Hobbes and Rousseau were different in many ways. The two men had polar opposite thoughts on the world, and their theories are both sensible. Hobbes lived in fear of the parliament, because he strongly believed in a monarchy government. Rousseau believed in a self-government, or a democracy. He believes that a man is born free and society and the government ties the free man down. Hobbes believes that “humans are selfish egoist, life is tragic, and morality and strong government are necessary to constraint humans and provide a deterrent against mischief” (Pojman, 110). Rousseau is quite the opposite he believed babies are born with a “mental blank slate” (Pojman, 117) and that society corrupts people. Rousseau’s theory was that society was …show more content…
Hobbes views were more dark, and sinister. While Rousseau’s views were bright, and uplifting. I thought Hobbes claims were more realistic, because there is proof of what happens to a civilization without a government. Rousseau believed that we should “find and innate goodness and compassion within each of us and to build a society on that goodness” (Pojman, 117). Which is good in theory, but for this to work, everyone would have to be good hearted and according to Rousseau, after living in a society, you are no longer good, because society corrupted you. He contradicts himself a lot and he did not offer any valid points on why society takes away from someone’s goodness. Except, the fact that owning property was bad, and people should not own land, but he did not explain why it was bad. All in all, I chose Hobbes, because his points made the most sense and he has evidence. He talked about humans being a machine, and we have involuntary motions (breathing, our blood moving through our body, eating, and sweating), and voluntary (speaking, moving our body parts, and walking). These things make us machines, and because machines just do what they are programed to do, like humans are. He understood this and new that we were programed to be a certain way. He understood, what humans were really capable of and that is why he was go terrified of their not being a government. He knew that we were programed to survive, and will do anything it takes to survive. But, people also get greedy, and jealous and want what is not theirs. This is what makes humans evil, the lust for other things, and the constant want for more. So, I do agree with him, because deep down we have our instincts. The instincts make us run like machines, when we need them. Every single person, if they have a will to live or self-worth, will do whatever it takes to
Lockes and Hobbes ideas of government differed greatly, Hobbes believed in an absolute government while Locke believed in a very limited one.Locke believed that people were naturally good and trustful and that they had the capacity to govern themselves. So the need of the government only came in the form of stopping any potential disputes that would occur. While Hobbes believed that humans were not all that good and their need for government stemmed from the fact that people cannot govern themselves. Furthermore Locke believed that the governments role was to listen to the people it was governing, a rule by consent. While Hobbes believed that the Government was to rule on it’s own and owed no answers or consent by the people. Moreover Locke believed that the purpose of the government was to protect the property and freedom of its people, while Hobbes believed that the governments role was to tell them what to do. But arguably the biggest difference between the philosophies is the notion of government accountability. Hobbes believed that the government had free reign to do what they please with no backlash, while Locke believed that if the social contract was broken then the people of the community had the right to revolt and over throw the government. To further this point Locke unlike Hobbes believed that leaders should
Hobbes' theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke's theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other. Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than John Locke?s theory though. Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness.
Throughout many centuries, different philosophers have argued contrasting ideas on the nature of justice and on the role of government in society. These philosophers, Plato, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, have differing ideas regarding how a state or society should be governed, who should run the state, what the responsibilities of the leader/people are, and the ultimate purpose of the state. All three philosophers were writing in different eras, so they have they have different philosophies. During Plato's era, man based philosophy on utopian ideals and principles. The primary concern was with how things should be, not how they were. If humans were to all behave this way, it would result in a perfect society. However, Machiavelli was a realist, he was concerned about things now, not how things could be if the world was perfect.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke grew up around the same time, so naturally they must have many similarities, but the environment they grew up in resulted in many differences as well. Hobbes grew up during the English Civil War, which shaped his ideas while Locke lived through the Revolution of 1688 which was when a king was overthrown for being unjust and that helped form his ideas. Hobbes and Locke both said that the state of nature is bad and some order is always needed. The difference between their beliefs is the type of government that should be in place to maintain order that is needed to manage stable lives.
Comparing the statement of Hobbes with Locke is the following, “It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people," (Locke, 70). Both theories on the sovereign power relate to the human nature. For example, Hobbes’s believes that humans need a strong authority to protect citizens from each other and outside forces, which is why the sovereign has absolute power. Critiquing Locke's perspective , he mentions that the people in state of nature live in peace and tranquility amongst each other, setting moral limits without having a sovereign (central authority).
Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.
What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he imagined people from society being put into a world sans government.... ... middle of paper ... ... Rousseau’s ideas are not entirely untrue, in the sense that we are born knowing neither good nor evil are true, yet his thought’s on the state of nature are far too simplistic as well as being too idealistic and don’t take into account how society would be impacted by the lack of many basic institutions.
The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.
There are always two-sides everything including people and the government, kind of like science vs. faith view. With Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, they give the impression to be on opposite sides when it comes to people, society and the government even and yet both were Englishmen. Hobbes was born 5 April 1588 and died 4 December 1679; he is best known today for his work on political philosophy. While John Locke was 29 August 1632 and died 28 October 1704, and is widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism, His work greatly affected the development of epistemology and political philosophy. Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651, which established the foundation for most of Western political philosophy from the perspective of social contract theory. Although, Locke’s writings influenced Voltaire, Rousseau and many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. Locke contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence. Both have influences todays political philosophy.
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English philosophers who were very similar thinkers. They both studies at Oxford, and they both witnessed the civil Revolution. The time when they lived in England influenced both of their thoughts as the people were split into two groups, those whom though the king should have absolute power, and the other half whom thought people could govern themselves. However Hobbes and Locke both rejected the idea of divine right, such as there was no one person who had the right from God to rule. They both believed in the dangers of state of nature, they thought without a government there is more chance of war between men. However their theories differ, Hobbes theories are based on his hypothetical ideas of the state
To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.