Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on equality in society
Essay on equality in society
Essay on equality in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Both writers describe man as being intrinsically equal in this state, with Hobbes stating that “nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind…. the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable” (183). In a similar fashion, in his Two Treatises of Government, Locke depicts the state of nature as, “a state also of Equality, whererin all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another…” (269). Regardless, however, both men describe the danger of living in this crude condition, perhaps due to this very equality that exists. In the eyes of Hobbes, the state of nature is the equivalent of a state of war, building on the premise that, “if any two men desire the same thin, which neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (158).
Their assumptions about the state of nature have huge differences. They are the almost antithesis of each other. According to my approach, the human can not be as bad as Hobbes ' claim. However, there is not sufficient reason to contract in Rousseau 's
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
”(2) Although both provide really good arguments for their beliefs, I think Hobbes’ has a more realistic idea of the state of nature. Hobbes believes that a state of nature cannot possibly be successful. One way he reasons this is by talking about how when someone is “going
Hobbes believes that the state of nature is a state of war and that no morality exists. Being that the “weakest” could kill the “strongest” men are considered equal. Locke believed the state of nature is not good or bad, it is considered chaotic. Rousseau believed that humans in a state of nature are equal and free. In a state of nature, men are “Noble Savages” and civilization is what actually corrupted them.
What, according to Rousseau, were the worst effects of socialisation? Jeans-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men is a defence of the original man in a state of nature and an attack on the corrupt and elitist European society of his day. Rousseau sought to ‘go back to an earlier point and try to piece together[… the] slow succession of events’ in order to pinpoint where humanity degenerated from the state of nature to today’s “civilised” society. In this sense, Rousseau seems to be attributing the process of socialisation to ‘all the evils’ in the world.
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
He believes that the human condition, the traditions, experiences, and knowledge acquired by humans, is far to complex to be described by science and therefore avoids he commonly held views of political science from the Enlightenment Era. However, Thomas Hobbes, as he writes in Leviathan (1651) believed that all political phenomenons could be reported systematically as he equated all humans to machines, predictable by consistently acting in their self interest. [PG 3] Burke’s criticism that can be applied to Hobbes lies on three fronts; that the understanding human condition cannot be derived through logic; that consent, explicit or tacit, does not exist after the first social contract; and that a rebellion is neither possible nor effective when in a social contract. Thomas Hobbes’ prefaces his discussion of the social contract by giving credence to what he understood as science.
During the Enlightenment, many intellectuals sought to understand society and its underlying mechanisms. People such as Hobbes theorized that society is necessary for people to escape the chaotic and brutal state of nature. However, Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Moral Inequality, opposes such arguments by stating that it is society that causes inequality and conflict. Additionally, in The Sufferings of Young Werther, the eponymous protagonist has similarly negative views on society, while simultaneously countering the rationalism of the other authors by being a radical Romantic. While both Rousseau and Werther criticize society, and censure its flaws, they do so from completely different perspectives.
Hobbes’s version of the Law of Nature gives human beings the right to self-preservation, even if this means harming others to protect one’s own life. One may argue that there is no definitive way of knowing whether Hobbes or Locke’s account of the state of nature are true as humans have always had some sort of sovereign power above them, never having the opportunity to live in their “natural form”. According to Hobbes, human beings are power hungry as it is power that helps us achieve our objects of desire. He acknowledges that human beings are equal, but this is only as long as we do not desire the same things.
While Hobbes focuses on man’s natural instinct to fight. Rousseau, during his argument points out some of Hobbes viewpoints in which his thinking directly conflicts. For example, Rousseau analyzes Hobbes’s argument and deduces that “man is naturally intrepid and seeks only to attack and to fight” (20 Rousseau). However, according to Rousseau, fighting, war and anger are all societal values that a man in the true state would not possess. Another major difference between Hobbes and Rousseau is that Hobbes believes that man would still be social and have some “societal traits,” while according to Rousseau, man in nature would be completely secluded and have no form of communication or desires outside of personal
Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.
Thomas Hobbes has been famous for his philosophies on political and social order. In many of his scholastic works, he maintains the position that in the presence of a higher authority the duty of the rest of mankind is to simply obey. The discourse on this essay will focus on his views expressed in his book The Leviathan. In this book Hobbes’ views are fundamentally entrenched in his description that in a society with no higher authority life would be nasty, short and brutish (?) .This essay will engage in discussion by first laying out the conceptual arguments of anarchy and the human state of nature.
Thus, both philosophers consider equality the natural human orientation, but establish equality on radically different terms: Hobbes’s is chaotic and Rousseau’s harmonious. These assumptions inform their considerations of inequality (or lack thereof) within a legitimate
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.