Many people specifically philosophers would question, “Why we need a state?” or “What kind of state should we have?” This question opened up all the different views and perspective of the three following philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. They all have different but also very similar views on the state of nature, social contract, laws. Hobbes definition of state of nature is a state of war. Morality doesn’t exists and everyone lives in constant fear. A reason why people aren’t free is because of fear. There is a saying in Hobbes philosophy which said, “Even the ‘weakest’ could kill the ‘strongest’ men are equal.” Locke believed in state of nature, men exist in complete freedom. Men are free to do whatever they desire. The state of nature
…show more content…
Hobbes cared about maximizing liberty, defining social justice, and knowing how to divide the limits of the government power. The process of the state of nature is formed by a community and a government. People would view him as a “Psychological egoist” he was over the top with an unrealistic view of human nature. In the laws of nature and the social contract, “Hobbes thinks the state of nature is something we ought to avoid, at any cost except our own self presentation” (Thomas Hobbes). Hobbes believed in a social contract and how it would help the government rule the society. “He accomplished this by depicting the state of nature in horrible terms as a war of all against all, in which life is ‘solitary poor, nasty, brutish short’” (Leviathan, Chapter 13). Hobbes argues that, in order to get rid of the injustice, people had to give their full consent by giving up all their rights to the government so that the government can have full rights over the state of nature. It was set up to make people believe you are doing what is better to keep you in power. The beginning of state of nature meaning war. Hobbes wants the society to work together meaning giving some rights up in exchange for protection. “This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals” (Thomas Hobbes). For example, if two people want something they both can’t enjoy or use then they quickly become enemies. Hobbes view, “A law of nature is a command or general rule, discovered by reason, which forbids a man to do anything that is destructive of his life or takes away his means for preserving his life, and forbids him to omit anything by which he thinks his life can best be preserved” (Leviathan, Chapter 14). Those who debate this subject often mistake right and law to be the same yet they ought to be distinguished. A right is the liberty
Hobbes cared about maximizing liberty, defining social justice, and knowing how to divide the limits of the government power. The process of the state of nature is formed by a community and a government. People would view him as a “Psychological egoist” he was over the top with an unrealistic view of human nature. In the laws of nature and the social contract, “Hobbes thinks the state of nature is something we ought to avoid, at any cost except our own self presentation” (Thomas Hobbes). Hobbes believed in a social contract and how it would help the government rule the society. “He accomplished this by depicting the state of nature in horrible terms as a war of all against all, in which life is ‘solitary poor, nasty, brutish short’” (Leviathan, Chapter 13). Hobbes argues that, in order to get rid of the injustice, people had to give their full consent by giving up all their rights to the government so that the government can have full rights over the state of nature. It was set up to make people believe you are doing what is better to keep you in power. The beginning of state of nature meaning war. Hobbes wants the society to work together meaning giving some rights up in exchange for protection. “This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals” (Thomas Hobbes). For example, if two people want something they both can’t enjoy or use then they quickly become enemies. Hobbes view, “A law of nature is a command or general rule, discovered by reason, which forbids a man to do anything that is destructive of his life or takes away his means for preserving his life, and forbids him to omit anything by which he thinks his life can best be preserved” (Leviathan, Chapter 14). Those who debate this subject often mistake right and law to be the same yet they ought to be distinguished. A right is the liberty