Jenna Nudo
Philosophy Paper #3
Rousseau vs. Hobbes Hobbes and Rousseau are two philosophers both with a different interpretation of the state of nature for humans. Although they had similar beliefs, Rousseau ultimately disagreed with Hobbes’ way of thinking. Rousseau’s book, “The First and Second Discourses” came a century after Hobbes’ “Leviathan”. Hobbes’ theories consisted of believing that human nature came to be violent but equal naturally. Within his theories, the poorest man can kill the richest man because they are protected by the fact that in Hobbes’ society everyone is considered equal. Everything was very competitive but this all came naturally within each other not by the government or from any other cause for that matter. In “Leviathan”, the bible is something that is quoted on almost every single page, whereas, “The First and Second Discourses” does not quote the bible at all. Rousseau does not necessarily disagree with Hobbes on his theory of state of nature but nonetheless says it was not told in the correct way. This is the main point that I will be discussing throughout this paper. The natural state of man is a theme that differs between Rousseau and Hobbes in the political society. Both Rousseau and …show more content…
Hobbes believes that the natural state of man is nasty, brutish and short. Hobbes believes that each man is free to act any way they want, even kill another man because in the eyes of Hobbes, they are equal. Everyone is the enemy of one another so man also fear of their death. Every man is equal in terms of doing what they have to so they survive and doing what is best for themselves. The sovereign is someone who rules and in Hobbes’ theory, each man gives his rights to the sovereign. On the other hand, Rousseau believes that man are not the enemy of each other. He believes that the natural state of man correlates in surviving together and depending on one
Philosophy Paper #3
Rousseau vs. Hobbes Hobbes and Rousseau are two philosophers both with a different interpretation of the state of nature for humans. Although they had similar beliefs, Rousseau ultimately disagreed with Hobbes’ way of thinking. Rousseau’s book, “The First and Second Discourses” came a century after Hobbes’ “Leviathan”. Hobbes’ theories consisted of believing that human nature came to be violent but equal naturally. Within his theories, the poorest man can kill the richest man because they are protected by the fact that in Hobbes’ society everyone is considered equal. Everything was very competitive but this all came naturally within each other not by the government or from any other cause for that matter. In “Leviathan”, the bible is something that is quoted on almost every single page, whereas, “The First and Second Discourses” does not quote the bible at all. Rousseau does not necessarily disagree with Hobbes on his theory of state of nature but nonetheless says it was not told in the correct way. This is the main point that I will be discussing throughout this paper. The natural state of man is a theme that differs between Rousseau and Hobbes in the political society. Both Rousseau and …show more content…
Hobbes believes that the natural state of man is nasty, brutish and short. Hobbes believes that each man is free to act any way they want, even kill another man because in the eyes of Hobbes, they are equal. Everyone is the enemy of one another so man also fear of their death. Every man is equal in terms of doing what they have to so they survive and doing what is best for themselves. The sovereign is someone who rules and in Hobbes’ theory, each man gives his rights to the sovereign. On the other hand, Rousseau believes that man are not the enemy of each other. He believes that the natural state of man correlates in surviving together and depending on one