The discussion on the
state of nature and of the system of government most beneficial for the
mankind has been the favorite subjects of political scientists since the
early Greek period. It was Plato (428-c. 347 BC) who for the first time
presented the concept of an ideal state “Utopia” and his views on the state
of nature. Among the medieval theorists, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jean
Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) also expressed their theories on the subject.
In their philosophical works, both explain the humans being in a state of
nature and made arguments explaining the need for a central government. A
brief comparison of the views of the two philosophers is as follows.
Trusted by over 145,000
highly satisfied students for custom essay writing
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679 lived during the time when England was going
through a serious political turmoil in the reign of King Charles I. Thomas
Hobbes wrote Leviathan during the so-called English Revolution (1640-1660) a
time of great upheaval and disorder. In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes described
an imaginary “state of nature” in which people lived without a government.
Hobbes said that people living in the state of nature would be at constant
war with one another."No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of
all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man,
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
In such a state all people would be free to do whatever they wanted to do,
but nobody could enjoy this freedom because all people would have the right
to trample the freedoms of others. Freedom is freedom only when it is secure
and free from intervention. Giving power to the individual would create a
dangerous situation that would start a "war of every man against every man"
and make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
The only way to get out of this problem is for all citizens to agree to obey
a single power that is strong enough to force everyone to follow rules and
live in peace. People fearing death in the state of nature agree to abide by
laws to preserve their lives. Hobbes believed that only a ruler with
absolute powers could assure full security to his subject. Morality alone
cannot run the society. Also morality is not higher than law and of course
not binding but optional. Agreements not protected by force or swords are
mere words.According to Hobbes, governments are formed, to protect people
from their own selfishness and evil. The best government was one that had
the great power of a Leviathan, or sea monster. Since the individuals were
only interested in promoting their own self-interests, Hobbes believed that
democracy, which is a government, formed by popular vote would never work.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Jean Jacques Rousseau, (1712-1778) was a French philosopher, social and
political theorist, musician, and botanist of the 18th century. His work the
Social Contract being his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality was
published in 1755.
Man in state of nature was living a peaceful and happy life according to
Rousseau. He was contented with the simple lifestyles and was independent,
self sufficient, healthy and fearless. He was free from any worries of
getting harmed by his fellow beings. He was united with others due to
primitive instinct and sympathy. It was thus a pure, simple and innocent
life in which everyone was enjoying perfect freedom and equality. Man was
absolutely free from the spiritless influence of civilization and was not
subject to laws and regulations of a so-called ‘civilized society’.
Unfortunately, these conditions did not last for long. The increase in
population brought economic growth and created a sense of belonging among
men. The introduction of fixed property made men to think in terms of thine
and mine.
Trusted by over 145,000
highly satisfied students for custom essay writing
The simple and
innocent man of the ‘state of nature’ was corrupted by the introduction of
civilized norms. The primitive conditions lasted no longer and equality and
happiness was lost. Mankind enters into a state of war that resembled
Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’. They became selfish, nasty and brutish towards
each other. A lust for private property made everyone selfish and unkind to
others. The strong ones used their power and strength to suppress the weak
and annexed more and more land and properties. As a result, a society of
rich and poor emerged. In this new social set up men were continuously at
war with each other. To avoid the circumstances of confrontation and terror,
the only solution was the formation of a civil society. Natural freedom was
replaced by civil freedom through a social contract of ‘each with all’ and
‘all with each’. This contract transformed a multitude of individuals to
become a collective unity, a society. The society is thus ruled by a set of
laws enforced by the authority of the state and rulers. The liberty men
enjoyed in the state of nature is thus gone. Now he is on stage, which
Rousseau called ‘Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.’
To Rousseau, the value of liberty was of main importance. He saw the
‘chains’ of government and laws as being justified only when they were based
on the will of the people for the common good. Indeed he thought that
obeying such laws makes us ‘free’, and that those who fail to obey them
could legitimately be ‘forced to be free’. In a civilized society, the born
free man is bound by the rules and regulation imposed by the state. In case
of corrupt government exercising absolute power over the subjects, men are
deprived of their natural freedom enjoyed by them previously while living in
state of nature. He advocated the existence of moral values in the society
and maintained that strength should not be displayed in negative
direction.“The strongest man is never strong enough to be always master,
unless he transforms his power into right, and obedience into duty”.
Comparison
The above description of the views of Hobbes and Rousseau on the same
subjects shows that Hobbes thought of the human beings as selfish, nasty and
brutish in the state of nature. On the other hand, Rousseau believed them as
innocent, loving and helpful initially, however, with the passage of time
they were transformed to the state described by Hobbes.
Hobbes advocates the presence of a strong and absolute ruler or a king to
control the men living in a civilized society. Rousseau opposed a
totalitarian rule and wanted a government in which personal liberties are
guaranteed by the state. He holds that men should not give up the freedom
they enjoyed in the state of nature and should be governed by moralities in
order to respect each others freedom and life. For Hobbes, there was no such
thing as morality and all that could make a society intact was absolute
power.
Conclusion
Hobbes promoted a concept of totalitarian monarchy while Rousseau brought a
concept of a healthy democracy. Keeping in view the nature of man and the
present circumstances, a healthy democracy is no doubt the best from of
government provided it does not go corrupt.
Trusted by over 145,000
highly satisfied students for custom essay writing
