Hobbes Social Contract Essay

This quote from Thomas Hobbes ‘Leviathan,' summarizes his opinion of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery. He basically suggests a natural impulse for war embedded in the souls of men who do not have a ruler, or a king. They are without bounds, and without limits. It is a state of anarchy that he envisages.

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

In this essay, I will compare the contrasting views between Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau based on the state of nature and civilization. Rousseau was seen as an optimist who viewed human nature as good (“Noble Savage”) and believed that civilization corrupted us; While, Hobbes thought the complete opposite believing that humans in their natural state were selfish creatures purely interested in themselves and that government is imperative in keeping us in check. Throughout this essay, I will further explain their differing ideas and I will show how I view and interpret them as well.

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

According to Thomas Jefferson, an influential leader, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people.” Jefferson’s quote suggests that the social contract and state are only run sufficiently under the authority of the people. There is a common assumption that a definite agreement among the population of a society, is dictated by the individuals themselves. In the past, various theorists as well as powerful leaders have made conscience endeavors to demystify whether the social contract is imposed by the sovereign or society. This essay makes an argument that the social compact is dictated by individuals because individuals have the power to alter the governments they exist within. The state is what the people define it as. It is bound by territory, and people, states comprise of governments. The Social Contract is developed by Jean Jacques Rousseau about what is believed to be the greatest method to establish a political community.

Charles Mills’ ideas in the “Racial Contract” stem from a conversation of the political and pre-political discussed in Thomas Hobbes Leviathan that thoroughly confronts issues such as basic human rights and the social contract theory. Hobbes believed that all people are in a pre-political state of nature without society and rules, but after a social contract is introduced, people can live peacefully together with order, the political. Hobbes’ social contract encompasses the idea that one person is just as strong as another, unless he gives up some of his freedoms to become part of a society of others that will protect and benefit him.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

Rousseau establishes the Social Contract (Compact) that will provide the solution for a protective community of free individuals, who submit their freedoms or duties to the betterment of the whole collective body. While the individual is still free to conduct his life in freedom, the same citizen has a requirement to conduct business and make decisions that will be what’s best for the body. If everyone in the body commits to the arrangements of the contract, then the general members will have no problems with compelling to the political structure (Rousseau pg. 11).

Aristotle and Hobbes present two fundamentally distinct doctrines about the conception of politics, human affairs, and the nature of man. Specifically, both philosophers express vying interpretations of human nature. Even though Aristotle and Hobbes similarly use their understanding of human nature to conceptualize their politics, they both express differing views about the aims for which they believe human beings act and exist. In a rather preliminary interpretation of their views, it can be said that, for Aristotle, man is inherently social, and thereby is naturally inclined towards the community. Whereas, for Hobbes, man is innately individualistic, and is naturally inclined towards self-interest. The distinction between the Aristotelian and the Hobbesian philosophies about human nature rests in their respective explanations of what means and ends drive human action and existence. In the first half of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ conception of human nature differ from one another. In a discussion of equality, I will compare Aristotle’s view of the flexibility of man’s nature, to Hobbes’ view of the intransigence of man in the state of nature, while also comparing Aristotle’s view of collectivity, to Hobbes’ view of individualism. The second half of my paper will argue that Aristotle’s teleological view of human nature presents a more superior and accurate account of human

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Hobbes suggests three causes of the nature of man. First, competition; Second, Diffidence; third, glory. Human exercise violence first to gain their desire, and secondly to defend their gains, and lastly for one’s own reputation. On the ground that we are all in a state of war, Hobbes states, “In such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain…no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, NO SOCIETY, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death…” (Leviathan, XIII). Therefore, the idea of justice or injustice cannot have a place in our society where there is no power.

Essentially, Hobbes postulates that the fear of the state of nature, in which men live in constant war, has a stronger influence upon men than does the fear of the Leviathan. The Leviathan keeps all men in awe, and they subject themselves to even the most tyrannical dictator in exchange for removal from the state of nature. Therefore, fear in the Leviathan compels men to obey their sovereign in order to remain within the realm of

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

While it may be true that, Jean-Jacques Rousseau central idea in The Social Contract needs little explanation considering how it has been well-expounded upon by many scholars over the past 200 years. Nonetheless, this paper will begin with discussing Rousseau’s key concepts, leading to Constants criticisms, to put into clearer comparison in relation to Rousseau.

These documents, at the same time, take back the sociopolitical thought that had been developped in a long tradition, and whose most striking stages are: the supreme value of reason as basis for any sociopolitical relation such as we discover at the Greek Polis and such as it is presented by the great thinkers Plato and Aristotle; the intrinsic value of human person, son of the same Christian God, and capable, because of his freedom, either of salvation or of condemnation, as it was understood by the main thinkers in the Middle Ages; the human Individual, considered as a juridical subject, capable of making contracts and assuming rights and duties and, therefore, as the last foundation of any sociopolitical organization, as he was thought by the liberal tradition embodied by Hobbes, Locke and the Encyclopedists. The concrete praxis of these theoretical principles in democratic societies and nations where the Individuals are the cause and the end of this sociopolitical order such as we find in Great Britain, Switzerland, Holland, USA, France, Sweeden, Norwegen, Canada and many other nations throughout the five continents.