Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes are important figures in the history of philosophy. Rousseau and Hobbes made a significant contribution to political and moral philosophy. Rousseau is named as one of the philosophers who inspired French revolution by challenging those in power and civilization in his book the Social Contract and Discourses. In Leviathan, Hobbes posits that a civilized society is necessary for peace and harmony. Both philosophers focus on doctrines on the nature of society and the political order. However, Rousseau and Hobbes' ideas are radically different, as Hobbes supports absolute monarchy while Rousseau supports a participatory form of government.
Before exploring the political orders as proposed by Rousseau and Hobbes, it is essential to examine their conception about the nature of men in their natural state. Rousseau and Hobbes have different ideas about the nature of men. According to Hobbes, human beings are at a perpetual state of war with each other. In book 1 of Leviathan, Hobbes details how human beings are selfish by nature, and they are out to destroy each other, "bellum omne contra omnes; a war of all against all" (Hobbes 185). Rousseau argues that human beings are not naturally cruel to each other; instead, the society and civilization propagates cruelty. Wars exist between state and state and not between individuals (Rousseau 9). The different approaches towards the nature of men determine their philosophies for political order and who should rule.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A significant difference between Hobbes and Rousseau is their ideas on whether power is equal to justice. Hobbes states that a society becomes orderly when individuals relinquish their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. All individuals within the sovereign are held accountable such that they equally fear and respect the sovereign. The fear of retribution keeps peace and harmony in the sovereign. The ruler/sovereign guarantees their security as long as they abide by the laws; therefore, power equals justice. On the other hand, Rousseau states that power that is obtained in a coercive manner is not just. Rousseau adds that no one in the society has the moral obligation to accept despotic rule.
Rousseau and Hobbes also have different approaches to a social contract. Hobbes states that a social contract occurs when individual relinquish their rights to a powerful sovereign. Under the social contract, the individuals are required to obey the rules and live in harmony with each other. Rousseau defines a social contract as the laws that are supported by the people. Rousseau is against the notion that leaders are the ones to make rules; instead, people should be involved in creating laws that address their interests.
Hobbes’ supports a monarchical type of government. He believes that people are naturally flawed and selfish such that they will be in constant conflict with each other unless there is an all-powerful leader (monarchy) to pacify them through fear. Human beings are in constant conflict due to insecurities, scarce resources, and vanity. Hobbes also adds that human beings are creatures of reason, and they can overcome their natural state. The only way to overcome their natural state is through a social contract. Under Hobbes philosophy, equity is established in the form of an agreement. Individuals agree to become equally powerless so that their inclination towards conflict is rendered useless. However, since the sovereign is granted all the power, there is nothing that can prevent the sovereign from abusing power. Hobbes appears to be in full support of a monarchical government, and he urges individuals to surrender their rights.
Rousseau campaigns for a type of government that allows freedom and liberty. According to Rousseau, "to renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties" (Rousseau 31). Rousseau states that human beings are perfect by nature, but they are thwarted by the civil state that subjects mean to its rule. Rousseau criticizes rulers who have no interest in the wellbeing of the people; the rulers who use their power for their selfish interests.
Rousseau argues that when people have the power to choose their own leaders, they exercise their will and judgment to select a leader that will represent their best interests. Rousseau’s general will is entirely different from Hobbes’ social contract. Since people are subject to the laws, Rousseau argues that people should be the authors of the law. The people determine the conditions in which the society will operate because they are worthy of self-rule.
In conclusion, both Hobbes and Rousseau have viable political theories to guide the political order. Rousseau wants a society where citizens have the right to choose their leaders and to participate in governance while Hobbes argues that peace only occurs when citizens surrender their rights to a sovereign leader. Hobbes supports a tyrannical government because human beings are selfish by nature and always in conflict with each other. Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s arguments apply to different societies, but Rousseau’s social contract is the best option for modern society.
References
Hobbes, T. (2016). Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy) . Routledge.
Rousseau, J. J. (1930). The social contract & discourses (No. 660). e-artnow sro.
