Enlightenment Political Philosophy

1283 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Comparison: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were some of the first political thinkers during the Enlightenment era. “The Enlightenment is most identified with its political accomplishments.” (Stanford) All three of these men are known today as “social contract” thinkers. They each describe their own view of the “state of nature” and discuss how a proper government should be made and run. Although they have their own individual ideas, their philosophies do suggest similarities. The state of nature may be interpreted in many different ways, however in order to test its practicality, one must justify and explain its values.
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all interpreted the state of nature individually, which made them some of the most famous political thinkers in history. “However, for all the enduring accomplishments of Enlightenment political philosophy, it is not clear that human reason proves powerful enough to put a concrete, positive authoritative ideal in place of the ideals negated by rational criticism.” (Stanford)
Thomas Hobbes had the most negative view of human nature. He felt that all people were bad; however he also felt that politics should be separate from God. Since he was an Enlightenment thinker, he believed in using reason and science to obtain knowledge, although he was also concerned with morals. “Hobbes thinks the state of nature is something we ought to avoid, at any cost except our own self-preservation.” (need citation IEP*) Hobbes’ thesis during this time stated “that the problems of political life mean that a society should accept an unaccountable sovereign as its sole political authority.”(need citation *IEP) His view of human nature was very bleak, and he believed that faith should not be th...

... middle of paper ...

...sues. All three believed in the separation of Church and State and agreed upon two of the three basic rights, Life and Liberty. Each had an opposing view on the issue of the pursuit of property, but all of them had an influence on modern democracy.
If not for these social contract thinkers of Enlightenment, it would be arguable that political systems around the world today would be of various structures. What if Thomas Jefferson had not been inspired by John Locke when he was constructing the Declaration of Independence? The basic rights in America would surely be limited. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau may have disagreed on issues concerning protest to the King and the specific definition of the state of nature in which people lived, however global politics would not be what they are today, and democracy may not have been as successful.

Show More
Related

  • The Government During the Age of Absolutism and the Enlightenment

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Locke was perhaps the best example of someone who rejected the absolute view of government and had views that were radically different from it. Locke believe that people were born reasonable and moral – it was their natur...

    Read More

  • The Role of Naturalism and Rationalism in American and British Gun Policy

    753 Words  | 2 Pages

    Although they may not be aware of it, complex philosophic principles influence the simple actions of the mass’s everyday lives. In fact, long lasting and well defined contentions of basic philosophy concerning the actions of human beings has not only affected individuals, but also entire countries. Some of the greatest nations on Earth have been formed around key thoughts and opinions of several great philosophers. Primarily amongst these, however, or John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom wrote on “The State of Nature”, or the state of absolute freedom. While Locke and Hobbes had vastly different opinions on the natural state of a human being, no matter who you are your life is somehow affected by their philosophic writings.

    Read More

  • The Enlightenment and the Declaration of Independence

    415 Words  | 1 Pages

    There are many different ways in which the Enlightenment affected the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. One way was the by the idea of a Social Contract; an agreement by which human beings are said to have abandoned the "state of nature" in order to form the society in which they now live. HOBBES, LOCKE, and J.J. ROUSSEAU each developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for society's protection and that the government has definite responsibilities to its citizens. Locke believed that governments were formed to protect the natural rights of men, and that overthrowing a government that did not protect these rights was not only a right, but also an obligation. His thoughts influenced many revolutionary pamphlets and documents, including the Virginia Constitution of 1776, and the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights was created as a listing of the rights granted to citizens, the Bill of Rights serves to protect the people from a too powerful government. These civil rights granted to U.S. Citizens are included in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Locke’s ideas about checks and balances and the division of church and state were later embodied in the U.S. Constitution as well. The Constitution replaced a more weakly organized system of government as outlined under the Articles of Confederation.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.

    Read More

  • John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract

    1125 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Enlightenment was an astonishing time of transformation in Europe. During this time in the eighteenth century there was a progressive movement that was labeled by its criticism of the normal religious, social, and political perceptions. A number of significant thinkers, with new philosophies, had inspired creativeness and change. These thinkers had many different thoughts and views on people and the way they act, and views on the government. Two well-known and most influential thinkers of this time were the English political philosopher John Locke and the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two men had laid down some of the intellectual grounds of the modern day government and both had different opinions on what the government’s role in a society.

    Read More

  • On the Virtues of Private Property in Locke and Rousseau

    2220 Words  | 5 Pages

    John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different, even opposing, views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role in their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things are far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure.

    Read More

  • Bodin And Thomas Hobbes: Protection Vs. Prerogative

    1019 Words  | 3 Pages

    Another idea similar to that of Hobbes and Locke later appears in Chapter 17 of Hobbes’s “Of Commonwealth”. Throughout his entire book, Hobbes makes it very clear that the state of nature is a state of war and is something that must be avoided at all costs; this idea also ties in with Locke. Hobbes states that if the government is not protecting the mass society the way it needs to be then laws may be broken, in other words, society goes back to the state of nature (Hobbes

    Read More

  • Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke : Interpretations of Human Nature

    1594 Words  | 4 Pages

    Through time people have always wondered what it is that makes us who we are. It has been our human nature that has kept us intrigued with ourselves, and our relationships with others. With this curiosity came various interpretations as to our human nature, each changing the way we see the societal world we live in. With each interpretation came a new understanding of people and the relationship they hold with each other. Human nature has been one of the most studied elements of the world we live in. From our nature came the interest of how we as humans interact with each other, through the development of our nature some have served and others had ruled. Three philosophers that have focused their political ideas around human nature have given a deeper meaning to their study of politics through the understanding of human nature. Each one of them had a distinctive interpretation of what human nature was and how it impacted the politics of the specific society that they envisioned. It is hard to say that one of them holds the answers to the true essence of human nature but one can say that each of them has given an interesting and strong piece of the puzzle that has linked human nature to politics. The three philosophers in question are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I will be referring to them by their last name for simplicity. Starting with the philosophical views of each man we will see how they differ. It will be clear that each man’s idea comes from a very different perspective on human nature.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes And Jean Jacques Rousseau And The State Of Nature

    1865 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau were both influential philosophers with two completely different theories about the nature of human beings. While Hobbes’s’ theory was based upon the assumption that human nature was naturally born competitive, violent, and seeking power, Rousseau viewed human nature as good and pure, only until society corrupts it. Although Hobbes and Rousseau both viewed the state of nature quite differently, both their theories were similarly based on the image of how society was, before political government existed. The argument I would like to make is the idea that Hobbes’s vision and beliefs of human nature from the State of Nature is profoundly more logical and realistic than of Rousseau’s. To be human is to desire

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    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 finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and the Realist School

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that “only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life.” Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism.

    Read More

  • The Social Contract Theory: Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    Men such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke & Jean-Jacques Rousseau were prominent proponents of this theory. Particularly influenced by specific events taking place during their lifetime, each one of them perceived human nature differently and therefore had variant opinions about the role of government under the Social Contract.

    Read More

More about Enlightenment Political Philosophy

Open Document