Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all illustrate different forms of legitimate government based on different key characteristics from varying ideas of what the state of nature would look like.
Each author’s government aims to provide solutions to the problems presented in the state of nature. Because of their views on human nature each author envisions a different levels of involvement of the citizens. A balance between power to the government and liberty to the citizens is necessary for a successful social contract and a legitimate government. Hobbes’ government does not give enough liberty to the citizens, while Rousseau’s general will is an unrealistic expectation for human nature to achieve even in a society. Locke’s social contract would constitute …show more content…
A legitimate government would be at the mercy of citizen approval not the other way around.
Locke’s view of human nature is much more neutral than Hobbes. In Locke’s state of nature man has minor conflicts with one another based on daily life which is much more realistic than assuming people would constantly be at war with each other as Hobbes imagines. The daily threat is placed on your property not your life and so there is more of an inconvenience than a state of fear. There is equality in the state of nature so “naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another” (Locke 272). This puts all individuals at equal danger for these inconveniences but also it becomes equally beneficial to join society. For man the opportunity
“to avoid this State of War is one great reason of Mens putting themselves into society, and quitting the State of Nature” (Locke 282). The government can easily provide laws to maintain structure in society while also protecting the citizens from each other and outsiders. The citizens give their consent to the sovereign so that they can enjoy the benefits of structure that will solve their minor disagreements. Although the citizens consent to the government they can take
Each author’s government aims to provide solutions to the problems presented in the state of nature. Because of their views on human nature each author envisions a different levels of involvement of the citizens. A balance between power to the government and liberty to the citizens is necessary for a successful social contract and a legitimate government. Hobbes’ government does not give enough liberty to the citizens, while Rousseau’s general will is an unrealistic expectation for human nature to achieve even in a society. Locke’s social contract would constitute …show more content…
A legitimate government would be at the mercy of citizen approval not the other way around.
Locke’s view of human nature is much more neutral than Hobbes. In Locke’s state of nature man has minor conflicts with one another based on daily life which is much more realistic than assuming people would constantly be at war with each other as Hobbes imagines. The daily threat is placed on your property not your life and so there is more of an inconvenience than a state of fear. There is equality in the state of nature so “naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another” (Locke 272). This puts all individuals at equal danger for these inconveniences but also it becomes equally beneficial to join society. For man the opportunity
“to avoid this State of War is one great reason of Mens putting themselves into society, and quitting the State of Nature” (Locke 282). The government can easily provide laws to maintain structure in society while also protecting the citizens from each other and outsiders. The citizens give their consent to the sovereign so that they can enjoy the benefits of structure that will solve their minor disagreements. Although the citizens consent to the government they can take