More handpicked essays just for you.
Where does rousseau stand in regard to thomas hobbes’s view of human nature
State nature view of rousseau
Thomas Hobbes view on justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the excerpt, Hobbes expresses that, justice is impossible in the state of nature in reference to human nature. According to Hobbes, justice can exist as long as every individual has the right of self-preservation. In these texts, self-preservation is defined as the "individual having the liberty to do anything in order to preserve and protect his own life, regardless of the consequences to others". Because we are naturally wicked in Hobbes opinion, the absence of a social contract or any laws to control our right of nature, individuals can kill one another for the sake of protecting their own life and the cycle will continue when in constant conflict with everyone else.
Hobbes provided 3 arguments to prove that his theory was correct. First, he goes into detail that the right to self-preservation will make individuals compete among one another for possession of basic life necessities like water, shelter and other natural resources. Secondly, the right of self-preservation will lead to mistrust between individuals which supports the idea that because of the mistrust, everybody in the state of nature will be very defensive to
…show more content…
While Hobbes views self-preservation to mean 'every man for himself," Rousseau interprets self-preservation as neither violent, or aggressive. Rousseau's expresses that in the state of nature, individuals would not partake in any actions to backstab one another over pride, glory, or mistrust. In the excerpt, he explains that while humans are governed by their are governed by their natural instincts, it is to always be good and partake in peaceful interactions with one another other. Also, unlike Hobbes, who believes that society is what is best to “fix” the state of nature, Rousseau believes that people are inherently good and free in the state of nature, and it’s society that makes one
Although Hobbes has created a logical response to the Fool, I have some objections to his argument. According to Hobbes, every man has the right to self-preservation and are permitted to do whatever it takes to hold that right. This also means that the world’s worst criminal could reasonably refuse punishment. That person could escape imprisonment, lie under oath while in court, or commit theft and he or she could argue that it was all necessary for their self-preservation. Strictly speaking, this means anything one does could be deemed as necessary for his or her self-preservation and it could never be considered unjust or unreasonable. It would be difficult to determine what actions can be properly defined as unjust because everything by
His first assumption is that people are physically and mentally similar to one another, and this similarity means that “no individual has the capacity to overpower or influence another” (Hobbes). A flaw, however, that I realize in this assertion is that there do exist in society persons of deficient physical and mental ability. For example, people with severe physical or mental handicaps would not fare well in Hobbes’ state of nature because they would be easily dominated. Hobbes’ second assumption is that people generally want to protect their own lives, “shun[ning] death” (Hobbes). This proclivity for self-preservation does not translate to an innate malevolent nature of humans; however, it does imply that humans tend to be more indifferent towards each other than benevolent. I tend to agree with this second assumption because in my experience, individuals think of themselves in an elevated manner, and if someone does not agree with this view, the individual becomes offended. Individuals tend to judge others based on swift observations, dismissing others if they do not align with one’s personal preferences. The final assumption Hobbes asserts is that individuals have a penchant for religion. This penchant stems from the curious and anxious nature of individuals. Hobbes thinks that these aspects of human nature cause individuals to “seek out religious beliefs” (Hobbes) in order to quell the curiosity and anxiety that dominates their lives. In addition to these various normative assumptions regarding the state of nature, Hobbes outlines the right of nature, which is “a liberty right to preserve the individual in the state of nature” (Hobbes). In essence, this
Hobbes spoke of man universally when describing a human’s primitive state, being one in a “state of nature”. Without the presences of a common power, a sovereign, preventing man from entering their imminent condition of war, man would ultimately live a life that was “…nasty, brutish, and short.” (186) For in the state of nature it is “every man, against every man.” (185)
Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
The first assumption is that nature has created man to be equal in their capacity to use their body and mind. With equal capacities in body, every man is vulnerable to attack from every other man and no single man has a superior advantage. For Hobbes this bolsters his claim that there is no man in the State of Nature with the power to maintain authority. Hobbes’s second assumption is that man has three principal desires, which drive conflict. These desires are competition, diffidence, and glory. All three of these desires involve man being involved in situations where only one man can come out victorious. For Hobbes these desires perpetuate the cycle of fear and v...
In Leviathan, Hobbes makes a very convincing case for the conditions in the sate of nature, so much so that in the literature a multitude of academics on the topic of Hobbes start by seeking to discredit his theory of the state of nature and the conditions within it, but ultimately conclude that the conditions of the state of nature are actually quite convincing. They are usually persuaded by the application of game theory to modern society. The conditions, which are being referred to primarily relate to the state of ‘war of all against all’, which underpins perhaps Hobbes’ most famous quote in which he says mans life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Whilst the idea of war of all against all is the primary This demonstrates the idea that Hobbes espouses in the state of nature, that humans are inherently cautious of one another, and to risk being altruistic is to risk ones self preservation as there is no guarantee the debt will be repaid. Axelrod’s use of game theory explains the conditions of the state of nature in line with Hobbes’ laws of nature.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
According to Hobbes men are actually engaged in continual fighting in the absence of civil authority to keep the peace. It signifies nothing more than the constant fear or danger of war and violent death. There is “continual fear, and the danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In the state of nature people stand exposed to the danger of attack by others, and have no security except what their own strength and cunningness might provide. Under such a condition Hobbes thinks that there can be no industry; for no one can be certain of reaping the fruits of his labour; no culture of the earth, no commodious buildings, no instruments to remove one thing from one place to another ; no arts and no letters, and no society. What is worst of all, there is intolerable fear, and the danger of violent death; and the life of man most uncertain.
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
Hobbes also gives account that in the state of nature there is no way to gain advantage alone, because others will come to “dispossess, and deprive him”(Hobbes 6). In this state humans are doomed to lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". For Hobbes, man is naturally selfish and disinterested in others well-being. Mutual contract paves the way out of the state of nature for Hobbes, who makes a strong argument for contracts. The contract is enforced by its mutual responsibility, and eventually, successive levels of contract lead to the sovereign. Until the establishment of the sovereign, prisoners’ dilemmas plague
He claims that acts of kindness, charity and benevolence are always actions that the performer believes will result in a beneficial consequence for himself. Hobbes’ basis for this argument lies in the concept of reason. He writes that human beings are logical creatures and unlike other animals, use reason to make all of their decisions (Leviathan 2, 17). A law dictated by reason that will benefit a man is called a law of nature. Hobbes lists three fundamental laws of nature that promote the primary motivation of men, which is self-preservation.
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live
This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of
Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more power. After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others. He also believed that all people are created equally. That everyone is equally capable of killing each other because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that the nature of humanity leads people to seek power. He said that when two or more people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other. He called this time when men oppose each other war. He said that there were three basic causes for war, competition, distrust and glory. In each of these cases, men use violence to invade their enemies territory either for their personal gain, their safety or for glory. He said that without a common power to unite the people, they would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is known. He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement. If a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those who would seek to destroy them. One thing he noted that was consistent in all men was their interest in self-preservation.