Hobbes, locke, montesquieu, and rousseau on government starting in the 1600s, european philosophers began debating the question of who should govern a. The social contract theories of thomas hobbes and john locke introduction of history but it was the logical starting point that he assumed and from which he developed his structure for a safe civil society (b204) for hobbes self preservation was a natural law and man's most urgent instinct(k212) (ll122) (b205) for locke the state of. Hobbes and locke note as in figure 1, a given person with the median degree of collectivism p m chooses point g on the social-choice function sc, so that the degree of collectivization equals s m.
(hobbes, locke, rousseau) the social contract is a theory that originated during the enlightenment, which addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender. Hobbes locke rousseau state of nature the state of nature is a state of war no morality exists everyone lives in constant fear because of this fear, no one is really free, but, since even the “weakest” could kill the “strongest” men are equal men exist in the state of nature in perfect freedom to do what they want. A comparison of the hobbes's, locke's and rousseau's versions of the state of nature to a civil society pages 4 words 2,024 view full essay civil society, the state of nature, locke, hobbes not sure what i'd do without @kibin - alfredo alvarez, student @ miami university.
For locke and hobbes, they disagree on almost every characteristic of man in the state of nature and differ even more on the reasons as to why we form societythere are a few concepts which both theorists touch on but have different views such as: the main goal of man/government, what the environment is like in the state of nature, how man is. In this regard, rousseau’s conception of the state of nature is entirely more positive than hobbes’s conception of the same idea, as hobbes, who originated the term, viewed the state of nature as essentially a state of war and savagery. To rousseau, the sort of war hobbes describes is not reached until man leaves the state of nature and enters civil society, when property and law create a conflict between rich and poor aside from foreshadowing the work of marx and later theorists of class relations and societal inequality, rousseau’s conception of natural man is a key.
According to rousseau, “a remarkable change in man” occurs when he transitions “from the state nature to civil society” (1968, p64) with the discovery of reason his faculties become fully developed, leading to the recognition of justice and morality as guiding principles. Contrary to hobbes and locke who see transition to state as favorable, because it addresses the suffering of man, rousseau insists that the two had used civil rights to enhance the state of nature while neglecting the civil society. Property is the linchpin of locke’s argument for the social contract and civil government because it is the protection of their property, including their property in their own bodies, that men seek when they decide to abandon the state of nature. A comparison of the hobbes's, locke's and rousseau's versions of the state of nature to a civil society 2,024 words 4 pages 1,943 words 4 pages the interpretations of the need for laws in the society in literature works 534 words 1 page the state as an organism analogous to a large person in the state of nature.
An elementary comparison of these two versions of the state of nature boils down to the fact that hobbes’s interpretation is one that begins with a lack of reason and locke’s starts with reason programmed into mankind by a maker. Thomas hobbes, john locke, and jean jaques rousseau were three enlightenment thinkers who each drafted different ideas about the state of nature, and political solutions to make society and government more utopia-like. Among those thinkers were the philosophers thomas hobbes, john locke, and jean jacques rousseau who all differ in the manner in which they view human nature thomas hobbes (1858-1679), an english philospher, believed that all humans are egotistical and selfish.
Best answer: hobbes takes a rather pessimistic and fatalist view of human nature he says in leviathan that man is naturally, in essence, bad he describes man being self centered and that the want to acquire what another person wants (because of a scarcity of resources) would end in fighting and war of all against all. Political philosophy ii: locke and rousseau john locke (1632-1704) for hobbes, in the state of nature rational fear drives individuals to work with one another for locke individuals in the state of nature are indifferent to one another (but decide that it would be easier on them to work together. Hobbes contends that human beings are motivated purely by self-interest, and that the state of nature, which is the state of human beings without civil society, is the war of every person against every other. Hobbes, on the other hand, made his stand on the state of nature perfectly clear in a brief statement he said that there is no society that has no continual fear and danger of a violent death in such a state, the life of man would be poor, brutal, short, and nasty.