Preview

Hobbes vs. Rousseau

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2320 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Hobbes vs. Rousseau
For one to be a good citizen, there are certain expectations a person must follow to achieve this goal. While many people have their own ideas of what makes a good citizen, there is little consensus to exactly what this would be. Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in their books The Leviathan and The Social Contract, create a system of political governing where the citizen plays a certain role and has certain expectations to carry out this role for the governmental system to work properly. In this paper, I will discuss what each of the men believed to be the role of the average citizen to support the state. Both men have quite different opinions in regards to the roles of citizens. While both are good theories, and create a strong case for government, neither is applicable in the real world because what is demanded of the citizen in these systems of government is based on certain assumptions. The assumptions made by these men, both good and bad, are not evident in the every day person. Thomas Hobbes believes, that all men are egocentric, by nature. This is to say that men spend their whole lives looking for what makes the happiest as an individual. Even when men socialize, it is not for the benefit of building strong ties between each other, but simply for personal benefit. Hobbes argues that man is self- centered in nature because he desires power. This arises from the fact that man, unlike animals, may seek things that are not tangible. Hobbes argues, not only are men egocentric, but also equal. Hobbes believes that even though every person may have different levels of strength, intelligence or character that all men are equal. "For such is the nature of men that, howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be so many so wise as themselves, for they see their won wit at hand and other men 's at a distance." (Leviathan, 98) More importantly in dealing with equality, Hobbes


Bibliography: 1. Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan. First Touchstone Edition 1997. 2. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Social Contract. University of Oxford Press, London, 1947. 3. Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1978. Word Count: 2252

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Rousseau believed that human nature is good but eventually they get brainwashed and become evil but Hobbes thinks otherwise. Hobbes states that humans are evil by nature and we need some sort of power in order to be controlled and be civilized. Rousseau thought that humans are born into the world with good intentions. He said there was a point when no one had property and we were happy. Eventually the human race began to grow, starting a chain of conflicts. Hobbes thought that by nature, we are very competitive and it leads to distrust, insecurity, and total chaos. Hobbes promotes monarchy as the perfect solution to control everyone and their problems. I agree with Rousseau’s point of view of the human race rather than Hobbes point of view because I don’t think humans are born evil, we become evil when we start claiming things as ours and we begin to compete with others.…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes vs Locke

    • 551 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were known as Social Contract Theorists, and Natural Law Theorists. The two men both had very strong views on freedom and how a country should be governed. Thomas Hobbes had more of a Pessimistic view while John locke had more of an Optimistic view. Hobbes and Locke believed in a type of Social Contract between the Government and being governed. Hobbes believed in Absolute Monarchs and Locke believed in the will of people being governed. Hobbes opposed constitutionalism because of his pessimistic appraisal of human nature. They both had extremely different views on government, but the bases of their arguments were similar. They both used reason to justify their ideas, rather than divine right. Although both men acknowledged that there was a God, He played a very small role in their ideologies. I believe that both Hobbes and Locke are genuinely correct.…

    • 551 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to Rousseau, the civil society is what represses people’s freedom who argues that people’s freedoms are better secured in the state of nature. This point of view sharply contrasts with that of Hobbes who sees the state of nature as one of constant battles. Hobbes sees a civil society as the most ideal way of ensuring that collective freedoms are preserved.…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In this paper, I will analyze both Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s view on the Nature of Man. Through my analysis of both, I will show contrast and comparison between both philosophical views. I will identify and explain the central aspect of the Nature of Man as identified by Hobbes and Rousseau and will make connections through a series of explanations and examples that were presented by Hobbes and Rousseau.…

    • 1774 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many philosophers, such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, have discussed over the years if he human race is naturally good or evil. People than choice their side of the argument, one side believing that humans have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, while the other side believes that humans have a bad nature that is kept in check by society. As John Locke believes that the human race is good, it is reasonable to accept as true because we are born neutral, with free will, and fear of a higher power.…

    • 577 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    For the past many years, people have been trying to figure out the relationship between the government and nature of man. The theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau about the connection between nature of man and the government have been debated for many years. These three philosophers have remarkably influenced the way our system works today. Although each theory had its flaws and merits, Jean Jacques Rousseau’s theory is superior in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Rousseau Vs Hobbes

    • 209 Words
    • 1 Page

    In favor of Hobbes, he does make several valid points. His theory in regards to constant competition applies to this day, as people constantly find themselves in situations where they meet others that are of equal physical strengths and could be faced with a conflict as a result. Despite the points that Hobbes makes, his theory is overall negative, as living in a constant state of fear and paranoia is absolutely no way to live one’s life. Rousseau is very pertinent to remind others of how life was before society and technology took over. Life was extremely simple, and everyone was fairly alright with living alone and focusing on themselves and their life. If today’s society was the same as it was over a thousand years ago, almost no one would…

    • 209 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Locke Vs Hobbes

    • 184 Words
    • 1 Page

    Throughout history, people have debated about what government is, and what is the purpose of it. Should the government dictate people's lives and tell them what to do? Should the government be permissive and just allow the people take care of themselves and not step in? Should there be an in between? Two very influential philosophers from the 17th century Enlightenment, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, are preeminent influences on how people see what a government is and what role it should take. They both were renowned influences in many governments, even to this day. Locke took the side that people are naturally good, and that they should rule themselves. While on the other hand, Hobbes said that humans are naturally brutish and evil,…

    • 184 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being. He believed that all human actions can be explained through the motions in our bodies. According to Hobbes all feelings and emotions are a result of phantasms, our perception of the objects around us. This perception is a motion within our bodies and each person perceives these phantasms differently causing love, hate, desires, and what we think is good and bad. Every feeling that comes from ones perspective has a physical feeling, such as desires can cause certain pains and it is only human nature that one does whatever is needed in order to relieve those pains. Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. This inevitably would end up in a fight for survival or “the war of all against all”. In order to prevent such a war from happening Hobbes thought it necessary that the individuals must promise each other to give up their right to govern themselves to the sovereign for the mutual benefit of the people. This sovereign then has absolute power to rule with no questions asked and not to only act on behalf of the citizens but to completely embody their will. In summation, Hobbes believed that society could only exist under power of the sovereign and that life in the state of nature is violent, short and brutish, as all men act on self-interest.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes Vs Machiavelli

    • 121 Words
    • 1 Page

    Lastly, both Hobbes and Machiavelli agree in their opinion of man what is one that is very negative. In the novel The Prince, Machiavelli states that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain” (Machiavelli < 1542 > 2006). Similarly, in the novel Leviathan, Hobbes states how the life of a man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes < 1651 > 2009). This shows how both Machiavelli and Hobbes see men and their lives as very negative aspects, but differ in what there perspectives are of it. Machiavelli explains how men are unreliable and not worth trusting when Hobbes is explaining how life naturally is terrible and without sovereignty, life and man are nothing.…

    • 121 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ideas would be key to transforming loyal English colonists, first into revolutionaries and then into founders of a new nation.…

    • 108 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hobbes vs. Locke

    • 2028 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Locke, John, and C. B. Macpherson. Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 1980. N. pag. Print.…

    • 2028 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the great political theorists of their time. They both provided wonderful philosophical texts on how our government should govern us. This paper will show the largest differences and some of the similarities between Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. Although they do have some similarities, Hobbes and Locke have different views on most of their political arguments, and I will expand on their differences on the state of nature, government, and social contract.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The argument presented by Thomas Hobbes in chapter 13 of Leviathan, is that the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Such a view had previously been discussed- earlier versions of the argument appear in other significant works- however it is Hobbes account of a state in “continuall feare of danger and violent death”1 upon which I will focus on and critique in this essay. There are many reasons why many seem to regard Hobbes argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised society, many believe it to be so straightforward and seemingly correct that to object it would be to ignore a necessary truth. Secondly, those who accept Hobbes’ view of a human nature that is so egotistical and unforgiving, would seemingly too agree to the assumption of a gloomy, unbearable state of nature. In this essay I shall argue that such opinions are not logically justified as Hobbes’s argument holds its foundations solidly in assumption alone, an assumption that was heavily moulded on his surroundings of a savage Civil War. Hobbes’s argument lies solely on the grounds that human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centred beings an argument that cannot be completely validated and therefore cannot be a ‘necessary truth’. Yet despite holding such a bleak outlook on the human condition and its simple invalidity the work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political word today2 and it continues to impact our understanding of human nature and interactions. In order to justify my critique of Hobbes I will begin by presenting both his original argument and a brief view of some modern interpretations before cross examining their conclusions against that of other social contract theorist such as Locke and Rousseau as well as rational logic to present the argument that the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    When comparing Rousseau to Hobbes and Locke, the differences in their ideologies are prominent, however, they are still similar in some ways. In the State of Nature according to Rousseau, “man’s natural sentiment was that of his existence, his first care that of his preservation” (Discourse, Part II). This man is known as the “nascent man” and is often contrasted with the “savage man”, who exists in civilized society. In this State of Nature, man’s primary concern is to look after himself, similar to Hobbes’ and Locke’s, However, this is essentially the extent of the similarities between the three. Hobbes and Locke believe that man is naturally a societal animal who thrives with the presence of politics, whereas Rousseau believes exactly the opposite: that man is naturally a solitary animal, and that society corrupts us.…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays