Hobbes and Rousseau agree that humans are equal by nature and must consent to submit their rights to a central authority. However, their conclusions diverge on the role and the composition of that central authority. Hobbes’s sovereign is that of one individual or a small assembly of individuals whose sole purpose is to provide security to its citizens and in return maintain the power to represent its citizens (Hobbes 227). Conversely, Rousseau believes that the sovereign is based on the concept of the general will which requires active participation by citizens as a community and binds/favors each citizen equally (Rousseau 76). Therefore Hobbes’s Leviathan and Rousseau’s general will are similar in premise by agreeing humans are motivated by self-preservation and utilize contracts to secure self-preservation, though their conclusions differ on the role/rights of the citizens and the sovereign. …show more content…
For Hobbes, the state of nature is a constant state of war by which all humans are equally capable of harming one another (Hobbes 185). Thus, humans require, “the mutual transferring of rights”, a contract with a sovereign authority to provide security and to protect humans from harming one another (Hobbes 192). Furthermore, Rousseau contends that, “all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants” (Rousseau 53) and man will reach a point within the state of nature where, “obstacles to their preservation prove greater than the strength of each man” (Rousseau 59). Hobbes and Rousseau share similarities in the premise of their arguments by acknowledging the fundamental source of human motivation, the flaws of living within the state of nature, and the necessity of contract or a social pact between men and a sovereign