Hobbes_Rousseau essays

Hobbes_Rousseau essays Through the development of the Polis, both Hobbes and Rousseau have stood as highly influential theorists of the Social Contract. Although both writers would strongly agree for the development of society and the importance of a Social Contract, the actual methods and ends are quite distinct for each man. Hobbes contract aims at assuring Civil Peace through the use of the ruler to secure the contract in exchange for obedience of the people. In contrast to this method, Rousseau chooses to generate the legitimacy in the contract through the will of the people and for their prosperity and self-preservation. It is through examining the divergent methods of each author that the true distinctions of each form of Social Contract become apparent. The development of the Social Contract for both Hobbes and Rousseau forms from mans need to preserve humanity, but this is not the intended purpose of the contract for Rousseau. For Hobbes, man is naturally evil in the State of Nature. The natural condition of man is competitive and causes distrust and vanity among men. Consequently, man turns to reason to dictate the necessity of self-preservation in this state. And therefore, as long as this naturall Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man...of living out the time which Nature ordinarily alloweth men to live (Hobbes p. 190). To preserve, secure and assure the right of self-preservation, man must use reason to escape the continual fear of violent death that occurs in Nature. The created Civil Peace is the purpose of the Social Contract for Hobbes and leads to the Common Wealth. In contrast, Rousseau sees man as self-interested or barbaric in the State of Nature. It is mans unlimited right to temptation that demonstrates the need for mankind to enter Civil Society. Unlike Hobbes, who sees the State of Nature as a horrible life, Rousse...