Hobbes believed if there was no government every man will fight against one another for power. To stop the fighting the people form a government to make peace. “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust” (doc 2). This quote is saying that without laws or any form of government people will fight each other. And
World War 1 is considered to be one of the most brutal and bloodiest wars in history. One of the main contributors to World War 1 being so brutal was the stalemate and the trenches. Although it is said that the warfare in World War 1 was outdated and old, it was the outdated war tactics that caused the stalemate and the millions of lives lost. Throughout World War 1, there were several technological advancements. Technology was the most important characteristic of the WW1 era because Naval advancements, the introduction of air warfare, and advanced ground warfare.
One his theories, stated in his book called Leviathan said that people are not able rule themselves because of how selfish mankind is and they need to be ruled by an iron fist. His political theory was that was also stated in Leviathan was that we should respect government authority under all circumstances to avoid violence. Hobbes was scared of the outcome of the social contract which meant people could get rid of the government if they were unhappy with what they were getting. In order to make well with the social contract he states in Leviathan that people should be completely obedient to the government. His reasoning was that if there was no government, there would be chaos.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, Europe was experiencing a changing of the guard at the hands of the philosophes, a group of social reformers from the nobility and middle class. Branded by the philosophes as an intellectual movement advocating for the application of reason and individualism in all aspects of life, the Enlightenment, influenced by the ideas of the Scientific Revolution, sparked discussion in the hopes of bettering society and rounding it into its most ideal form. Although it was a truly international and cosmopolitan movement, one of its most important proponents was the French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), author of works such as Discourse on the Origins of the Inequality of Mankind and The Social Contract. Rousseau epitomized the Enlightenment and its core ideas, that individual liberty should be of utmost importance and government and religion should fulfill the needs of the general will.
All of these authors share some similar points, but the majority of issues show no agreement. I would expect this when there are men and women speaking their views during enlightenment. Of course, the men see women as objects to look good for them while requiring no education or the ability to reason. In 1751, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in A Critique of Progress, answers the question, “Has the reestablishment of arts and sciences contributed to purge or corrupt our manners”.
According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.
Book One of The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau focuses on the reasons that people give up their natural liberty in order to achieve protection from threats to themselves and their property. This results in the formation of a legitimate sovereign where all members are equal. Rousseau believes that no human has authority over another individual because force cannot be established. He argues that no individual will give up his or her freedom without receiving something in return. I will focus my analysis on how the social contract states that we must give up our individual rights in order to obtain equality and security.
Both social contract philosophers defended different views about moral and political obligations of men living in the state of nature stripped of their social characters. The state of nature illustrates how human beings acted prior to entering into civil society and becoming social beings living under common legitimacy. The state of nature is to be illustrated as a hypothetical device to explain political importance in the society. Thomas Hobbes, propounded politics and morality in his concept of the state
I will also look at the continuing influence of The Social Contract in political and philosophical spheres. In 1755 Rousseau published Discourse on Inequality, in this particular essay Rousseau
State of Nature is the condition under which men lived prior to the formation of societies which may be considered as an historical fact or a hypothetical claim" (Steele, 1993). That is, the condition that men lived before the formation of legitimate government. Social contract on the other hand, is the hypothesis that one's moral obligations are dependent upon an implicit agreement between individuals to form a society (Celeste, 2004). Both Hobbes and Locke used social contract as a means of explaining their Ideas on the origin
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of On the Social Contract, the First and Second Discourse, as well as other notable works, had a profound impact on political philosophy and Western thought during the 18th century and still shapes politics today. Rousseau, along with Hobbes, had one of the most interesting conceptions of the state of nature of mankind. However, whereas Hobbes saw mankind’s state in nature as “nasty, poor, brutish and short”, Rousseau had a more positive view. A frequent target for Rousseau was the concept and reality of private property, which he saw as being developed out of egocentrism, yet he also recognized the potential good it could bring.
Rousseau and The Social Contract “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.” These were the words of Jean Jacques Rousseau, French thinker and Genevan philosopher. Throughout civilized communities in various nations around the world, the need for a form of government has been constant and essential. From the Mesopotamians to the Romans, mankind has been on the search for “the ideal government.”
Hobbes claims that humans are, by nature, selfish and violent, seeking to fulfill their desires by any means necessary. One of the arguments of Hobbes’s state of nature is based on power. For him, there are natural and instrumental powers. These powers are using to acquire more power. This situation, which is most expressive in the state of nature, requires for an authority to force people into submission, in order to establish peace and order, therefore providing security and freedom to accomplish goals with peaceful means.
The state of nature basically states that we would attack those that we feel are a threat to us before they attack us, but why would anyone keep focusing on that instead of going out and providing for themselves? Since we do, after all, want to survive. Hobbes’ idea of proof that human nature is evil is that people in a civil society lock their doors fearing that they will be robbed or attacked, but that does not necessarily mean that all humans are bad, and untrustworthy, only a few. A good example would be tribes or areas where there is no government as the one described by Hobbes.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society.
