In this paper, I will be analyzing and explaining the way that Hobbes and Rousseau’s ideas regarding the national condition of human beings differ. In my exegesis, I will be discussing how in Leviathan (ch. 13), Hobbes takes a stance regarding egoism, the idea that man always acts in their own interest. I will also be discussing the fact that Rousseau is fundamentally opposed to the ideas in which Hobbes presents. Rousseau believes that society taints the fundamental core beliefs of mankind. I will then present the critical point of this paper: the fact that the two philosophers have very conflicting viewpoints on the concept of human nature. Hobbes’ believes that man is naturally brutish and selfish, while Rousseau argues that the “noble
…show more content…
This idea is well known as egoism, and Hobbes is one of the most well-recognized philosophers that actively demonstrates the ideas of psychological egoism. In his book, Hobbes states that “No man giveth but with intention of good to himself; because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts the object to every man is his own pleasure.” (Leviathan 13). In its simplest form, the definition of psychological egoism as presented by Hobbes states that people always act in their own self-interest, but may sometimes disguise their truest motivation by attributing their actions to the ideals of …show more content…
Hobbes argues that men are innately selfish, while Rousseau believes that humans are naturally good beings. Rousseau argues that the “nature” presented by Hobbes is in fact “unnatural.” Hobbes argues that man is evil, that government is needed in order to protect the public, that the government should be all-powerful, and that power should not be shared. In contrast, Rousseau argues that man is good and that society is the reason that man has been misbehaving, that the government’s purpose is to protect the social contract, that the government should be able to be overthrown, and that power should be shared and direct. The main divergence in these two educated philosophers theories is the fact that Hobbes believes that society is needed in order to prevent mankind from a “human nature” that is beastly and savage, while Rousseau argues that human nature is inherently good, however when man come together in society, they corrupt
This idea is well known as egoism, and Hobbes is one of the most well-recognized philosophers that actively demonstrates the ideas of psychological egoism. In his book, Hobbes states that “No man giveth but with intention of good to himself; because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts the object to every man is his own pleasure.” (Leviathan 13). In its simplest form, the definition of psychological egoism as presented by Hobbes states that people always act in their own self-interest, but may sometimes disguise their truest motivation by attributing their actions to the ideals of …show more content…
Hobbes argues that men are innately selfish, while Rousseau believes that humans are naturally good beings. Rousseau argues that the “nature” presented by Hobbes is in fact “unnatural.” Hobbes argues that man is evil, that government is needed in order to protect the public, that the government should be all-powerful, and that power should not be shared. In contrast, Rousseau argues that man is good and that society is the reason that man has been misbehaving, that the government’s purpose is to protect the social contract, that the government should be able to be overthrown, and that power should be shared and direct. The main divergence in these two educated philosophers theories is the fact that Hobbes believes that society is needed in order to prevent mankind from a “human nature” that is beastly and savage, while Rousseau argues that human nature is inherently good, however when man come together in society, they corrupt