John Locke, Thomas Hobbes And Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jean- Jacques Rousseau was born on June 28, 1712, in Switzerland. The European philosopher wrote a book called A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences. His belief is that society is corrupted by evil and that man is good in his “state of nature” (Notes). He believed that man are naturally good and if we let them act on their own instinct, that they will act their true nature. He claims that politics are evil and corrupt the society with their systems.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher in 1712-1778. He believed that all humans are born innocent and what corrupt them and makes evil is society. He believes that if there was no society it would not make human beings feel so judged, shy or depended on others. Without society people would feel more equal they would not want to compare themselves Humans would feel freer. Rousseau thought that society weakens humans that if someone were to grow up in a natural place and place far from society they would be stronger. Compared o the people that grow up in a society they weaken.

Locke’s idea of the state of nature men had kept their promises and honoured their obligations. In locke’s first treatise he argued that there was no divine right for monarchs, because God didn't put men above others and therefore everyone was equal. In his second treatise he strikes Hobbes and speaks his thought on the state of nature “man is free and in this condition all men equal”. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the of the law of nature. This idea influenced him to believe that human nature is represented by reason and tolerance the reasoning was "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is the reason. Much different than Hobbes, who had believed people were selfish and needed to be

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

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

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher who believed that man was born with a pure heart and good intentions; however, society inevitably corrupted man. He believed that any desire to be a good person must be internally initiated from the one seeking it. Once man has immersed himself into society, he allows himself to be persuaded that being good is not the only way of life.

The Law of Nature, which is Locke’s basis for all morality, is bestowed upon humanity by God. This is what keeps the State of Nature from automatically becoming an intolerable warzone. His belief in God greatly influenced his views of human nature, and what constitutes personhood, but his version of the Social Contract Theory had no less influence on our modern secular democracy. The Law of Nature demands that man not harm another man in respect to his, “life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Locke’s view of human nature grants all men equality under the Law of Nature and the capacity to recognize what it is in him that demands this protection from harm, in others. Nevertheless, the Law of Nature does allow man the defense of his own life. Rousseau has a similar idea regarding the conditions in the state of nature. However, his basis for this idea is not contingent upon a God-given Law of Nature, but upon the capacity for human empathy. According to Rousseau, the state of nature was simple and peaceful. Man was a relatively small

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

Enlightenment views flourished in the colonies, even though there was a significant amount of diversity and disagreement. The American Enlightenment was a branch off of the European Enlightenment, which was centered on human priority for human educational achievement. Leaders in the colonies elected a moderate commonsense type of Enlightenment that emphasized self-improvement and ethical conduct. This Enlightenment was a perfect compatibility with religion and was primarily distributed through the growing colleges and universities of the colonies, which remained church based institutions. John Locke and Jean-Jacquese Rousseau were two of the most notable thinkers of the enlightenment.

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.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both hypothesized about the state of nature and how humans behave in it. Their ideas of the state of nature are antithetical in that Hobbes looked at humans as selfish beings that have no respect for each other or their possessions, while Locke thought humans would work cooperatively and respect the belongings of one another. These hypotheses beg the question “what would a state of nature look like in today’s society, and would it more closely resemble what Hobbes imagined or what Locke imagined?” If you look at events where there was a loss of government and social infrastructure, both Hobbesian and Lockean ideas can be seen. Predominately, the predictions of Hobbes seem to prevail in the

The State of Nature is a hypothetical conception of how humans may of acted before society and government. Three philosophers who are recognized on their philosophy of The State of Nature are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes believed The State of Nature is a state of war, Locke believed that men exist in the state of nature in perfect freedom to do what they want, and Rousseau believes that men in a state of nature are free and equal(1.)All of their views varied due to the perception they had on humans, as well as the different life experiences they each had. Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher. Hobbes believed that “all humans are egotistical and selfish”(1.)

He believed that, prior to the Social Contract like was happy and all men were equal in the State of Nature. However, as time passed, humanity started increasing in population. People began living together in small families, then in small communities. Labour was introduced and so was leisure time. This leisure time led to invention of private property which for Rousseau constitutes humanity’s “fall from grace” out of the State of Nature; “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains….how did this change come about?” (Rousseau, 1750) These few lines are the start of Rousseau’s social and political works “The Social Contract”. He starts off describing humanity as being born good but they are ultimately corrupted by society. (Root of Educational Theory, 2003) Potentially arguing that civilization had a corrupting influence on humans. At this time the idea of a contract between citizens and the state should govern according to the “general well”. General will is when a man surrender their rights not to a single individual but to community as a whole. This would be a mutually beneficial relationship in which the state could be removed if people willed it. (Blair, 2004) Thus, Rousseau favoured people’s sovereignty to abandon society’s hypocrisy and