Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke : Interpretations of Human Nature

1594 Words4 Pages

Through time people have always wondered what it is that makes us who we are. It has been our human nature that has kept us intrigued with ourselves, and our relationships with others. With this curiosity came various interpretations as to our human nature, each changing the way we see the societal world we live in. With each interpretation came a new understanding of people and the relationship they hold with each other. Human nature has been one of the most studied elements of the world we live in. From our nature came the interest of how we as humans interact with each other, through the development of our nature some have served and others had ruled. Three philosophers that have focused their political ideas around human nature have given a deeper meaning to their study of politics through the understanding of human nature. Each one of them had a distinctive interpretation of what human nature was and how it impacted the politics of the specific society that they envisioned. It is hard to say that one of them holds the answers to the true essence of human nature but one can say that each of them has given an interesting and strong piece of the puzzle that has linked human nature to politics. The three philosophers in question are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I will be referring to them by their last name for simplicity. Starting with the philosophical views of each man we will see how they differ. It will be clear that each man’s idea comes from a very different perspective on human nature.

Thomas Hobbes thoughts on human nature derive from his childhood. According to Jean Hampton who wrote, “She brought twins to birth, myself and fear at the same time” (282) Hobbes believed that fear...

... middle of paper ...

...fear. Locke’s idea that everyone is born free is good for societies that have no established governments because even in his time there was a government. In biblical times his idea would be right on but the transformation of people’s ideas has lead the changes in natural freedom. No one can control where they are born so they may be born in a not so free state. Finally Rousseau’s idea that man is naturally good but corrupted by institutions is somewhat flawed because everyone makes choices to do or not do so people become corrupt through the choices they make in life. Through all this no one philosopher has the right answer to human nature but when we combine their ideas we get a solid way to a good solution that benefits many.

Works Cited

Cahn, Steven M.. Political philosophy: the essential texts. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

Show More
Related

  • Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.

    Read More

  • Dbq On Enlightenment

    665 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Locke’s ideas on creating a government by the people and Voltaire’s ideas on practicing any religion shows how many enlightenment philosophers wanted people to live peacefully with others and the society. The ideas of many philosophers helped shape the capitalist, democratic world in which we live today. Today's government was created with a legislative and executive branch, like what Locke suggested and women have more rights, such as getting education and jobs that are same as those of men. Enlightenment philosophers main ideas on increasing human rights and equality helped create a better society during the Enlightenment period and

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...

    Read More

  • The Blocks of Humanity of John Locke

    1265 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Steven Pinker, “The strongest argument against totalitarianism may be a recognition of a universal human nature; that all humans have innate desires for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The doctrine of the blank slate...is a totalitarian dream” (Brainyquotes). John Locke who was a political writer, an Oxford scholar, medical researcher, and physican. He was widley known as the philospher that challanged the flaws of humanity. Being so widely known as an excellent writer in the 17th century, in his piece An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke confronts the flaws of humanity. As a result of being a great writer and philosopher Locke was also raised in a very wealthy setting. Being that he was raised in a very wealthy setting Locke challenges the flaws of Humanity. Through his piece An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke further challenges these flaws but connecting them to his basis of religion, the time he spent in exile in Holland, and being a well known philosopher.

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Nature Vs. Nurture: Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    Why are we the way we are? Is it because we want to be that way or because we were made that way? The debate regarding the nature of humans is one that will never end because there is so much support for each side. It is an issue that humans have spent generations pondering. Two of those people are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both have made compelling arguments regarding nature versus nurture.

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (??)the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government. Both Rousseau and Locke formulated new and innovative ideas for government that would change the way people thought of how sovereignty should be addressed forever.

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes And Jean Jacques Rousseau And The State Of Nature

    1865 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau were both influential philosophers with two completely different theories about the nature of human beings. While Hobbes’s’ theory was based upon the assumption that human nature was naturally born competitive, violent, and seeking power, Rousseau viewed human nature as good and pure, only until society corrupts it. Although Hobbes and Rousseau both viewed the state of nature quite differently, both their theories were similarly based on the image of how society was, before political government existed. The argument I would like to make is the idea that Hobbes’s vision and beliefs of human nature from the State of Nature is profoundly more logical and realistic than Rousseau’s. To be human is to desire nothing but accomplishing ones own selfish pleasures, including their interest in self-preservation.

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

    446 Words  | 1 Pages

    In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.

    Read More

More about Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke : Interpretations of Human Nature

Open Document