their own ideas of right and wrong, and that there is no way to tell if a person’s version of right and wrong is universally right or wrong. Practically, that each person will create their own rationalization and will even kill another person for physical safety or securing

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.

Hobbes claims that man has desires for order and security inborn. In order to prevent poverty and suffering, people took a part in a contract. In other words, it is an agreement among people through which ordered society maintained. They willingly leave all their rights and independence to the authority because of the social contract which states obedience. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that “The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract” (93). On the other hand, for Rousseau, after people began to live together, property is invented and the invention of property means that humanity fall from grace out of the state of nature and people surrendered their freedoms and rights to the society as a whole that Rousseau termed as general will. However, this problem is solved by the social contract. According to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, he endeavours to mention that “Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before”(11). Consequently, Hobbes’ social contract depends on the submission, on the other hand Rousseau’s social contract based on the

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

The question of what it means to be free, or what it means to live in a free society, is a debate central to most political theorists. The notion of what freedom or liberty means varies from theorist to theorist, and depends on the historical context in which it is conceived in. For the purposes of this paper, the focus will be on the opposing accounts of freedom set out by Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, respectively. The difference between Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s accounts of freedom and liberty depends on how each theorist views society in achieving freedom, either as a positive or negative factor. The consequences of such, such as what type of political system would be best suited for a society then follow from how they see society in achieving and preserving freedom. Hobbes’ conception of genuine freedom is through the notion that a societal contract is best able to provide this, even though it may contradict and replace “natural” freedoms. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that genuine freedom was at its pinnacle in a primitive, pre-modern time, and that society, by the time he was writing in, corrupted the ability for individuals to live lives that were truly free. Both Rousseau and Hobbes ultimately believe that their respective freedoms can be achieved and sustained in political orders with the people as the sovereign, who would always act in their best interests. Freedom (used interchangeably with

Human nature and its relevance in determining behaviors, predictions, and conclusions has caused dispute among philosophers throughout the ages. Political philosophy with its emphasis on government legitimacy, justice, laws, and rights guided the works of the 17th and 18th century philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through Thomas Hobbes world-renowned publication Leviathan and Rousseau’s discourses on basic political principals and concepts, each man validated their thoughts on human nature and what is required for a successful society within their respective government confines. The distinct differences between Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on the natural state of man frame the argument of the different

By reading Hobbes, it was undoubtedly seen that his biggest trepidation was ending up living in a state of nature. For this reason he beliefs that the best way of avoiding state of nature is by not rebelling and obeying to the law. He described it the state of nature as “no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” . He goes on saying that anyone’s property is the common wealth’s property. It belongs to the sovereign state. He says “That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as excludeth the Right of the Soveraign. Every man has indeed a Propriety that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it onely from the Soveraign Power; without the protection whereof, every other man should have equall Right to the same. But if the Right of the Soveraign also be excluded, he cannot performe the office they have put him into; which is, to defend them both from forraign enemies, and from the injuries of one another; and consequently there is no longer a Common-wealth.” He claims that the State owns everything in the country and citizens are only legitimate to own as long the State finds it

Limits must be put on freedom and inalienable rights. Hobbes lived in the 17th century, and wrote during the time of the English Civil War. His political views were most likely influenced by the war. Hobbes perceived that by bringing back the monarch, or any other sovereign, there would be an end to the civil war and is “necessary to peace and depending on sovereign power” (415). The original state of nature, according to Rousseau, is the perfect state for man, where he is born free but is everywhere in chains (The Social Contract, 49). In the original state, man lives alone in innocence where he is virtuous. Rousseau does not agree that man is an aggressive and greedy being in the original state of nature; in contrast, the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” as Hobbes suggests (Leviathan, 408). Rousseau argues that men are truly happy in the state of nature. Only when men become sociable, they become wicked. In Rousseau’s Social Contract, man is depicted as an ignorant, unimaginative animal.

Over the course of history this idea of freedom has been developed and defined by many famous political and philosophical thinkers. Many of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas are acknowledged in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and more notably the “The Social Contract”. John Stuart Mill’s major points originate from a book called “On Liberty”. All of these works are still read today and taught in schools around the world. In particular, their ideas on freedom and liberty have drawn a considerable amount of attention. For instance, Rousseau is well known for his idea of “forcing citizens to be free”, while Mill claims that freedom can be found in “pursing our own good in our own way”. Therefore, it is evident that fundamental differences occur between Rousseau’s and Mill’s ideas on liberty and freedom. Rousseau’s rejects this classical liberal idea of freedom of the individual, and instead argues that the highest quality of freedom is achieved through a social contract where collective decisions represent the law and people have a duty to the state, while Mill sees freedom as not being constrained by the government (freedom from laws) and pursuing one’s own good as long as it does no harm to others.

1. The quote was made by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) in his creation “On Social Contract (1762)” (Rousseau, Social Contract, 4). Rousseau’s discourse on private property can be understood as a response to John Locke’s theories regarding property – and especially to Locke’s labor theory and the government’s role in it (assumption based on the similarity of their discourse). According to Locke’s labor theory, a man’s labor defines his right to own something (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 16) and that one of the government’s top priorities is to guarantee inheritance of private property for those who have and own something (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 37). The theory also contains the aspect that one can own something if he improves it (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 15).

Hobbes's first argument in favour of the doctrine of absolute sovereignty is essentially the argument against right reason described as the vision and the heart of Hobbes's moral and political philosophy [9]. His doctrine of absolute sovereignty is derived primarily from the negation of this doctrine, and almost everything that we can discover in his notion of sovereignty can be found in his negation of this argument. An argument that leads to his conclusion that it is essential for the sovereign to be absolute, and to possess effective enforcement or coercive powers.

From the complex ideas introduced in the selected passage, Hobbes proceeds to construct a very significant yet disputable argument in which he encourages the need to submit ourselves to political authority. He justifies that although men are rational they are naturally self-interested and thus require the authority of a sovereign to govern them. The

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.