Hobbes And Rousseau
The State of Nature and its
Implications for Civilization in Hobbes and Rousseau
In his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes expresses a philosophy of civilization which is both practical and just and stems from a clear moral imperative. He begins with the assertion that in the state of nature man is condemned to live a life "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." It is in the interest of every man to rise above this "state of nature" and to give up certain rights so that the violent nature of the human animal can be subdued. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's vision of the state of nature parallels that of Hobbes but for its more optimistic tone: "I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater …show more content…
than the strength that each man has to preserve himself in that state." In general, Rousseau's words prove reasonably less severe than Hobbes's.
According to Hobbes the bestial rights that a man is forced to give up must also be given up by every other man if civilization is to quell the state of nature. This surrendering of rights then forms covenant of peace which mankind has agreed upon collectively to rise above the state of nature. Hobbes argues that it is human reason that has necessarily led men to embrace this covenant: "And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement . . . ." These Articles of Peace Hobbes calls "Laws of Nature" and argues that while they do not exist in a state of nature they are nonetheless natural laws which potentially exist there. "A Law of Nature (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved." That is, a natural law is a result of a reasoning which commands that each man protect his own life.
With the state of nature as terrible as Hobbes describes it, it is reasonable for a man to wish to put an end to it, as he then has a greater chance of protecting his own life. Without certain agreements between individuals they interact in a manner in which they are all a constant threat to one another. Therefore Hobbes arrives at the first fundamental law of nature: "That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of war." Hobbes suggests a natural desire for peace arising out of reason, but he is wise enough to recognize that this desire is still a self-serving one, and that men are still required to defend themselves when others show no sign of attempting peace.
Hobbes argues for the rule of a monarch for his peace centered civil society. He believes that a monarch who understands the basis for the covenant, who adheres to it and truly recognizes the importance of justice for all of humanity, is the most efficient and trustworthy method of transcending the state of nature. For Hobbes the most important aspect of justice is keeping the peace through adherence to the natural law. Peace reigns supreme in his vision of civilization and a strong ruler who can pass laws to ensure that his subjects respect the covenant is needed. Although such a government might be granted a dangerous amount of power, nonetheless an overarching sovereign with knowledge of the natural laws is needed to keep in line those who would abuse the liberties granted them through the covenant, thus threatening the society with a return to the state of nature.
Rousseau, in contrast, sees a true transcendence of the state of nature as including more than simply peace.
His goal is more ambitious than Hobbes's. Because in Rousseau's philosophy humans in a state of nature are not suffering as directly as Hobbes suggests, their goal is more than just the peace described in Leviathan: "How to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before." For Rousseau, it is possible that all subjects of a government not feel oppressed but instead liberated by their rulers. They are not following laws because they are ordered to, but because they recognize that they are benefiting from the …show more content…
laws. Rousseau is idealistic in his vision of a universal respect for the liberty of all citizens following the rise of civilization out of the state of nature. In his view "Surely it must be admitted, then, that might does not make right, and that the duty of obedience is owed only to legitimate powers." With the introduction of "legitimate powers" Rousseau elevates the status of justice in a civilization. He first finds it necessary to discriminate between force and right and obedience and duty. When one uses force he is recognized as acting unjustly. Right implies that those receiving his actions also accept his right to perform them. Duty implies that not only is one doing as another might command, but doing it willingly, out of an understanding of some sort. Rousseau is essentially broadening the idea of natural law.
For Rousseau then, civilization extends beyond peace.
He hopes to show that a society is not ordered by control but by agreement. His goal is to portray society as a universally accepted condition which all members freely choose as a welcome alternative to the state of nature. "We might also add that man acquires with civil society, moral freedom, which alone makes man the master of himself; for to be governed by appetite alone is slavery, while obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom." The idea that members of a society are obeying only themselves is an ideal implied by Hobbes but explained more explicitly by Rousseau. Hobbes suggests that all members of a society give up their bestial right to do as they please to an overarching power. This power, according to Hobbes, should be a monarch. This single ruler is expected to be just but all powerful. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that power should not be given up by the people, that it is possible for them to keep a covenant with themselves. Here he introduces his idea of the
sovereign.
Rousseau treats the sovereign almost as an individual. It is the general will of the people, the spirit of a society, and the enforcer of laws. "My argument, then, is that sovereignty, being nothing other than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated; and that the sovereign, which is simply a collective being, cannot be represented by anyone but itself power may be delegated, but the will cannot be." This statement is one that fundamentally differentiates Rousseau from Hobbes. Hobbes believes that the will of a monarch is sufficient to fulfill the role of the sovereign, but Rousseau feels that the will of the sovereign cannot be separated from the will of the people. He has faith that the common interest of the members of a society can be distilled and acted upon by a government which listens not to the will of an individual but to the people.
Reaching a level free from the state of nature for Rousseau is not only keeping the covenant of peace, as it is with Hobbes, but also achieving universal liberty within a society. This liberty is achieved by instating a government which acts upon the will of the people. "From the deliberations of a people properly informed, and provided its members do not have any communication among themselves, the great number of small differences will always produce a general will and the decision will always be good." Each man acts based on his own reasoned will, recognizing the need for government and readily and actively giving up certain rights in exchange for the civil rights of established society. "There is undoubtedly a universal justice which springs from reason alone, but if that justice is to be acknowledged as such it must be reciprocal." Rousseau recognizes that there must be laws to assure the reciprocation of the surrendering of the violent rights of the state of nature, similar to the views of Hobbes.
While Hobbes and Rousseau have different ideas about mankind, and the ways in which they may conduct themselves outside civilized society, both agree that their contemporary world is not a world of the human animal. Changes have occurred not only in the way humans are ordered, but in humans themselves as well. Their theories differ in their beliefs about these changes. Hobbes is able to recognize the current state of man as having transcended its most basic nature. Rousseau agrees with Hobbes but assumes even more of man. He believes that it is possible not only for humans to be at peace but also to be free. Just how far society has transcended the state of nature in today's world is debatable, but one gets the feeling in reading these two authors that Hobbes underestimates human nature and Rousseau overestimates it. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle, for many societies today are barely able to achieve peace within their borders, while a handful can truly be said to have a liberated populace. It is certainly no coincidence, however, that Rousseau's vision of society heralds liberty as its highest ideal and that the most progressive states of today do likewise. Mankind's ever evolving flight from the state of nature moves people to continually expect more from their society as well as themselves.
Implications for Civilization in Hobbes and Rousseau
In his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes expresses a philosophy of civilization which is both practical and just and stems from a clear moral imperative. He begins with the assertion that in the state of nature man is condemned to live a life "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." It is in the interest of every man to rise above this "state of nature" and to give up certain rights so that the violent nature of the human animal can be subdued. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's vision of the state of nature parallels that of Hobbes but for its more optimistic tone: "I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater …show more content…
than the strength that each man has to preserve himself in that state." In general, Rousseau's words prove reasonably less severe than Hobbes's.
According to Hobbes the bestial rights that a man is forced to give up must also be given up by every other man if civilization is to quell the state of nature. This surrendering of rights then forms covenant of peace which mankind has agreed upon collectively to rise above the state of nature. Hobbes argues that it is human reason that has necessarily led men to embrace this covenant: "And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement . . . ." These Articles of Peace Hobbes calls "Laws of Nature" and argues that while they do not exist in a state of nature they are nonetheless natural laws which potentially exist there. "A Law of Nature (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved." That is, a natural law is a result of a reasoning which commands that each man protect his own life.
With the state of nature as terrible as Hobbes describes it, it is reasonable for a man to wish to put an end to it, as he then has a greater chance of protecting his own life. Without certain agreements between individuals they interact in a manner in which they are all a constant threat to one another. Therefore Hobbes arrives at the first fundamental law of nature: "That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of war." Hobbes suggests a natural desire for peace arising out of reason, but he is wise enough to recognize that this desire is still a self-serving one, and that men are still required to defend themselves when others show no sign of attempting peace.
Hobbes argues for the rule of a monarch for his peace centered civil society. He believes that a monarch who understands the basis for the covenant, who adheres to it and truly recognizes the importance of justice for all of humanity, is the most efficient and trustworthy method of transcending the state of nature. For Hobbes the most important aspect of justice is keeping the peace through adherence to the natural law. Peace reigns supreme in his vision of civilization and a strong ruler who can pass laws to ensure that his subjects respect the covenant is needed. Although such a government might be granted a dangerous amount of power, nonetheless an overarching sovereign with knowledge of the natural laws is needed to keep in line those who would abuse the liberties granted them through the covenant, thus threatening the society with a return to the state of nature.
Rousseau, in contrast, sees a true transcendence of the state of nature as including more than simply peace.
His goal is more ambitious than Hobbes's. Because in Rousseau's philosophy humans in a state of nature are not suffering as directly as Hobbes suggests, their goal is more than just the peace described in Leviathan: "How to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before." For Rousseau, it is possible that all subjects of a government not feel oppressed but instead liberated by their rulers. They are not following laws because they are ordered to, but because they recognize that they are benefiting from the …show more content…
laws. Rousseau is idealistic in his vision of a universal respect for the liberty of all citizens following the rise of civilization out of the state of nature. In his view "Surely it must be admitted, then, that might does not make right, and that the duty of obedience is owed only to legitimate powers." With the introduction of "legitimate powers" Rousseau elevates the status of justice in a civilization. He first finds it necessary to discriminate between force and right and obedience and duty. When one uses force he is recognized as acting unjustly. Right implies that those receiving his actions also accept his right to perform them. Duty implies that not only is one doing as another might command, but doing it willingly, out of an understanding of some sort. Rousseau is essentially broadening the idea of natural law.
For Rousseau then, civilization extends beyond peace.
He hopes to show that a society is not ordered by control but by agreement. His goal is to portray society as a universally accepted condition which all members freely choose as a welcome alternative to the state of nature. "We might also add that man acquires with civil society, moral freedom, which alone makes man the master of himself; for to be governed by appetite alone is slavery, while obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom." The idea that members of a society are obeying only themselves is an ideal implied by Hobbes but explained more explicitly by Rousseau. Hobbes suggests that all members of a society give up their bestial right to do as they please to an overarching power. This power, according to Hobbes, should be a monarch. This single ruler is expected to be just but all powerful. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that power should not be given up by the people, that it is possible for them to keep a covenant with themselves. Here he introduces his idea of the
sovereign.
Rousseau treats the sovereign almost as an individual. It is the general will of the people, the spirit of a society, and the enforcer of laws. "My argument, then, is that sovereignty, being nothing other than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated; and that the sovereign, which is simply a collective being, cannot be represented by anyone but itself power may be delegated, but the will cannot be." This statement is one that fundamentally differentiates Rousseau from Hobbes. Hobbes believes that the will of a monarch is sufficient to fulfill the role of the sovereign, but Rousseau feels that the will of the sovereign cannot be separated from the will of the people. He has faith that the common interest of the members of a society can be distilled and acted upon by a government which listens not to the will of an individual but to the people.
Reaching a level free from the state of nature for Rousseau is not only keeping the covenant of peace, as it is with Hobbes, but also achieving universal liberty within a society. This liberty is achieved by instating a government which acts upon the will of the people. "From the deliberations of a people properly informed, and provided its members do not have any communication among themselves, the great number of small differences will always produce a general will and the decision will always be good." Each man acts based on his own reasoned will, recognizing the need for government and readily and actively giving up certain rights in exchange for the civil rights of established society. "There is undoubtedly a universal justice which springs from reason alone, but if that justice is to be acknowledged as such it must be reciprocal." Rousseau recognizes that there must be laws to assure the reciprocation of the surrendering of the violent rights of the state of nature, similar to the views of Hobbes.
While Hobbes and Rousseau have different ideas about mankind, and the ways in which they may conduct themselves outside civilized society, both agree that their contemporary world is not a world of the human animal. Changes have occurred not only in the way humans are ordered, but in humans themselves as well. Their theories differ in their beliefs about these changes. Hobbes is able to recognize the current state of man as having transcended its most basic nature. Rousseau agrees with Hobbes but assumes even more of man. He believes that it is possible not only for humans to be at peace but also to be free. Just how far society has transcended the state of nature in today's world is debatable, but one gets the feeling in reading these two authors that Hobbes underestimates human nature and Rousseau overestimates it. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle, for many societies today are barely able to achieve peace within their borders, while a handful can truly be said to have a liberated populace. It is certainly no coincidence, however, that Rousseau's vision of society heralds liberty as its highest ideal and that the most progressive states of today do likewise. Mankind's ever evolving flight from the state of nature moves people to continually expect more from their society as well as themselves.