Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
Each political theorist agrees that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature. The state of nature is the condition men were in before political government came into existence, and what society would be if there was no government. In relation to this the two theorists raised as much praise as criticism for their famous masterpieces. Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.
The constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. War among men is consequent and nothing can be unjust. Notions of justice and injustice or right and wrong will not have a place in a society. Hobbes states that if there is no common power or law “force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues” that will result (Leviathan, 409). Limits must be put on freedom and inalienable rights. Hobbes lived in the 17th century, and wrote during the time of the English Civil War. His political views were most likely influenced by the war. Hobbes perceived that by bringing back the monarch, or any other sovereign, there would be an end to the civil war and is “necessary to peace and depending on sovereign power” (415). The original state of nature, according to Rousseau, is the perfect state for man, where he is born free but is everywhere in chains (The Social Contract, 49). In the original state, man lives alone in innocence where he is virtuous. Rousseau does not agree that man is an aggressive and greedy being in the original state of nature; in contrast, the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” as Hobbes suggests (Leviathan, 408). Rousseau argues that men are truly happy in the state of nature. Only when men become sociable, they become wicked. In Rousseau’s Social Contract, man is depicted as an ignorant, unimaginative animal.
Man has no reason or conscience when in contact with others. Possessions begin to be claimed, but the inequality of skill lead to inequality of fortunes. The idea of claiming possessions excites men’s passions, which provoke conflict and leads to war. Rousseau believes men are not perfect in their original state, but have the ability to live in a more perfect society with guidance of laws. This leads to the theory of institutionalizing a General Will, or what all possess that is common. Within the social pact, the body politics consists of an absolute power over its members. This absolute power “which, directed under the General Will, bears the name of sovereignty” (The Social Contract, 74). Rousseau has the impression that if people believe they are part of the government, they will work, fight, and build, without complaining about the belief that what helps the good of all people is going to be beneficial to them.
Rousseau was self-educated and based some of his theories on Hobbes and John Locke (28). In relation, the preservation of mankind is the law of nature established by the two political theorists: Hobbes and Rousseau. In order to abide by this law of nature, man enters into an agreement, forming the social contract. The social contract is a theory that views the foundation of morality being founded solely on uniform social agreements that serve the best interests of those who make the agreement. It is an agreement by which men are said to have abandoned the “state of nature” in order to form the society in which they now live. Hobbes believes that people surrender their natural rights and submit to the absolute authority of a sovereign, who attained power through the collective submission of the people. Even though the power of the sovereign is accumulated from the people, the sovereign has absolute power. Similar to a mortal god on earth, this great Leviathan, or sovereign, will provide order, rules an protection of man (Leviathan, 413). Rousseau, on the other hand, believes people should enter into a social contract where the individual must give up personal freedom to the general will, which is the sum of all private interests of the general people. Rousseau agrees with another political philosopher, John Locke, in the sense that the government should be democratic, and he agrees with Hobbes that it should be absolute (The Social Contract, 26). This supports that although there are many differences, there can be many similarities between the two theorists.
Men are conditionally in competition for honor and dignity, according to Hobbes. Envy and hatred arise, eventually causing war. With this view that humans are motivated only by selfish interests, Hobbes argues that people are better off living in a world with moral rules than without. Rules ensure the safety of everyone’s property. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that only possession exists in a state of nature. Property is acknowledged only when laws are made and abided by. In Rousseau’s social contract, people convert their liberty from independence in the original state, into political and moral freedom. Rousseau does not agree with Hobbes’s belief that war prevails among men in the state of nature because of pride, but says that war is a product of conflicts about property. Since property does not exist in the state of nature, neither does war.
The social contract is formed to improve things and create order. A government is formed with the basic purpose to serve the rights of the common good of the people. The job of the legislature is to represent the will of the majority. If the rights of the people are not protected, the legislature is not representing the will of the majority and should be replaced. This form of a government is representation of a democracy, which is prevalent in the United States. According to Hobbes, continual war is inevitable if there is no government. Since individuals in the state of nature do what is in their best self-interest, at one point they decided to voluntarily and mutually transfer their rights to another person: a great leviathan or sovereign. This results from an attempt to get out of the miserable, constant state of war (Leviathan, 409). Hobbes interpreted government to be a single governing body, made up of the power of the masses. Hobbes contends that if there is no power to keep people in awe, they will continually be in war against each other. For this reason, the power of the sovereign must be absolute. His idea of government is typical to that of a fascist regime. Revolution was only justified if the people were in a state of war with the government.
In Rousseau’s social contract, the individual must give up personal freedom to the general will, which is the sum of all private interest of the general people. Rousseau has the impression that if people believe they are part of the government, they will work, fight, and build, without complaining in the belief that what helps the good of all people is going to be beneficial to them. He believes men are inclined to be stupid creatures. This assumption can be applied rather differently than as stated above. If men believe they are part of the government, then they will not doubt anything. Doubting, according to Rousseau, will only hurt society. ‘‘Man’s participation in society must be consistent with his existence as a free and rational being’’(The Social Contract, 63). Society cannot be legitimate if subjects are enslaved. For this reason, man cannot be governed by a sovereign as Hobbes claims; instead, democratic institutions providing for civic freedom of subjects and their equal participation in legislative deliberation and decision is the necessary form of government.
Hobbes and Rousseau’s expectations exceed what the average man is willing to do in support of the state. In a Hobbsian state, a citizen is expected to give up all power to the state in the name of self-interest. The reason is the benefits the citizen receives, such as life, is in their self-interest. Other things begin to arise out of this situation that are not in the citizen’s self interest. The Hobbsian state can produce laws, which hurt or oppress nearly every citizen in the state, and the laws are justified because there is no such thing as a bad law. An effect can be that the absolute authority the Hobbsian state has as a result of the contract. The citizens have no recourse against the government, which is oppressing them, in the name of their own self-interest. This state, once the contract is agreed to, gives the citizens no action the sovereign does not allow. The sovereign does not give the citizens a voice in the decisions being made, and therefore, it does not have to please the citizens (Leviathan, 414). It makes no difference if the citizens within this state are discontent, because they have no form of action they can take. While the citizens in this state are allowed to fulfill self-interest, they are not free to pursue their interests via the state. The citizens in Rousseau’s state would also be unwilling to meet the demand placed on them. They are asked to give up all self-interest in the name of the collective good. This goes beyond human nature. Man is naturally self-interested and this cannot be changed. Because Rousseau does not allow for self-interest in government, progress will be limited because of the lack of exchange of opposing views. John Stuart Mill states the importance of opposing views, “he who only knows one side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side: if he does not so much as know what they are, he had no ground for preferring either opinion” (On Liberty, 38). This will inevitably restrict the boundaries of Rousseau’s theory on self-interest based governments.
Hobbes and Rousseau constructed their own versions on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.