Comparison of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau Essay

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

Contrasting Hobbes and Locke Nearly two-hundred and twenty-five years ago the United States of America chose to fight a Thomas Hobbes government, with the hope of forming a John Locke institution. The ideas of these men lead to the formation of two of the strongest nations in the history of the world: Great Britain followed by the United States. Thomas Hobbes viewed the ideal government as an absolute monarchy, due to the chaos of the state of nature in contrast, John Locke’s ideal government was a democracy due to his beliefs of the equality of men. These men have shared a few of the same beliefs, but mainly contrast each other.

Drug abuse is obviously a huge issue in our country, but how would Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions differ on it? Hobbes talks about individual self interests and punishment. Rousseau talks about education and socialization. The both believe however that the sovereign should decide these laws

Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.

The formation of government is one of the central themes for both Hobbes and Locke. Whether or not men naturally form a government, or must form a government, is based on man’s basic nature. According to Hobbes, a government must be formed to preserve life and prevent loss of property. According to Locke, a government arises to protect life and property. Governments are born of inequality and formed to administer equality.

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

Being a well-known and respected political thinker, Hobbes’s understanding of politics is taken very serious in political debates. Hobbes’s arguments are in support of authoritarian rule, his main two philosophies being the state of nature and the social contract. The problem with these is that they are centred on Hobbes understanding of human morality, which can be heavily faulted. Also he fails to take into account all elements of a political structure. His philosophy is also heavily faulted by John Locke. Using these thesis it can be shown that Hobbes fails to provide a convincing justification for political authority.

When it comes to the topic of the state of nature, most of us will readily agree that Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s view of the topic has influenced the foundation of the political society. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of which theory of the state of nature is correct. All three philosophers agree that the main concern of man is self-preservation, but perceived the details of the state of nature differently.

Compare & Contrast Hobbes, Locke, & Rousseau The state of nature is the condition of human beings when there was an absence of political society. There are different conceptions of how humans were before political association based on the social contract theory. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, scientist, and historian, was to first to write on this subject. In his work the Leviathan, Hobbes describes man’s state of nature as a constant state of war where man is selfish and morality is nonexistent.

One of the first political theorists, Aristotle once wrote in his novel Politics, “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” (Aristotle 4) Dating back to Ancient Greece, the state of nature has been observed and disputed for centuries. It wasn’t until the 1600s, was Aristotle’s theory ever seriously debated. Thomas Hobbes developed his own theory on what is the state of nature in his novel The Leviathan. This writing sparked interest in philosophers as to what human nature truly is, not just what Aristotle had suggested. Just thirty-eight years later, John Locke anonymously published his writings Two Treatises of Government, suggesting a differing outlook on the state of nature to Hobbes. Through a summarization of each philosopher’s depiction of the state of nature and explanations of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, one will be able to find which argument is the most compelling.

Thomas Hobbes was best known for his political philosophy, he was an English philosopher, a scientist and historian. Thomas Hobbes wrote a book in 1651 called “Leviathan”. In his book “Leviathan” Hobbes talks about his views of human nature he described his views of an ideal government, Hobbes believed that us human beings we naturally desire power to live well he said that us human are never happy with anything we have that we always want more than what we already have. Hobbes believed that every person was created equally, and that we are all he same. Hobbes also believed that humanities nature lead people to seek power, he used the example as when two people want the same thing both of them become enemies and then they attempt to destroy each other. Hobbes felt that with no common power to unite people there was always going to be war, that it was best if a group of people had something in common and if they unite they wouldn’t be at war. He felt that a group of people united together will be more powerful to be able to go against whoever wanted to destroy them.

Through time, many philosophers have given their own definition of men in the State of Nature. The main philosophers to take up their differing meaning were Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, and even Shelley. Hobbes viewed men as violent in their nature, which would inevitably lead to their own downfall. Years after Hobbes first created his theory, Jean-Jacques Rousseau challenged his views by saying that humans are born into the world, and they are neither good or bad, it is their experiences in society that will shape who they are. While these two have similarities, another philosopher named John Locke came along and claimed that humans are the creatures of God. While all three of these ideas differ, they are all accepted. It wasn’t until Mary Shelley

The state of nature is a concept used in moral and political philosophy utilized to highlight the hypothetical condition of mankind without the interference of social constructs, thus society. Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were 17th and 18th-century philosophers with comparable, yet different views about mankind and its nature. The first crucial difference between Hobbes and Rousseau is their view regarding human nature. For Rousseau, mankind is inherently good. Rousseau highlights the state of nature is the optimal state of mankind because in this state men all men are free and equal. He explains that when men are in harmony with nature, men are in optimum state. Rousseau’s state of nature is guided by two fundamentals: self-preservation or self-love (amour de soi) and compassion (pitié). In this state of nature which is the optimal way of living according to Rousseau, there are no formal governments. In this optimum state, mankind will have a balance of both self-preservation or self-love and compassion individual would protect their own interest but it will also protect the interest of the individuals around.

The world is always filled with rigid dichotomies: good and evil, left and right, McDonald’s and Burger King -- just to mention some of them. The political theory in the 17th century seemed to have experienced a similar trend. The nature of government, more specifically the state of men, were often questioned, like the debate between Democrats and Republicans today. In 17th century Europe, the two major viewpoints on the issue were best exemplified by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, and Jacques Rousseau, the famous philosophers that led politics in 17th century England and France.

Inequality, unfairness, discrimination are all some things a majority of society has struggled with for many centuries. No matter how far back humans go into the past it is something a lot of people have disagreed on, including the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The seventeenth and eighteenth century were a time when philosophers increased in prominence. They started to speak what was on their mind and tried to get others to side with them by giving them information on what their theories were. Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau ended up becoming two of the most influential political theorists in the world that had similar, yet different theories on human nature. (Cahn, Steven M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. Oxford Univ. Press, 2015.) In this essay I will argue that Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s state of nature is better than Thomas Hobbes because of their own definition of state of nature, the people have their own rights, and they are not governed by a monarch.