Thomas Hobbes's Discourse On Inequality And Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes is a philosopher who wrote Leviathan and claims that men are equal when they were in natural condition. Jean Jack Rousseau is another philosopher who claims men are composed of two classes when the state was established: poor and rich. At first blush, Hobbes and Rousseau is appearing too different since they have been. Namely, However, equality causes evil in Hobbes ' theory. However, in Rousseau 's inequality, there is benevolence. Their assumptions about the state of nature have huge differences. They are the almost antithesis of each other. According to my approach, the human can not be as bad as Hobbes ' claim. However, there is not sufficient reason to contract in Rousseau 's

In the early eighteenth century, two English philosophers named Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were inspired by the brutal English Civil war to write about the natural characteristics of humans. In his book, Leviathan, Hobbes expresses his opinion that humans were naturally egotistical, vicious, and greedy towards others, as there would be no question of morality or punishment for their actions. However, Locke believed that humans had a natural sense of morality, and also that people had the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Hobbes and Locke then used their opinions on basic human nature to define why people form a government, which they describe as a “social contract,”

Thomas Hobbes has been famous for his philosophies on political and social order. In many of his scholastic works, he maintains the position that in the presence of a higher authority the duty of the rest of mankind is to simply obey. The discourse on this essay will focus on his views expressed in his book The Leviathan. In this book Hobbes’ views are fundamentally entrenched in his description that in a society with no higher authority life would be nasty, short and brutish (?).This essay will engage in discussion by first laying out the conceptual arguments of anarchy and the human state of nature. Secondly, it will assess some of the opponent views to repressive government being the sure maintenance of political and social order. Furthermore an assessment of whether the theories of Hobbes are still relevant to the current understanding of International Relations considering the events and processes in this particular stage.

Two famous philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have contributed to modern political science by expressing their views on human nature and the general laws that man had to follow. Both of their views differed in terms of how man should live his life. These views will be shown by comparing both philosophers’ opinions on the nature of man, and the various laws that constituted.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two theorists known for their views regarding the social contract. Both theorists study the origins of government and the level of authority given to the state over individuals, thoroughly constructing their arguments through the social contract. A philosophical approach was used in both Hobbes’s and Locke’s arguments, however supporting different authorities. Thomas Hobbes advocates for absolutism whilst John Locke advocates for a constitutional government. Through the close examination of the state of nature, the relationships between subject and sovereign and views regarding the social contract, one can observe a more sensible basis for constructing a successful political society.

When comparing the two different accounts of English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke we must take into consideration a number of things such as the age in which they lived and the time in which they produced their philosophical writings. We will however find out that these two philosophers actually have a couple of things in which agree on even though most of their opinions clash. On one side we have Thomas Hobbes who lived in the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651) who provides a negative framework for his philosophical opinions in his masterpiece Leviathan and who advocates for philosophical absolutism . On the other side we have John Locke, living during the glorious revolution (1688-1689) he presents a positive attitude in his book The Second Treatise of Government and advocates for philosophical and biblical constitutionalism.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust. There is only constant fear of violence and death, and hence the life of man will be solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short as Hobbes mentions.

Edmund Burke, after a visit to France in 1773, wrote a pamphlet titled Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) to express his disdain for the events and methods of the French Revolution. Where other political writers of the Enlightenment and Anti-Enlightenment Eras propose theories of politics and government, Burke does not promote a theory, a set of premises, a call to action, or even a succinct conclusion. He rather details his disposition of contractual government and politic science. He believes that the human condition, the traditions, experiences, and knowledge acquired by humans, is far to complex to be described by science and therefore avoids he commonly held views of political science from the Enlightenment Era. However, Thomas Hobbes, as he writes in Leviathan (1651) believed that all political phenomenons could be reported systematically as he equated all humans to machines, predictable by consistently acting in their self interest. [PG 3] Burke’s criticism that can be applied to Hobbes lies on three fronts; that the understanding human condition cannot be derived through logic; that consent, explicit or tacit, does not exist after the first social contract; and that a rebellion is neither possible nor effective when in a social contract.

The human condition is a subjective term used to encompass the things that differentiate humans from animals. Through the philosophy of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, their beliefs of what is natural shapes their insight into the human condition. Locke believes that nature is governed by a general law of reason and that people are free, equal, and independent in this life. Whereas Rousseau believes that a hypothetical nature is ideal yet humans are corrupted through the formation of societies. This basis in the belief of nature shapes Locke’s and Rousseau’s beliefs regarding learning, dependency, social interaction, and living when exploring the human condition.

Hobbes’ interpretation of the state of nature forms a clear dystopian image of pre-society. He argues that in the state of nature all men are equal in the sense that each can pose a real threat to each other. For

“In 1651, Hobbes wrote one of the most influential philosophical treatises in human history, Leviathan or the Matter Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Like his rival, John Locke, Hobbes posited that in a state of nature men and women were free to pursue and defend their own interests, which resulted in a state of war in which “the life of man” was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”(“Philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers and the First Principles,”

In the analysis “Rousseau’s Critique of Economic Inequality” the author argues for five specific points. While the author generally agrees with Rousseau, he does push back in a couple of areas or take the argument further. He also compares Rousseau’s argument to that of other philosophers who I have not yet studied. Instead, I looked introspectively at my own state of nature and evaluated where I derive my self-worth. Rousseau’s argument that empathy is missing from a reasoned society is evident all around us, yet our educational institutions, workforce and government reward the ambitious. Perhaps we can eliminate the chains we have put upon ourselves, but societal institutions provide no incentives to do so.

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature. This state of nature was the conditions in which we lived before there were any political governments to rule over us and it described what societies would be like if we had no government at all. In this essay I will compare the opinions given by each philosopher regarding their understanding of the state and the law. I will also discuss how their theories have influenced our understanding of the law today.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society. Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form.

Jeans-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men is a defence of the original man in a state of nature and an attack on the corrupt and elitist European society of his day. Rousseau sought to ‘go back to an earlier point and try to piece together[… the] slow succession of events’ in order to pinpoint where humanity degenerated from the state of nature to today’s “civilised” society. In this sense, Rousseau seems to be attributing the process of socialisation to ‘all the evils’ in the world. In order to explore what, according to Rousseau, were the worst effects of socialisation and as a result how they impacted humanity, four points require