The Divergent Views of Hobbes and Rousseau on Human Nature

Introduction

The debate about human nature and the necessity of social contracts has been a central topic in political philosophy for centuries. Two prominent thinkers who offered divergent views on this matter were Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes believed that human nature was inherently selfish and that life in the state of nature was a constant state of conflict. In contrast, Rousseau argued that people were naturally good and that societal influences corrupted them. This essay will examine the contrasting perspectives of Hobbes and Rousseau on human nature and social contracts, ultimately arguing that Rousseau's position is more compelling.

Hobbes: The Pessimistic View of Human Nature

Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, held a rather bleak view of human nature. He believed that humans were naturally selfish, competitive, and driven by their own desires. In his famous work, "Leviathan," Hobbes described the state of nature as a condition of perpetual conflict and insecurity. He famously stated that in the state of nature, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Contract

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

"

Hobbes argued that in the absence of a strong central authority, individuals would constantly be at odds with one another. According to him, the pursuit of self-interest would lead to a state of war, where life would be characterized by violence and fear. In this chaotic state, there would be no room for cooperation, trust, or the common good.

To escape this dire situation, Hobbes proposed the idea of a social contract. He believed that individuals would voluntarily surrender some of their natural rights and create a sovereign authority, often represented as a Leviathan, to maintain order and protect them from each other.

In this contract, individuals agreed to submit to the authority of the sovereign in exchange for security and protection.

Hobbes's view of human nature and the necessity of a strong central authority laid the foundation for his support of absolute monarchy as the ideal form of government. He argued that only a powerful sovereign could maintain order and prevent the state of nature from reemerging.

Rousseau: The Optimistic View of Human Nature

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an 18th-century French philosopher, offered a starkly contrasting view of human nature. Rousseau believed that humans were naturally good and that it was society that corrupted their innate goodness. He famously began his work "The Social Contract" with the line, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

Rousseau argued that in the state of nature, individuals lived independently, free from the corrupting influences of society. He believed that people in this natural state were self-sufficient, compassionate, and motivated by a sense of empathy for one another. In the absence of societal hierarchies and artificial needs, humans enjoyed a state of natural happiness.

However, Rousseau acknowledged that the development of agriculture and private property had led to the emergence of inequality and social divisions. He argued that as societies evolved, individuals became driven by envy, competition, and the desire for material possessions. These societal changes, in Rousseau's view, led to the loss of natural goodness and the onset of moral corruption.

To address these issues, Rousseau proposed a different concept of the social contract. He believed that a just social contract should be based on the principles of the general will and the common good. In a legitimate society, individuals would come together to create laws and institutions that promoted equality and served the interests of all, rather than just a privileged few.

Rousseau's ideal society was one where individuals freely participated in the democratic process, shaping the laws and regulations that governed their lives. He believed that such a society would allow humans to reclaim their innate goodness and live in harmony with one another.

Evaluating the Perspectives

While both Hobbes and Rousseau addressed the concept of social contracts, their views on human nature and the role of government diverged significantly. To evaluate their perspectives, we can consider several key points:

1. Human Nature: Hobbes painted a pessimistic picture of human nature, emphasizing selfishness and conflict. In contrast, Rousseau offered a more optimistic view, highlighting innate goodness and compassion. Rousseau's perspective appears more aligned with observable human behaviors, such as altruism and cooperation in times of crisis.
2. The State of Nature: Hobbes' description of the state of nature as a war of all against all seems overly grim and disconnected from real-life observations. Rousseau's portrayal of a natural state marked by contentment and cooperation appears more plausible, considering the behavior of many indigenous societies.
3. Role of Government: Hobbes advocated for a strong, authoritarian government to control the inherently selfish tendencies of humans. Rousseau proposed a more participatory and democratic form of government, emphasizing the importance of the general will and common good. Rousseau's vision aligns with modern notions of inclusive governance and citizen participation.
4. Freedom: Hobbes believed that individuals gave up some freedoms in exchange for security under the sovereign. Rousseau argued that genuine freedom could only be achieved in a just society where citizens collectively determined the rules. Rousseau's idea of freedom as participation in self-rule resonates with democratic ideals.
5. Social Corruption: Rousseau's recognition of societal influences on human behavior is more in line with contemporary sociological insights. Social factors, rather than inherent selfishness, often shape human actions and attitudes.

Conclusion

In the debate between Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau regarding human nature and social contracts, Rousseau's perspective emerges as the more compelling and relevant one. His belief in the innate goodness of humans and the corrupting influence of society aligns with modern understandings of human behavior and societal dynamics.

Rousseau's vision of a just society based on the general will and the common good, where citizens actively participate in governance, offers a more democratic and inclusive model for contemporary political thought. While Hobbes' pessimistic view of human nature may have historical significance, it does not provide a robust foundation for understanding and addressing the complexities of human societies in the present day. Ultimately, Rousseau's optimism and emphasis on collective decision-making present a more promising path toward creating just and harmonious societies.