During the 16th and 17th century, Europe went through political disputes regarding government which created uproar and conflict. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes published his document Leviathan during the War of Religion in 1651. The War of Religion was a time period in which Europe was trying to establish its religion between Catholic and Protestant (Huguenot). The Holy Roman Empire in particular had tension about religious beliefs due to the Peace of Augsburg which entailed each ruler to establish a religion for their state, also known as a confession. The Peace of Augsburg also entailed that when a new ruler came into power, they could keep or change the confession of that state and its practices.
A number of factors played a part of choosing what government the founding fathers would choose. At first, they established the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were ratified during war with Britain, so it was set in a war based aura. It allowed the country to conduct foreign affairs, declare war, and make treaties. It could not collect taxes, but the states could.
Political philosophers: Jean Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke had quite opposing viewpoints, particularly on their political ideals. Rousseau and Burke’s perspectives on what the political system should be are directly influenced by the assumptions held in their personal beliefs on the origins of inequality. While they both articulate their positions, there is a lack of evidence and sustenance for the underlying assumptions in Burke’s argument of education and the social hierarchy, which is why Rousseau’s concepts are more compelling. However, when compared economically Burkes concepts have greater value. Rousseau's perspective in the Second Discourse initiated the discussion of inequality by distinguishing between the two types: "moral" or "political” or what is just called social inequality.
CQ: Whose is a more effective method of the social contract – Locke or Hobbes? In the early eighteenth century, two English philosophers named Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were inspired by the brutal English Civil war to write about the natural characteristics of humans. In his book, Leviathan, Hobbes expresses his opinion that humans were naturally egotistical, vicious, and greedy towards others, as there would be no question of morality or punishment for their actions.
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.
In contrast to Hobbes, who argues social bonds form to regulate human nature, Rousseau argues that the formation of the civil state results from and in a “change in man,” that humans must of necessity be denatured in the process of forming society. There are similarities between the two’s philosophies, but it is Rousseau, through his arguments that human nature can be changed, who articulates a political vision more consistent with the claim that humans are asocial by nature. In the beginning, the arguments of both Hobbes and Rousseau are similar. Man in nature is isolated.
The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
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
One of the most famous Enlightenment thinkers was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of The Social Contract. The point of The Social Contract is to establish whether or not a legitimate political authority can exist. Rousseau based his book on the idea that things were worse of now that people were under a governmental authority than before—whenever they were in a state of nature. Rousseau’s work was influential around the world, giving rise to political reforms and
However, I think it is important to remember Rousseau’s concept of perfectibility and understand that because of this trait it was almost inevitable that humans would eventually become social. Yet, it is not inevitable that humans would become politically unequal, as that is a direct result of government institutions. As well, Rousseau himself in further writings even expresses the hope that a new form of social contract could help to ease some of the political inequalities that plague contemporary society. This then suggests that the cause for these issues is not rooted in being social, for it is possible to live among others in a setting where equality has been institutionalized. Rather, the problem lies with corrupt and capitalist governments that serve to perpetuate inauthenticity and private
The Social Contract, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Animal Farm by George Orwell, has changed the way I look upon the world and more specifically our government. In The Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the contract between citizens within one’s country. Animal Farm is a satirical allegory of Russia’s Communist Revolution, and the dangers and ineffectiveness of communism. Both these books make me think about the power of language. And how it can be interpreted based off experiences.
Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form. --- Rousseau begins his
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature.
Everyone has a perspective of their own about the government whether it be good or bad. Ancient Greek philosopher Plato and English philosopher John Locke both discuss the topic of government in their literatures. In the Republic by Plato, Plato introduces this concept of a just city. In this city, he believes that the older and wisest person(s) should rule as they are very knowledgeable. Everyone is born innately different according to Plato.
In Rousseau’s political thoughts general will is at the heart of social contract. General will is the most fundamental principle in Rousseau’s social contract. Social contract gets its legitimacy through only the application of general will. But what this “general will” actually is? To Rousseau general will is not simply the sum total of all individual wills, rather it is the collective will of the people of a community.
