Comparing The Theories Of Thomas Hobbes And Jean Jacques Rousseau
For the past many years, people have been trying to figure out the relationship between the government and nature of man. The theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau about the connection between nature of man and the government have been debated for many years. These three philosophers have remarkably influenced the way our system works today. Although each theory had its flaws and merits, Jean Jacques Rousseau’s theory is superior in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who believed humans were naturally evil, Jean Rousseau believed that humans are born, neither good nor bad, thus corruption or goodness is taught from the society. For example, when children are born, everything they
learn is from their surroundings. They are not born evil because they do not know their needs and wants, it is taught to them. Jean Rousseau argued that before societies started to form, mankind lived like animals with no culture, speech, religion and they were not happy or sad, they were simply living their lives peacefully. However, humans differed from animals because they feel the need to improve, thus, forming societies to fulfill each other’s needs by teaching and learning from each other. As humans became more social, they also learned from each other. This in turn, created vices. For example, people would start to fight or manipulate each other for their own needs. Moreover, Jean Rousseau argued the only way to solve that issue would be to have a social contract that keeps everyone in order while serving the general will. Jean’s ideas of the general will was to have a government that serves the people’s best interest, the general will didn’t necessarily have to be what the majority wanted as long as the common good was being served.
Another reason why Jean Rousseau’s philosophy is superior is because he doesn’t believe in majority rules as John Locke proposes in his idea of how society should be governed. Rousseau believed that majority rule can also bring corruption instead of peace. For instance, when Adolf Hitler was in power being the Nazi group leader; the Nazis (the majority) treated the Jews in a way any human being should not be treated. Thus, proving that majority rule is not always a positive thing and John Locke’s theory is not the best way for people to be governed. For this reason, it was important that a government (that wasn’t necessarily the majority) that supports and follows the universal right was in power. As a philosopher, Jean Rousseau stands out from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke because his explanation of the relationship between nature of man and government is a better way to govern a society when comparing it to Thomas Hobbes or John Locke’s theory to how people should be governed. As Jean Rousseau also believes, societies can make people corrupted because that is how people start wanting what others have. Therefore, a government that believes in the universal good and follows the general will would be an ideal system for the people to be more righteous.
Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who believed humans were naturally evil, Jean Rousseau believed that humans are born, neither good nor bad, thus corruption or goodness is taught from the society. For example, when children are born, everything they
learn is from their surroundings. They are not born evil because they do not know their needs and wants, it is taught to them. Jean Rousseau argued that before societies started to form, mankind lived like animals with no culture, speech, religion and they were not happy or sad, they were simply living their lives peacefully. However, humans differed from animals because they feel the need to improve, thus, forming societies to fulfill each other’s needs by teaching and learning from each other. As humans became more social, they also learned from each other. This in turn, created vices. For example, people would start to fight or manipulate each other for their own needs. Moreover, Jean Rousseau argued the only way to solve that issue would be to have a social contract that keeps everyone in order while serving the general will. Jean’s ideas of the general will was to have a government that serves the people’s best interest, the general will didn’t necessarily have to be what the majority wanted as long as the common good was being served.
Another reason why Jean Rousseau’s philosophy is superior is because he doesn’t believe in majority rules as John Locke proposes in his idea of how society should be governed. Rousseau believed that majority rule can also bring corruption instead of peace. For instance, when Adolf Hitler was in power being the Nazi group leader; the Nazis (the majority) treated the Jews in a way any human being should not be treated. Thus, proving that majority rule is not always a positive thing and John Locke’s theory is not the best way for people to be governed. For this reason, it was important that a government (that wasn’t necessarily the majority) that supports and follows the universal right was in power. As a philosopher, Jean Rousseau stands out from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke because his explanation of the relationship between nature of man and government is a better way to govern a society when comparing it to Thomas Hobbes or John Locke’s theory to how people should be governed. As Jean Rousseau also believes, societies can make people corrupted because that is how people start wanting what others have. Therefore, a government that believes in the universal good and follows the general will would be an ideal system for the people to be more righteous.