Rousseau Civil Government Analysis

Rousseau discussed the natural state as and private property along with the state of war become relevant. With no guiding principles war begins when men establish their property and desires for wealth. This is not a biblical society as each man looks out for his own self and puts his desires for wealth above other’s needs. I feel among the three philosophers Rousseau’s view seems to be the most unrealistic in comparison. While his view is one that should be strived for it is not easily achieved. Rousseau realized his temptations and ultimately ended up leaving civil society to live alone in the country. As explained, I don’t feel that his actions are as realistic and for example, while not agreeing to what is occurring, it is difficult to leave the situation solely because the society is not one to which is agreed. He literally left and did not continue to persuade others to change or provide them more reason he thought his ways were correct, and that could have been a disadvantage to many lives in retrospect.
Origin of Government. Rousseau’s view of civil government and the overall purpose of government appears to be very different as he expressed his disinterest of certain institutes and the unfairness to man. No man or group …show more content…
575). Although this is Rousseau’s view, Hobbes view is more critical regarding government. In regard to Hobbes view our text states, “And he found that people are often blinded by passion into these observations, he concluded that we need a sovereign with unconditional authority, whose power is sufficient to overawe subjects, tame their price with fear, and ensure the social peace required to protect human life and happiness” (Cahn, 2012, p. 544). This idea stems from Hobbes experience with human nature, the ugly effects that jealousy, pride, and envy expel on