Hobbes And Rousseau
The State of Nature and its
Implications for Civilization in Hobbes and Rousseau
In his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes expresses a philosophy of civilization which is both practical and just and stems from a clear moral imperative. He begins with the assertion that in the state of nature man is condemned to live a life "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." It is in the interest of every man to rise above this "state of nature" and to give up certain rights so that the violent nature of the human animal can be subdued. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's vision of the state of nature parallels that of Hobbes but for its more optimistic tone: "I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater …show more content…
His goal is more ambitious than Hobbes's. Because in Rousseau's philosophy humans in a state of nature are not suffering as directly as Hobbes suggests, their goal is more than just the peace described in Leviathan: "How to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before." For Rousseau, it is possible that all subjects of a government not feel oppressed but instead liberated by their rulers. They are not following laws because they are ordered to, but because they recognize that they are benefiting from the …show more content…
He hopes to show that a society is not ordered by control but by agreement. His goal is to portray society as a universally accepted condition which all members freely choose as a welcome alternative to the state of nature. "We might also add that man acquires with civil society, moral freedom, which alone makes man the master of himself; for to be governed by appetite alone is slavery, while obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom." The idea that members of a society are obeying only themselves is an ideal implied by Hobbes but explained more explicitly by Rousseau. Hobbes suggests that all members of a society give up their bestial right to do as they please to an overarching power. This power, according to Hobbes, should be a monarch. This single ruler is expected to be just but all powerful. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that power should not be given up by the people, that it is possible for them to keep a covenant with themselves. Here he introduces his idea of the
Implications for Civilization in Hobbes and Rousseau
In his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes expresses a philosophy of civilization which is both practical and just and stems from a clear moral imperative. He begins with the assertion that in the state of nature man is condemned to live a life "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." It is in the interest of every man to rise above this "state of nature" and to give up certain rights so that the violent nature of the human animal can be subdued. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's vision of the state of nature parallels that of Hobbes but for its more optimistic tone: "I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater …show more content…
His goal is more ambitious than Hobbes's. Because in Rousseau's philosophy humans in a state of nature are not suffering as directly as Hobbes suggests, their goal is more than just the peace described in Leviathan: "How to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before." For Rousseau, it is possible that all subjects of a government not feel oppressed but instead liberated by their rulers. They are not following laws because they are ordered to, but because they recognize that they are benefiting from the …show more content…
He hopes to show that a society is not ordered by control but by agreement. His goal is to portray society as a universally accepted condition which all members freely choose as a welcome alternative to the state of nature. "We might also add that man acquires with civil society, moral freedom, which alone makes man the master of himself; for to be governed by appetite alone is slavery, while obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom." The idea that members of a society are obeying only themselves is an ideal implied by Hobbes but explained more explicitly by Rousseau. Hobbes suggests that all members of a society give up their bestial right to do as they please to an overarching power. This power, according to Hobbes, should be a monarch. This single ruler is expected to be just but all powerful. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that power should not be given up by the people, that it is possible for them to keep a covenant with themselves. Here he introduces his idea of the