For the most part, philosophies of social contracts are developed from a heuristic perspective of human conditions known as the natural state or conditions that are lack social order. From this perspective, philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes attempt to explain the nature of humans and the rationality that was involved in giving up some of their freedom to create social structures. These theories, nonetheless differ widely on the basis of the author account and the natural state. This paper seeks to bring to light such differences.
Hobbes sets up his argument by describing the state of nature as a horrible state. It’s worth mentioning that the state of nature is a term that is used in social contracts doctrines and political philosophy to refer to …show more content…
Instead, it is neutral and peaceful where humans exist peacefully to satisfy their self-preservation and natural desires (Rousseau, 85). Indeed, Rousseau believed that humans being were capable of something more than animosity and surviving in self-interested manner. In this state man lives in virtue and innocence. They were sociable and possess innate virtues that enabled them to live in cooperation with others without the need of laws or authority (Rousseau, 89). Unlike, Hobbes, Rousseau contends that human nature is not individualistic, he argues that human nature is complex since it also involves a dimension of compassion. Man is thus compassionate and sensible towards the suffering of other individuals. Along the way, humans are also free agents, free to act on their will with the ability to self-improvement. Rousseau’s perspective on compassion is important because it is primal to his rendition of the golden rule. Compassion and self-interest regulate each other towards social
Hobbes sets up his argument by describing the state of nature as a horrible state. It’s worth mentioning that the state of nature is a term that is used in social contracts doctrines and political philosophy to refer to …show more content…
Instead, it is neutral and peaceful where humans exist peacefully to satisfy their self-preservation and natural desires (Rousseau, 85). Indeed, Rousseau believed that humans being were capable of something more than animosity and surviving in self-interested manner. In this state man lives in virtue and innocence. They were sociable and possess innate virtues that enabled them to live in cooperation with others without the need of laws or authority (Rousseau, 89). Unlike, Hobbes, Rousseau contends that human nature is not individualistic, he argues that human nature is complex since it also involves a dimension of compassion. Man is thus compassionate and sensible towards the suffering of other individuals. Along the way, humans are also free agents, free to act on their will with the ability to self-improvement. Rousseau’s perspective on compassion is important because it is primal to his rendition of the golden rule. Compassion and self-interest regulate each other towards social