Comparison Of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke And Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are three vital political thinkers who have made a distinctive contribution and finest exemplar to the idea on state of nature and the social contract. Prior to the establishment of the social contract, men lived in the condition termed as the state of nature. Heywood (2013) defines state of nature as a society without the presence of any political authority and of legal checks on each individual to regulate them. These political thinkers however made a contrasting view on the characteristic of men in the state of nature and also on the reasoning for the formation of government due to the time that this trio lived in. Hobbes lived during the time of Britain’s Civil War whereas Locke lived
…show more content…
This is because men are motivated by their self-interest and driven by their aversions as well as pursues for honour and dignity. Hobbes then further asserts that because of no common power, law is absent, when law is absent, there is in no way justice could prevail and men are in risk of the state of war against each other (Rosen & Wolff,1990). Therefore, in order for men to protect themselves, Hobbes states there is the need for common power, i.e. government, or ‘laws of nature’ for men to be protected against all others and achieve stable peace (Roberts & Sutch, 2004). To this, Baumgold (1998) suggests that Hobbes calls for individuals to grant their power and giving up individual’s right by nature upon one man only through social contract. In addition, Leviathan suggests the government needs to adopt absolute sovereign or practice absolute power in order for men to escape the miserable state of nature. Heywood (2013) argues that sovereign can be in the form of legal supremacy, political supremacy and internal supremacy. This is to avoid the risk of political instability and preventing men from returning to the state of
This is because men are motivated by their self-interest and driven by their aversions as well as pursues for honour and dignity. Hobbes then further asserts that because of no common power, law is absent, when law is absent, there is in no way justice could prevail and men are in risk of the state of war against each other (Rosen & Wolff,1990). Therefore, in order for men to protect themselves, Hobbes states there is the need for common power, i.e. government, or ‘laws of nature’ for men to be protected against all others and achieve stable peace (Roberts & Sutch, 2004). To this, Baumgold (1998) suggests that Hobbes calls for individuals to grant their power and giving up individual’s right by nature upon one man only through social contract. In addition, Leviathan suggests the government needs to adopt absolute sovereign or practice absolute power in order for men to escape the miserable state of nature. Heywood (2013) argues that sovereign can be in the form of legal supremacy, political supremacy and internal supremacy. This is to avoid the risk of political instability and preventing men from returning to the state of