PHIL rousseau vs hobbes PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay on the differences and of rousseau and hobbes...

Description

Lily Galandak Philosophy Professor. Jake Reeder 4/15/20 Rousseau v.s Hobbes

Throughout the past two weeks, our class has been exposed to many different philosophers, including J ean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes. Both of these political philosophers base their work and writings off different ideas which I both agree and disagree from. Both men also thought that in order to enter society, we must sign a social contract, but they had different ideas about the contract. The social contract was the condition where people would give up part of their individual liberty to exchange it for common security which was a good idea. Hobbes believed that the social contract is absolutely necessary in order to create peace in the world, while Rousseau believed that small groups of different people should use their society to intensify certain inequalities in order to seize more power. I would like to agree with both philosophers' vision and also disagree with some of their ideas. By looking at Thomas Hobbes, he believed that everyone had the right to everything and there were basically no limits to the right of a natural liberty. He also defined the contract as “the mutual transferring of rights” and visualizes that a government that had a king was the best form of any society. In one of Hobbes’ works, The Leviathan, h e states that “This makes it obvious that for as long as men live without a common power to keep them all in awe…” which I agree on because it is true that there is really no sense of a higher power. When people hear the idea of a king, it makes people scared in order to establish and follow the rules, which is tactical to keep order. Another quote Hobbes states is that “In this war of every man against every man nothing

can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place there” which I also agree because without laws, there would not be justice, but I think since morals are natural to man, society teaches us to enhance it. While Hobbes has his own perspective on social contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that laws are binded only when they are supported by the general population of people. He also states the quote “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains” which challenged the order of society. One of the quotes in “Discourse On Inequality ” Rousseau states, “... appearance, so as to be hardly recognisable” which from these words, he is explaining that the idea of man has changed man from his natural condition and that the history of man and society resemble each other. I agree with what he states because when you look at society now, the way people act, dress, etc is completely different and society has altered and changed man from past history. I also agree when he states “When I say that the object of laws is always general, Imean that law considers subjects collectively and considerskindsor actions, never a particular person or action. Thus the law can decree that there shall be privileges” because this is an accurate description of the law and Rousseau is correct. When reading, I really can't disagree with anything Rousseau has to say, but I can with Hobbes. He states “Prudence is simply experience; and men will get an equal amount of that in an equal period of time spent on things that they equally apply themselves to” which is true but I do not believe this applies to everyone. If Hobbes says that all people who apply themselves with the same amount of time will turn out to be equally skilled is completely untrue and it merely depends on how much you would apply yourself to something.

Even though both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes both have different views on social contract, they are both right and wrong so I cannot pick one that I favor more. Hobbes believed that social contract is necessary to create peace in the world, while Rousseau believed small groups should use their society to seize more power. I agree with what both philosophers are stating since they both have convincing arguments, and am fascinated on learning about other philosophers perspectives on other ideas....