Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu (1689-1775)
Montesquieu disagreed with both Hobbes and Locke because Hobbes and Locke both describe a “presocial” nature and this to Montesquieu was futile (p.15), and in order to understand society we must understand it through observation. Montesquieu discussed three types of government; Republic, Monarchy and Despotism (p.15). “In a Republic, individuals are citizens and are therefore equal. In a Monarchy, the principle of honour produces hierarchies of rank and status among the subjects. A despotism promotes equality among the subjects, but it is an equality of fear and impotence” (15). Montesquieu claimed that all of his ideas were based on facts rather than personal prejudice but he did not always …show more content…
While he agreed with Hobbes’s idea that society was an artificial construct, but along with Montesquieu criticized Hobbes’s view of human beings as independent individuals in society. He also agreed with Locke’s idea that society was formed as a result of contract among individuals (p.17). “Rousseau’s ideas were more radical. He believed that man’s original nature was corrupted by society, and that the only way man could become a virtuous, moral being was to totally transform society” (p.17). His main focus was on the possibility of drastic social change. He argued against Hobbes that state of war among individuals was a social phenomenon rather than an innate quality of human beings. Rousseau believed all problems started with the ownership of property and the claiming of private property is what brought about war, conflict and thus the need for a civil state. “Rousseau’s perception for the rejuvenation of the individual and society was not a return to the original state of nature” (p.17). He believed that the repairing of a society would only be possible if all members of that society shared the construction of laws for their common happiness equally; therefore the sovereign authority would reside in the General Will. This in turn meant all members surrendering their individual rights to the community in return for civil liberty and protection of property. “Giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody”
Montesquieu disagreed with both Hobbes and Locke because Hobbes and Locke both describe a “presocial” nature and this to Montesquieu was futile (p.15), and in order to understand society we must understand it through observation. Montesquieu discussed three types of government; Republic, Monarchy and Despotism (p.15). “In a Republic, individuals are citizens and are therefore equal. In a Monarchy, the principle of honour produces hierarchies of rank and status among the subjects. A despotism promotes equality among the subjects, but it is an equality of fear and impotence” (15). Montesquieu claimed that all of his ideas were based on facts rather than personal prejudice but he did not always …show more content…
While he agreed with Hobbes’s idea that society was an artificial construct, but along with Montesquieu criticized Hobbes’s view of human beings as independent individuals in society. He also agreed with Locke’s idea that society was formed as a result of contract among individuals (p.17). “Rousseau’s ideas were more radical. He believed that man’s original nature was corrupted by society, and that the only way man could become a virtuous, moral being was to totally transform society” (p.17). His main focus was on the possibility of drastic social change. He argued against Hobbes that state of war among individuals was a social phenomenon rather than an innate quality of human beings. Rousseau believed all problems started with the ownership of property and the claiming of private property is what brought about war, conflict and thus the need for a civil state. “Rousseau’s perception for the rejuvenation of the individual and society was not a return to the original state of nature” (p.17). He believed that the repairing of a society would only be possible if all members of that society shared the construction of laws for their common happiness equally; therefore the sovereign authority would reside in the General Will. This in turn meant all members surrendering their individual rights to the community in return for civil liberty and protection of property. “Giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody”