Comparing Hobbes And Rousseau's Assumptions About Human Nature
Essay Question
Compare Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s assumptions about human nature. In each case what follows from these assumptions? Who do you agree with, and why?
Throughout history, many philosophers have discussed the term ‘state of nature’ which is used to describe the natural condition of mankind either in the absence of a common authority or the lack of laws. In the book The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes one of most important political philosopher, examines the state of nature in detail and makes hypothetical arguments, which do not base itself on any historical evidence of such a state having ever been formed by humanity. Another significant political philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau who also discussed the natural …show more content…
For instance, as people start to build up their huts Rousseau says that “this was the epoch of a first revolution, which established and distinguished families, and introduced a kind of property, in itself the source of thousand quarrels and conflicts.” (Discourse on Inequality, p.8, § 10). Which means when private property is introduced, vice – versa in Hobbes arguments, disagreement, competition and distrust among people begins to play a part in the human nature. Briefly for Rousseau, by the time people quit living in a primitive state and a civil society is formed, organized in law system, specially in property rights, people lost their innocence and happiness, they start to fight each other; envy, hatred, dread of vengeance take place in the human nature. (Discourse on Inequality, p.9, § 18). So for Rousseau people completely changes, their nature does not consist gentleness any more, however, for Hobbes, human nature is still same as I cited before, the impulses are still in them and they has the will to keep, they only self – restraint. As a result of both assumptions it is true to say that for Rousseau, state of society is the state of war, however for Hobbes, state of nature equals to state of war of which civil society is the only cure for this endless war; this which reveal the disagreement among these political
Compare Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s assumptions about human nature. In each case what follows from these assumptions? Who do you agree with, and why?
Throughout history, many philosophers have discussed the term ‘state of nature’ which is used to describe the natural condition of mankind either in the absence of a common authority or the lack of laws. In the book The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes one of most important political philosopher, examines the state of nature in detail and makes hypothetical arguments, which do not base itself on any historical evidence of such a state having ever been formed by humanity. Another significant political philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau who also discussed the natural …show more content…
For instance, as people start to build up their huts Rousseau says that “this was the epoch of a first revolution, which established and distinguished families, and introduced a kind of property, in itself the source of thousand quarrels and conflicts.” (Discourse on Inequality, p.8, § 10). Which means when private property is introduced, vice – versa in Hobbes arguments, disagreement, competition and distrust among people begins to play a part in the human nature. Briefly for Rousseau, by the time people quit living in a primitive state and a civil society is formed, organized in law system, specially in property rights, people lost their innocence and happiness, they start to fight each other; envy, hatred, dread of vengeance take place in the human nature. (Discourse on Inequality, p.9, § 18). So for Rousseau people completely changes, their nature does not consist gentleness any more, however, for Hobbes, human nature is still same as I cited before, the impulses are still in them and they has the will to keep, they only self – restraint. As a result of both assumptions it is true to say that for Rousseau, state of society is the state of war, however for Hobbes, state of nature equals to state of war of which civil society is the only cure for this endless war; this which reveal the disagreement among these political