Rousseau Theory Of Social Contract

1573 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: An essay on social contract meant to rousseau beliefs

The emergence of society from a pre-political state of nature can be explained by the concept of the social contract. Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have contrasting social contract theories. Hobbes’ social contract is founded on self-preservation and fear of the state of nature. It aims to establish one’s security, peace, and a system of justice by all voluntarily agreeing to a third party ruler or state. In comparison Rousseau’s social contract aims to find an association that will defend and protect an individual with common effort, established on one’s freedom in the state of nature. To better understand how Thomas Hobbes conceived his notion of the social contract in Leviathan (1651) one must closely examine Hobbes’ form of the state of nature. For Hobbes it was necessary to strip back human society to realise how our human nature …show more content…

It aims to defend the individual in society from corrupt establishments or states that have been influenced by their ego and private property, it also does not sacrifice an individual’s freedom, and instead civil and moral freedom are two of the main motives for Rousseau’s social contract. It reduces the power that the sovereign state has over people by establishing a direct democratic society based on the general will. However there are some concerns that arise with the general will, mainly the will of the people directed towards the common good can itself present a despotism of its own. This social contract theory promotes victimisation of minority groups to preserve the common good. Also what if an individual decides they do not want to live by the common interests of this new society? Rousseau would suggest being forced to be free as the interests of the whole are served only by following rational principles that cultivate the common good which is comparable to a totalitarian

Show More
Related

  • Thomas Hobbes V For Vendetta

    1604 Words  | 4 Pages

    To begin, philosophy, which means the love of wisdom, is the study of knowledge. The study of philosophy has evolved and is continually growing, however its foundations are firmly rooted in classical philosophers and their valuable attributions to the field of study.. Thomas Hobbes’ was a political philosopher alive in the 1500’s. One of his main inquiries as a philosopher was to establish a way for humans to co-exist peacefully. (Reid, Jeffrey) Hobbes conception of the social contract will be briefly introduced, as his understanding will serve as the definition of social contract for the purpose of this paper. Hobbes contemplated how and why human beings acted the way they do through two differing approaches.. Hobbes examined the difference between the right of nature and the law of nature. To explore the right of nature Hobbes explained that “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Hobbes State Of Nature

    1594 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke both present states of nature in which the human race exists prior to, or without the formation of civil society. These states of nature present stark differences between one other that emphasize the different views the two author’s have on the natural human state. The states of nature each give rise to their own distinct and separate reasons for forming a civil society and, consequently, giving up rights in order to form a civil society. I will begin my essay by presenting both Locke’s and Hobbes’ state of nature and outlining their differences. Then I will analyze the ways in which Hobbes’ state of nature may be seen as more plausible, as well as considering some possible objections to Hobbes’ view. Next I will examine Locke’s view and why it may be considered more plausible in addition to looking at some arguments against it. In this paper I intend to argue that Hobbes’ state of nature makes the acceptance of a civil society more plausible, but that Locke’s state of nature presents more plausibility in commonly held views or intuitions people may hold today.

    Read More

  • Hobbes as a Social Covenant Theorist

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the assigned portions of the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes proves to be a "social contract" theorist, however inconsistently. Through his explanation of humanity extracting itself out of the state of Nature, by developing rules pertaining to property and contract, by means of the creation of a Sovereign, or Common Wealth, he clearly elucidates the basic concepts of social contract theory.

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to account for acts of altruism. Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.”

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings.

    Read More

  • Political Science Final Exam

    758 Words  | 2 Pages

    2. What is the difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s conception of the state of nature, and how does it affect each theorist’s version of the social contract?

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant. What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he ...

    Read More

  • Analysis: We Can Force People To Be Free

    2204 Words  | 5 Pages

    In the Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the idea of forced freedom. “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the entire body; which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free” (Rousseau, SC, Bk 1. Ch. 7). This forced freedom is necessary for a government that is run by the people and not a small group of few to one sovereign(s). For forced freedom allows a difference of opinions but the outcome is the idea with the greatest acceptance. Because political rule requires the consent of the ruled, the citizens of the state are required to take action within their community.

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In his Social Contract, Rousseau describes the transition from a state of of nature, where men are naturally free, to a state where they have to relinquish their naturalistic freedom. In this state, and by giving up their natural rights, individuals communise their rights to a state or body politic. Rousseau thinks by entering this social contract, where individuals unite their power and freedom, they can then gain civic freedom which enables them to remain free as the were before. In this essay, I will endeavour to provide arguments and examples to conclude if Rousseau provides a viable solution to what he calls the 'fundamental problem' posed in the essay title.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2170 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hobbes’ basic view of nature can be described as cynicism towards how a human is naturally composed. The very nature of his argument is that humans in the state of nature live in a constant state of fear and unhealthy competition. Hobbes goes as far as to use the word anarchic to describe the state of nature, implying that human beings were naturally worried about themselves, so there was no state of order to check this natural desire. A driving reason behind the nature of Hobbes’ contract is because he believed that humans naturally had a “perpetual and restless desire for power after power, that ceaseth only in death”. He claims that part of this perpetual desire is “love of Contention from Competition”, the nature of humans to compare powers and then war over this competitive nature. Another reason he believes his social contract is ideal is that he believes that due to human beings natural want to live the easiest life possible, civil obedience would come naturally. Aside from that reason he believes that the natural and continual insecurity of each man from harm of another man would be a strong enough motive for man to buy into the contract. He states that the egotism from competition leads man in the state of a nature into a war of all men against all men. He called those lives in the state of nature short and barbaric and consisted of little else other than self-sustaining. He then postulated that this state was so horrible and that man y...

    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

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and the Realist School

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Leviathan, Hobbes states that a state of war will ensue that will put every man against himself. Eventually the state of war will lead the people towards peace and the only way to achieve the peace is through social contract. Hobbes continues further saying, social peace and civil unity are best achieved through the establishment of a commonwealth through a social contract. This social contract insists that a sovereign power be granted absolute power to protect the commonwealth. This sovereign power will be able to control the powers of human nature because its whole function is to protect the common man.

    Read More

  • Comparing Rousseau And Mill On Liberty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...gainst the state and the general will. Rousseau contends that, “every offender who attacks the social right becomes through his crimes a rebel and traitor to his homeland” (Rousseau 65). Once this offense has been undertaken, the criminal is longer a member of society and is now viewed as an enemy. The state’s preservation is at odds with the preservation of the offender and therefore the offender must be put to death. Also, Rousseau feels that the danger of members trying to enjoy the benefits of civil society without performing their required duties is a serious threat to civil society. Such actions must be constrained by all other citizens and offenders to this agreement must be “forced to be free” (Rousseau 55). This is a rather paradoxical argument as the idea of forcing someone to be free hardly works in most people’s definition of freedom. What is essential to remember here is that Rousseau believes that the true form of freedom can only come about once an individual enters civil society and accept the terms of the social contract. Therefore by forcing someone to adhere to society’s order, you are really granting them with civil freedom, the most important freedom of all.

    Read More

More about Rousseau Theory Of Social Contract

Open Document