Hobbes Vs Rousseau

As I’ve stated before, Jean Jacque-Rousseau and Hobbes have contrasting views when it comes to the state of nature. Rousseau held an optimistic view of the state of nature. He viewed humans who lived in early times as “Noble Savages” and that man was “naturally good.” Rousseau viewed individuals who lived in a state of nature were happier, healthier, self-sufficient and had the freedom to do as they desired. To live in a state of nature was to live a simple life focused on family, self-love, and self-preservation. Rousseau believed we were better off in a state of nature, where as civilization corrupts us.

First, for Hobbes, the nature of nature is perpetually in a state of war. According to Hobbes, the chief reason why men given up their authority to the sovereign is to seek peace, and avoid the “fear of death. By contrast, while Locke does speak of states of war as well, for him they are a subset of the state of nature, and not the entire equation. Locke specifically states that “men living together according to reason…is properly the state of nature. But force, upon the person of another…is the state of war. Thus, by this reasoning, Locke’s state of nature is a much kinder place than Hobbes’, where man’s life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In addition, another difference between the theories of the two men is that Hobbes speaks hypothetically of states of nature, whereas Locke points out times when state of nature actually exists. Locke believes that all rulers are in a state of nature, and governors as well. The key difference between Locke and Hobbes in this area is the specifying of the existence of a state of nature, the greater negativity of Hobbes, and Locke’s use of examples in contrast to Hobbes’

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are some of the most influential political philosophers in history. They all wrote about how they believed a social contract was required to be in place for a government to work and drew their conclusions off of their own theories of human nature. Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau leaned towards more negative views on human nature. Hobbes theorized that if we were in a state of nature, where there was no government, we would be in a state of war. People would constantly be causing destruction and harm to others around them out of a combination of self-protection and greed. In the mind of Thomas Hobbes, human nature was very ugly, and

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

What is the ideal city? Piero believes that he’s captured it in his piece, Ideal City. But how is his piece perceived through the eyes of a couple of philosophers? Those two philosophers are Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

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

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

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

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.

Since the beginning of the modern age, governments and states have existed in order to maintain moral law. Essentially these institutions are for the greater good of humanity. However, little thought is ever given to how humans lived without governments. Each and every person in the modern age is born into a state, and becomes a part of that state regardless of their will. The concept that humans are born into a state is derived from the social contract. The social contract is a voluntary agreement that allows for the mutual benefit between individuals and governments with regards to the protection and regulation of affairs between members in society. Essentially the idea is that citizens will give up some of their freedoms to the government in return for protection of their remaining rights. Throughout history, there have been a number of philosophers that have discussed the social contract and each philosopher has had there own social contract theories. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was the foundation for social contract theory in Western political philosophy. While The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was written a century later and inspired political reforms in Europe. Both Hobbes and Rousseau in their theories appeal to the social contract as being needed as a means to control man in society. However, their theories differ significantly on the basis of the state of nature, the phase after man has left his natural state and

According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of

For many philosophers the notion of the State of Nature, a concept used to describe the hypothetical conditions of human life before the development of societies, is important in determining political societies, or the governmental structures that composed these. However, many philosophers have different notions of the State of Nature. In this essay I am going to use the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau to explain how their notions of the State of Nature shape the way they envision political society. These philosophers have different notions of the State of Nature but they all agree that the State of Nature is

The development of the selected passage into discussion about the need for a ‘social contract’ expresses how ultimately Hobbes saw society as being the only solution to the state of nature. This is in direct contrast to Rousseau who in claiming that ‘Hobbes was taking socialized persons and simply imagining them living outside of the society in which they were raised’ saw society as the problem and being in a state of nature as the solution. Rousseau however didn’t completely disagree with Hobbe’s concept of man as described in this passage as being selfish and egotistical, rather he illustrates his image through the argument that society is the driving force transforming the ‘natural man’ into Hobbe’s materialist interpretation. Contrasting Rousseau’s more positive stance to Hobbe’s somewhat pessimistic state of nature “brings into focus the goodness of peace” (James Madison), which further compliments the location of the passage and the central features of the desirability of peace that proceed it.

The two views on the state of nature given by Rousseau and Hobbes have similarities and differences. Of the differences, the first is how each philosopher views the state of nature in itself. Rousseau’s view on the state of nature is the state of equality. The savage is his own noble. On the other hand, in Hobbes state of nature it is nothing more than a state of war. This state of nature is where fear rules, all the people in this state only concern themselves with staying alive, morality does not exist. Another difference between their views is the motivation structure. In Rousseau’s state the people are completely sovereign, each person rules over

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.