Two political theorists, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, have written extensively on the topic of political philosophy. In doing so, they provide different accounts seeking to justify sovereignty. Sovereignty is generally understood as supreme power or authority, although the writers provide analysis outlining features that play a role in justifying their account of sovereignty. These two authors are consent theorists, so they endorse the idea that the basis of governance relies on individuals entering consensual relationships with one another (In Class Notes 9/1). There are commonalities and differences in the accounts described by Hobbes and Rousseau, focusing on a few main features. These features include the “state of nature”,
…show more content…
The authors view the “state of nature” differently, which therefore affects contracting and the sovereign. To Hobbes, the “state of nature” is a fiction, or a time that exists only hypothetically before the formation of any civilization (In Class Notes 9/3). The aim of this hypothetical state is to describe human nature before society, government, and law. Hobbes claims that this hypothetical existence is encompassed by constant war, violence, and death. The state of nature is defined by war of “all against all” (In Class Notes 9/8). This constant war and “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” life is fueled by the passions, specifically fear (Hobbes 186). In the state of nature as Hobbes sees it, every individual is involved in a constant strive for power where everyone is fearful and …show more content…
Hobbes thinks that a social contract is needed to find peace by escaping the state of nature and stopping the state of constant war. Forming the social contract is necessary, according to Rousseau, because the contract establishes civil society to protect the general will. When it comes to forming the social contract, the authors have different views about how they are formed. Rousseau believes that voluntary subjection is contrary to nature. Hobbes thinks the opposite and says that subjects do opt into contract voluntarily because of fear and insecurity within the state of nature. Rousseau says that people contract to protect their liberties so they are forced to be free (In Class Notes
The authors view the “state of nature” differently, which therefore affects contracting and the sovereign. To Hobbes, the “state of nature” is a fiction, or a time that exists only hypothetically before the formation of any civilization (In Class Notes 9/3). The aim of this hypothetical state is to describe human nature before society, government, and law. Hobbes claims that this hypothetical existence is encompassed by constant war, violence, and death. The state of nature is defined by war of “all against all” (In Class Notes 9/8). This constant war and “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” life is fueled by the passions, specifically fear (Hobbes 186). In the state of nature as Hobbes sees it, every individual is involved in a constant strive for power where everyone is fearful and …show more content…
Hobbes thinks that a social contract is needed to find peace by escaping the state of nature and stopping the state of constant war. Forming the social contract is necessary, according to Rousseau, because the contract establishes civil society to protect the general will. When it comes to forming the social contract, the authors have different views about how they are formed. Rousseau believes that voluntary subjection is contrary to nature. Hobbes thinks the opposite and says that subjects do opt into contract voluntarily because of fear and insecurity within the state of nature. Rousseau says that people contract to protect their liberties so they are forced to be free (In Class Notes