Analysis Of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke And Jean-Jacque Rousseau

1310 Words 6 Pages
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau weigh into the discussion about justice and morality in both in the State of Nature and within civil societies. Hobbes enforces that individuals do not have any moral obligations in the State of Nature or within civil society, but instead all decisions are made with rationality. Therefore, legitimacy and justice are based upon his notional of rationality and the validity of covenants created. Locke argues that humans are moral in both the State of Nature and in civil society and what makes the government legitimate is due to the common good of all rather than what a rational individual would do. Lastly, Rousseau takes a view that merges both Hobbes’ and Locke’s views of morality by claiming that humans are not moral in the State of Nature, but the obtain morality once entering into civil society. All actions and laws made in this definition of a civil society are legitimate and just so long as they follow the general will, or collective good. Thomas Hobbes claims that humans, regardless of being in civil society or the State of Nature are not driven by morality, but instead by rationality. Hobbes declares that the …show more content…
People in the State of Nature have some rights, such as punishing transgressors, and keeping the items they cultivate (219). People can coexist morally in the State of Nature and there does not exist the prominence of competition, as Hobbes described, due to the morality of the individuals. People in Locke 's State of Nature can recognize moral limitations, and react to them, but the main problem is the lack in the concentration of the power. There does not exists some entity that can protect the rights of individuals, therefore they enter a society, under a desired common judge by giving up their defense rights to the common judge who, in turn, will protect these rights for the individuals

Related Documents