On the other hand, Rousseau provides a more enlightened approach. He claims that in the state of nature, men are inherently innocent and are born with the potential of goodness. It is not that humans are intrinsically cruel and malicious to one another; it is that the social systems that are in place propagate animosity. With the establishment of political societies, inequalities arise, dividing extremes of poverty and wealth. The conflict between Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s perspective is that Hobbes believed that this clashing between individuals was simply a key feature of human nature, while Rousseau believed this was brought on throughout the course of social development. For that reason, each man’s belief of the natural state of men sets the …show more content…
Both theorists also have different stances on what unites individuals. They agree that the sovereign must be unified but Hobbes combines sovereignty over its subjects and Rousseau emphasizes the solidarity between the citizens. Hobbes believes men are inherently immoral and stupid, and must be governed by a superior power. In Hobbes 's perspective, sovereignty is not an opportunity for human liberation but a necessary subordination. Hobbes asserts that it is one sovereign ruler that unites all people. Rousseau disagrees. Rousseau states that men are simply disconnected individuals who have been dominated and under the control of the same ruler. According to Rousseau, this set of individuals would not constitute a body politic, which can be measured by the extent of its territory and number of people. It is instead an aggregation. Therefore, the following questions must be asked. Is there a people? What constitutes a people? Ultimate authority is not allocated on a sovereign that stands above society, but with the citizens themselves. It is a shared identity that truly unites the community of citizens together, or so Rousseau …show more content…
However, in order to comprehend the disparity between political thought, the very primary ideas needed to be described. While the central aim of Rousseau’s writing was to explain how the freedom of the individual can be integrated with the authority of the state. Hobbes illustrated the need for political societies which he calls the Leviathan, with the purpose of the dire and natural state of man to be saved. Although, both agree with the inherent equality of men, Hobbes believes men are intrinsically malicious and must be governed by a superior power. In contrast, Rousseau believes men are born with the potential of goodness but the social systems in place propagate animosity. Despite the fact that Hobbes and Rousseau are both concerned with self-preservation, Hobbes supports the idea of an authoritarian regime ruling men in order to prevent a state of war, and Rousseau specifies that freedom consists in men giving themselves their own laws. Years later, many of the issues of inequality and questions of the nature of men are still relevant in our societies. Hobbes and Rousseau have deeply impacted the world of philosophy with their arguments and theories. Despite their differences, both dominant intellectual figures wrote these texts with the central aim to highlight the necessary conditions for the subsistence of a society and ideal governing body and
Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature. Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts different is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men in their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
Hobbes and Locke argued that people mainly formed a state for different reasons according to their ideology. Hobbes mentioned that humans only formed a state for their mere self interest to protect themselves from the wrath of others. In contrast Locke had a more positive perspective that individuals believed it was moral to form a state to protect their natural rights and would not be deprived from their rights. In Leviathan, Hobbes asserts, "Conferre all of their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all of their Wills, by plurality of voices," (Locke, 95). Comparing the statement of Hobbes with Locke is the following, “It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people," (Locke, 70). Both theories on the sovereign power relates to the human nature. For example Hobbes’s believes that humans need a strong authority to protect citizens from each other and outside forces, which is why the sovereign has absolute power. Critiquing Locke 's perspective he mentions that the people in state of nature live in peace and tranquility amongst each other setting moral limits without having a sovereign (central
We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to account for acts of altruism. 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.”
The former, a product of the human empathy and responsible for the preference of seeing no harm come to other living creatures so long at the latter is maintained. Together these maxims form the basis of the savage man’s natural state and, by extension, his tenancy of gentleness towards his fellow man (121). The civilised man, in contrast, comes to be as a result of “perfectibility”. Perfectibility, according to Rousseau is an innate human attribute to want to learn and better oneself, particularly to overcome obstacles in one’s environment. Rousseau’s description of perfectibility implies that the conditions of one’s environment have a direct influence over their character and that one can therefore deduce that regardless of man’s natural gentleness, he can develop the capacity to be cruel if so prompted by elements in his environment. Such a prompt comes as man looks to collaborate with others out of mutual self-interest. Rousseau notes that, “their connections become more intimate and extensive … there arose on one side vanity and contempt, on the other envy and shame … Men no sooner began to set a value upon each other, and know what esteem was, than each laid claim to it … It
Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr...
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
Both philosophers agreed that humans are naturally self-interested, however, Rousseau fails to understand the concept that there are insufficient resources for every human and that brutal competition is part of survival. When discussing Rousseau’s theory on the corruption of society, an interesting question arises. If humans are naturally so good, then how could society be so evil? Hobbes would argue that society is what keeps human nature stable by the use of sovereign power, laws, and the authority to regulate people’s actions. Without society, corruption would continue and people would have absolute freedom to do what they please, which would cause more fear. According to Hobbes " The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice" (Hobbes-79). Ultimately, life is better when humans are a
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English philosophers who were very similar thinkers. They both studies at Oxford, and they both witnessed the civil Revolution. The time when they lived in England influenced both of their thoughts as the people were split into two groups, those whom though the king should have absolute power, and the other half whom thought people could govern themselves. However Hobbes and Locke both rejected the idea of divine right, such as there was no one person who had the right from God to rule. They both believed in the dangers of state of nature, they thought without a government there is more chance of war between men. However their theories differ, Hobbes theories are based on his hypothetical ideas of the state
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
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