Hobbes Vs Rawls Analysis

According to “Biographical Briefing on Hobbes”, Hobbes argued that people are naturally wicked, selfish, and can’t be trusted to govern or make their own decisions because they would act in their own selfish interests if left alone. He believed that all people are equal and that this equality leads to competition and violence. According to Hobbes, governments were created to protect people from their own selfishness and evil. Therefore, he believed in absolute monarchy so that an authority can provide direction and leadership to the country. Hobbes believed that a democracy where citizens are allowed to vote for their leaders would never work (“Biographical Briefing on Hobbes”).

People have long considered how to appropriately structure society in order to provide the most justice and equality for all. Governments have been attempting to implement constitutions that provide these justice. However, before an emerging state can provide a just constitution, the theories of justice behind the constitution must be valid. Although Rawls has created a theory of justice that can detect injustice well, the rational falls short of persuasive as it disregards interpersonal comparisons of utilities, alternatives to the maximin strategy, and the end result principle. Before we can understand what Rawls’ theory of justice is, we must first understand the situation in which he imagines the theory of justice being initiated for society -- he calls this the original position.

After reading George Orwell - 20201 김나영 Before reading by George Orwell, I had read by Thomas Hobbes. In this book, Hobbes assumes that the situation before the existence of the state is the struggle of all people for all. And in this natural situation, it is said that the nation was born because individuals' lives and safety were given the highest priority so individuals had to transfer their rights to one another to make a strong sovereign personality that can ensure their safety. He also made it clear that for the state to exist forever, there must be a powerful sovereign rule and a citizen to obey it.

According to Hobbes, the only convenient way

John Rawls is probably the most influential political philosopher of the 20th century. His well-known difference principles, as well as the "Veil of Ignorance" not only show on the textbook of any students study politics but are also frequently cited by politicians in public debates. However, the Rawlsian theory of justice has received many critics as well. One thing that is attacked most, is the fact that the whole theory is mainly based on assumptions of an ideal society. It is seen as problematic by many scholars.

Does the need for government justify the many faults that have to be endured? Hobbes may argue that government is necessary, but that does not mean that every government in place is the best one possible. Hobbes states that without security outside of the self, “There is no place for industry… No account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; No Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death.(21)” Hobbes is saying that governments stabilize people for the overall success of the society.

As previously noted, Hobbes was not a supporter of staying content in human’s state of nature. He believed that in order to have a prosperous society, there must be a government, and in that government there must be a social contract. In order for there to be harmony among people, Hobbes says each individual must “lay down his right to all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.” (80) Thus stating that for there to be any harmony, there must first be a national agreement to refrain from certain acts of aggression.

Because this idea is all the contrary of Locke's idea. Because basically Hobbes thinks in a powerful government and not in the citizen. Most of people do not think in the part that the people chose the governors, and that they need no make all for the citizens. They think only of them and not of the same people that chose them. They forget about their rights obviously according to Hobbes idea they do not have a limited of power as the idea of Locke.

Hobbes believes our natural condition is extremely dangerous. When humans remain in their natural condition, every man is at war against every other man. Hobbes believes that our natural condition is the state of nature which is the stare of war. In the state of nature, there is no government and therefore no laws. Men are able to do anything they want.

Known mostly for his political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes was born in April of 1588, in England. After graduating from Oxford College in 1608, Hobbes began working for the royal Cavendish family as a tutor for William Cavendish. “Gaining access to books, and connections to philosophers and scientists”, Hobbes’s work with the Cavendish family proved to be influential in his intellectual development (Thomas Hobbes). In 1640, a time of civil unrest in England, Hobbes published Elements of Law, an introduction to his political philosophy. Due to his belief in absolute sovereignty and his connection with the Cavendish family, Hobbes left England for Paris in fear of punishment.

He believed that the situation was not entirely bleak because we are intelligent beings who can overcome the State of nature by forming states and creating civil society. Hobbes believed that if each individual shares the same views about acquiring peace and mutual co-operation then they can construct a social contract that will grant them immunity from the State of Nature. A social contract can be broken apart into two phases: the first is that people must mutually agree to establishing a society collectively by acknowledging each other’s right to live equally and the second phase is that they must agree to submit to the authority of an individual or group who will in turn make sure that the first phase of the social contract will be carried out. This is done so that those people who choose to engage in a social contract with one another can have surety that even if their counterparts fail to reciprocate the social contract terms then the authority in charge will enforce certain laws that will punish and deter people from going against the social contract. Since a state will be granted the authority to enforce punishments for those who breach the social contract then people will begin adjusting their lifestyles to in accordance with the social contract unlike in the State of Nature wereby there was no officially authority to rule and enforce order so that people can co-operate despite their differences.

He was of the opinion that it is not the duty of the state to make people virtuous. He believed that people should be allowed to choose their own conception of the good, the state should not interfere in any way as that would result in infringing on people’s rights to freedom and equality. Rawls tries to combine two key political values: freedom and equality. He believed that justice is about combining these two values. He does so by deploying an old idea in a new way: the idea of a social contract.

He believes that without these contracts, man would be in a constant state of civil war. The contracts ensure that peace can be established between men with security of survival. Hobbes says that, “it is a contract, wherein one recieveth the benefit of life” (133). To put these contracts in effect, “one must give up [their] right of governing [oneself], to this man, or to this assembly of men” (158). Having a sovereign ensures the safety and security of all men through a “coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant” (137).

Hobbes was an English philosopher, known through out the world as the author of “Leviathan” which is regarded as one of the earliest examples of the social contract theory. His writings were greatly influenced by the

Rawls first addresses the problem of legitimacy questioning how free and equal citizens with irreconcilable conceptions of what is good would be able to justify the distribution of benefits and burdens to one another. In order to solve this problem, Rawls relies on free agreement amongst citizens, thus a conception of justice that all members of a society can agree to on equal terms (Weinar, 2012:4). Secondly, in order to ensure a stable society, the conception of justice must rest on an overlapping consensus amongst citizens – thus individuals will support the same basic law of society for contrasting reasons which are directly related to each one’s own moral beliefs. The achievement of stability in a society, according to Rawls, is directly related to how close a society is to achieving ‘reflective equilibrium’ – in ‘reflective equilibrium’ all individual beliefs held members in a society cohere perfectly with one another, for example my political judgements would support my general political convictions which would in turn support my abstract beliefs about myself and my world. – although this is unattainable, it can be used as a method for justifying our beliefs (Weinar,