Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau weigh into the discussion about justice and morality both in the state of nature and within their defined civil societies. Hobbes enforces that individuals do not have moral obligations, but instead are are based on rationality. Locke argues that humans are moral in the state of nature and in civil society. Lastly, Rousseau takes a view that merges both Hobbes and Locke’s views of morality by claiming that humans are not moral in the state of nature, but the obtain morality once they enter into civil society. ___________________here is my thesis and that means a thing.
Thomas Hobbes argues for the idea that humans, regardless of being in civil society or the state of nature are are not
…show more content…
driven by morality. Hobbes instead claims that the binding forces are fear and rationality rather than morality. Hobbes declares the state of nature as a state of war in which everyone is against everyone. People are like animals in this state, taking whatever they want without any real repercussions. Without a common power a state of war is in effect. (Chapter 13)People have competition, diffidence and glory. In the State of Nature, which Hobbes presents people act within self interest and their own good, meaning a man desires something for the good of the future and provide the motivations for the future. In turn, in the SON there exist conflicting interests in which everyone is trying to obtain their own desires causing conflicts of interest (122/129). With the State of Nature we want to fix this problem so we need to enter into a covenant which is giving up individual rights up to the sovereign for goodness. Because of this State Hobbes argues that humans in the state of nature should fear the conflict between individuals, they will all come together and give the control of themselves to a single person, known to Hobbes as the Sovereign.
The only way to establish a common power is to get one will that will direct the will of the other (79). For Hobbes, coming together to unite under a single all powerful being is entering into a civil society. Entering into the civil society does not grant humans morality, because Hobbes, regardless of the state, believes that humans do not have this morality. Instead humans are only driven by rationality and the rationality that they are driven by leads to validity of the covenants made between humans and the sovereign. Legitimate covenants follow what a person can rationally do. Humans in Hobbes civil society give up their individual rights to the sovereign to which he is supposed to be in the utmost control. “To promise to do something that is known to be impossible to not covenant [...] (find actual cite CH 14). For the sovereign to be in effect all covenants created must be valid, for Hobbes, Justice consists of the keeping of valid covenants. But validity covenants with setting up an enforcement power for the people to perform. Fear of punishment of not performing is valid because all rationality is dependable. If it is rational to follow then the covenant is considered valid. The sovereign can do virtually no harm, unless he orders an individual to do something they would not rationally be able to do, such as taking his own life. If the sovereign does this then there does not exist a valid covenant. The sovereign is not bound by valid covenants and therefore the sovereign cannot be unjust. The sovereign has rational power, so whatever the sovereign does; it is rational for us to comply. THe only right that people have against the sovereign is if the sov. Requests that they do something irrational, they do not want to oppose
the sovereign because it would cause conflict. However, despite Hobbes giving the Sovereign almost ultimate power he does give a warning that the sovereign should think of the safety to the people, and that justice is in keeping of valid covenants. The making of good laws, what the people is needful (193) You want to do good for the people so that they all don’t collectively decide to return to the state of Nature. Hobbes: That which is needful, for the good of the people and with all perspicuous (193) Locke, unlike Hobbes, argues that humans have morality in both the State of Nature and Civil Societies. People in the state of nature have some rights, such as punishing transgressors, and keeping items they cultivate. People can coexist morally in the State of Nature. People in Locke's state of nature can recognize moral limitations, and react to them, but the main problem of being in the SON is the concentration of the power. However, when wanting to enter into civil society people are trying to protect their property rights, which are, life, liberty, and estate. Therefore they enter into a society, under a desired common judge, by giving up these self -defense rights to give that power to a common judge who will in turn protect these rights for individuals. (243) With the common judge as the the authority they cannot go against the common good (what is the definition of the common good?) The common judge is a legitimate authority so long as it is protecting the property rights of those in the civil society. When people in the State of Nature are their own judge they have their own biases and they then do not have the power. By entering into a express consent you enter into the Civil society. The members of this civil society have given up and expressly agreed to be part of this agreement and therefore they are subject to the laws of the common judge. However, unlike Hobbes, this ultimate power is not absolute. The governments is limited. TO get out of SoN obtain common judge that has been given authority. The majority is in charge, and it is limited to the common good, therefore the majority cannot take away what is good for the minority. All laws are for safety, prosperity and common good. No one to Locke has absolute power (ch 11) Oh no, if they do bad things people have the right to rebel (what are the bad things, why can they rebel). The people create the whole of the government, the sovereign is a monarch, but the government is the branches, but the legislative branch has the most power. The government is to preserve property. The consent of the majority is what is needed, rather than unanimous because if you do not like the situation then you can leave. The person in charge cannot infringe on property rights. The majority cannot infringe on these property rights, and therefore they can rebel (talk about the rebel). What is important to note is the people, according to Locke, are moral in the State of Nature and once they enter into civil society. The power that is created is one that is based on consent, for if it were based on the parental instance then it would not be a choice. Locke: To understand political power, right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what statement are naturally in Want of a common judge with authority , puts all men in a state of nature: Force without right upon a man’s person makes a state of war (223) (224) Bi ibe cab gave more power than himself “ For if the consent of the majority shall not, in reason, be received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual; nothing but the consent of every individual can make any thing to be the act of the whole: But such a consent is next to impossible ever to be had, if we consider the infirmities of health, and avocations of business, which in a number though much less than that of a common wealth, will necessarily keep may away from the public assembly” (246) Rousseau provides a mixture of morality from both Hobbes and Locke. He claims that humans are not moral in the state of nature, but upon entering into civil society man gains morality. In the state of nature there exists no morality, there exist good desires, but there is the potential for growth. For Rousseau this growth is seen in that humans have a moral capacity, but it can only be developed in a civil society. Entering into a civil state grants the moral freedom that people are capable of. When entering into the civil society the individual agrees to make decisions for the good will / general will of all, else he will be put back into the state of nature (432). Animals in the state of nature and intelligent and cognitive beings it is like a switch. This is what keeps the government legitimate: striving for the general will. Everyone should be working towards the general will of all and if they are not, then they are acting on their particular wills, which ROusseau very distinctly wants to avoid because then it causes factions and thus it is not really benefiting the general will. However, if you do not follow the general will you are a freeloader and should be punished accordingly, which is the subjection to be forced back into the State of Nature. The general will is the legitimacy of the government, failing to work towards the general will is against this and therefore a problem yo. Submit to the general will and you will get the benefits and then as a collective and they give in through tacit consent. However, they need to be an adult to be join a society. General will, democracy is impossible, this is because it leads to factions, not general will, and therefore it needs to be unanimous. People give up their individuals rights to the society, You would never really know if you are going against the general will because people could just convince you that they are doing it for the general will, and you are the one going against. So long as you are doing / acting for the common good, then it is legitimate justice / authority. Everyone is in charge of the collective rather than one singular individual acting on behalf of all individuals.
...d seek peace. In establishing a covenant and instituting a sovereign, men give up the rights they possessed in the state of nature, as well as the right to live without tyranny. However for Hobbes, those sacrifices are overshadowed by what is gained by living under a truly absolute sovereign. A sovereign, corrupt or not, guarantees order and prevents chaos and death. Those are, word for word, the reasons the social contract was initially established and therefore fully justify the creation of an absolute sovereign. Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan during the English Civil Wars, looked out his window at chaos and decided that survival should be pursued at all costs.
...y will consent to this, and bring in a sovereign that will also operate under the law. Also, that sovereign will have to operate with checks and balances, under a government with divided powers. The difference with Hobbes is that if any powerful invader that takes over the land that you reside with the intent to be the sovereign is not allowed. As mentioned, such an action permits the people to declare war with this presumed authority. That also extends to the situation in which those citizens were unsatisfied with the government that they had initially consented to.
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.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.
Social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
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...
To understand Hobbes? reply to the fool, one must first define justice according to Hobbes. He believes that justice is men performing their covenants made and the constant will of giving every man his own. A covenant is a part of a contract, or ?mutual transferring of right, in which at least one of the parties ?is to perform in time to come?. Hobbes maintains that it is never against reason to complete a covenant when man has the security that others will also perform covenants made with him. However, the problem that arises from forming covenants is that just because people enter into a covenant to perform some actio...
Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under control or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state, and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function. Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today, but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant.
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
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
Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.
Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.