John locke’s Social Contract finds a groundbreaking middle between the extremes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes in which he assert the fact that mankind needs freedom to find purpose in life. Rousseau, an 18th century philosopher, believed that the state of nature was a peaceful time in which mankind could live in a very natural state. He argued that submitting to government meant falling from the grace of the State of Nature. He argued that nature could satisfy every individuals needs and that life is worse with laws and government. On the other hand Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century philosopher, argues against Rousseau saying that the state of nature would be all out war with no boundries. Hobbes believes, “In the State of Nature, …show more content…
He believes that the State of Nature will never be able bring bring long term satisfaction and that mankind would be unable to work together. Hobbes states that we are all better off submitting ourselves to a Sovereign in order for the greater good. However, both Rousseau and Hobbes live in the extremes. In Rousseau's world, a world with no government, There can be crime with no consequence. In a free State of Nature, no one is held accountable for their actions no matter the effect. On the other hand, Hobbes’s Idea of a complete dictatorship destroys all ideas of freedom. His ideas go so far as to justify inequality and totalitarianism. He even believes that citizens have absolutely no right to rebel against an oppressive government. Another 17th century philosopher named John Locke, has a solid blend of both Rousseau's and Hobbes’s philosophies. He both affirms their solid ideas and rejects their unreasonable ones. Locke believes the purpose of government is to help the people not oppress them. In Locke’s point of view, “Governments existed, among other things, to promote public good, and to protect the life, liberty, and property of its