Modern Liberalism
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophies and theories each differ from one another’s, but these three philosophers have all staked their claims as to what man would be like, prior to the formation of the state. This is the State of Nature. Their notions on the social contract reflect their position on the political spectrum. These three philosophers also examine the purpose and function of the government to individuals of the state.
Modern liberalism is the philosophical standpoint for an increase in social progress. Jean Jacques Rousseau provides a compelling account of modern era liberalism through his advocation because of his notions on good government, his social contract, and his beliefs in complete freedom. Due to this, he has allowed for mankind to achieve equality for all. He does not put restraints on what man can and cannot do. This is modern liberalism. In contrast, Thomas Hobbes in on the other end of the political spectrum and is classified as a conservative. John Locke falls between these for his notions are relatable to liberalism ad conservatism.
State of Nature
For Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is a theoretical model of life prior to the formation of the state, it’s institutions and the government. Individuals make their own decisions, and there are no recognized authoritative figures. There is also no morality. Hobbes believes that by nature, all humans are equal in faculties of body and mind, with no claims to exclusive benefits. Conflicts will arise due to this equality. When a particular object is desired by both parties, their competitive nature will suppress their natural desire for peace. Due to this, a state of war arises in which individuals ...
... middle of paper ...
...rough a social contract, individuals abandon their natural rights in favor of liberty and freedom. The purpose and function of the government is to provide security of freedom, equality and justice for all members of the state. A failed government is one that does not function in a moral manner to its subjects. State interference is allowed, but only if it is in the interests of the general will. In Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s state, the main purpose of anything is individual freedom, for without this, there is no point to the creation of a state.
Bibliography
Hobbes, Thomas, and Aloysius Martinich. Leviathan. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2002. Print.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. New York: Macmillan, 1986. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and C. J. Betts. Discourse on Political Economy ; And, The Social Contract. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
Political ideas change and adapt their perceptions of the social and political world through the years to cope with all changing aspects of life. Liberalism is no different. It is these changes that allow the idea to maintain its identity. Sometimes it is hard for some political ideas to adapt and change for instance the divine monarchists. Liberalism goes back at least 300years; this means that it has had to change a great deal, the ideas behind the ideology have remained the same though. Liberalism started attacking the monarchy in Britain but soon moved on to social change. This relates back to the heart of liberalism, the concept of the individual. This can be difficult because ‘man is born free, but everywhere in chains’ (- Jean-Jaques Rousseau). Liberalism was a political idea adopted by many countries during the 19th and 20th century and has been the source of many economic and social policies. Liberalism believes that each person should be free to act as they wish, it also believes that each individual deserves respect no matter of race, religion, sexual preference, or social status. Most liberals believe that the government is detrimental to liberalism’s beliefs because it does not allow everyone to be an individual since laws are in place to limit freedom. John Locke advocated this when he attacked the government saying ‘no government allows absolute liberty”. This is true because if no laws were in place then absolute liberty would soon be replaced by anarchy. Liberalism not only influenced equality but it was the basic idea behind the United States of America constitution. This was easy for the American governments to adopt because unlike other countries, it did not have to contend with aristocratic traditions and institutions.
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.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
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.
Typically Liberalism can be categorized into two different strands, Classical and Modern (yet some thinkers advocate a third strand that is referred to as Neo-Liberalism), each characterized by their differing and to some extent unavoidably overlapping attitudes regarding the theory behind the ideology and how it should be put into practice. Prior to examining how these relate to one another and before making any comparisons, it is important to give a definition, as best as possible, of Liberalism as a concept.
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
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.
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.
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
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.
A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.
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.
Liberalist government was founded on the ideas of liberty and equality. It involves free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property. During the Age of Enlightenment, political movements among philosophers and economists in the west pushed forward with the ideas of a liberal government. They rejected what was common at the time, like state religion and monarchy. John Locke was acknowledged for finding the traditions of liberalism. He argued that individuals have rights and that the government must not violate those rights. He opposed traditional conservatism.