Comparing Hobbes And Rousseau's Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes' believed that the social contract of the government and the people was that citizens should let themselves be ruled and that the ruler or assembly should have "ultimate authority." He argues that if there was no government then humans would be out of control and ultimately perish. He also stressed that government was "society's only hope for peace and security" (Fiero 98). Hobbes' ideas about the "Natural Condition of Mankind" was that humans were "selfish, greedy, and war-like" (Fiero 98). This shows that Hobbes' believed that humans needed government in order to live and flourish.

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

European philosophers ideas have had huge impacts on governments around the world for many years. However their ideas have also had less recognizable effects on people’s everyday lives, including high school. Many of the famous political ideals of many famous philosophers are found in the rules and functions of the school. Hobbes’s social contract, Marx’s ideas of economic equality, Hume and Diderot’s ideas on secular institutions and Montesquieu’s political philosophies are all reflected in some way in the system of Grand Haven High School.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

Stemming from his theories regarding the definition of a good life, Hobbes’ view of political legitimacy is very centered on the ability of the ruler to effectively govern. The first and most important aspect of Hobbes’ view of legitimacy is the idea of a “social contract.” A social contract an agreement between those who are in power and those who are ruled which is a framework which one can view societal relations within. In Hobbes’ ideal government the citizens are free to do anything that is not proscribed by the state; however, if the sovereign creates laws or “chains,” citizens must accept them as legitimate because of the social contract that they tacitly agree to. Citizens give up their rights to resources and freedom of action in exchange for the benefits of peace as well as the protection of the sovereign. In essence, according to Hobbes, any government which can provide stability for its people is legitimate (although he also claims there may be benefits to an autocratic monarchy as opposed to more democratic forms of government.). Furthermore, Hobbes disputes the idea that people need to give explicit consent to be legitimately governed. In the utopian “Commonwealth” that Hobbes proposes a ruler can become legitimate not only through a concordat with the populace but also through strength of arms. If a ruler acquires power though coercive means then, according to Hobbes, he has total

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

Human nature and its relevance in determining behaviors, predictions, and conclusions has caused dispute among philosophers throughout the ages. Political philosophy with its emphasis on government legitimacy, justice, laws, and rights guided the works of the 17th and 18th century philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through Thomas Hobbes world-renowned publication Leviathan and Rousseau’s discourses on basic political principals and concepts, each man validated their thoughts on human nature and what is required for a successful society within their respective government confines. The distinct differences between Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on the natural state of man frame the argument of the different

In the society illustrated by John Locke, the human nature is characterized as free and independent; however, the problem with society is that it has too many small inconveniences, which could be as trivial as a tree blocking the sidewalk. To solve these problems, a legitimate government, characterized by explicit consent, checks on institutions and the right to revolt by the people, is needed. The utmost legitimate government, in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is based on John Locke’s social contract in Second Treatise of Government because each aspect of a legitimate government protects the citizen’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Through each aspect, the people can actively participate in government to prevent the sovereign from taking advantage of their powers to further their own goals.

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

Thus, small groups invite invaders and foster dissent. Hobbes to accepted that man bestowing his power in one leader, “is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.” (CWT III, 38). The preceding quote was Hobbes’s opinion of a social contract. This, Hobbes believed, was essential to man escaping the state of nature, and to the formation of a responsible government.

While Hobbes and Rousseau address many of the same issues and topics in both The Leviathan as well as The Discourses, the way that Hobbes and Rousseau look at these issues such as, human nature, the state, and inequality are extremely different from each other. In some cases Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on these certain ideas are completely contradicting and opposite of each other. While it is tough to say which viewpoint, Hobbes’ or Rousseau’s is correct, one or the other can be considered sounder by their logic and reasoning. The view that Hobbes takes on the matters of human nature, the state, and inequality is sounder and more logical than that of Rousseau.

By definition, equality is the property that a set of things are the same in measure, value, and status. On the other hand, inequality represents the exact opposite of equality. This assessment is drawn from the works of Hobbes and Rousseau, whom despite addressing many of the same issues differed greatly on issues such as the state, human nature, and inequality, posing difficulty in telling who among the two represented a better view of those issues. A breakdown of the various works of both Hobbes and Rousseau will assist in examining the similarities and differences in their views on the three issues.

Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.