A Comparison of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes

Many philosophers have formulated theories trying to reconcile the principles of civil society. They tend to emphasize the improvement of society and the maintenance of order as the main motivations for such a construction. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one such philosopher, as evidenced by his monumental effort The Social-contract and Discourse. Thomas Hobbes was another, as his text Leviathan shows. Both texts teach how to best implement the body’s governing system. Both also grant the same initial state of each individual; All men are created equal by nature. However, when it comes to the implementation of their ideas, Hobbes and Rousseau differ greatly. Hobbes found absolute monarchy the only viable solution, with Rousseau’s patron direct participatory government, where the decision-making process is directly affected by the citizens of society. How is it possible that two politicians arose in the same place so far apart?

For the solution of which question we must first consider the conception of each man as to what man is in his first natural state. What are the main tendencies in people and how do these characteristics dictate what form of government can be considered just? Hobbes proposes the worst idea, that we are all in a perpetual state with each other, “the war of all against all, the war of all against all” (Hobbes 185). Rousseau, on the other hand, affirms that we are not by nature so cruel and harmful to each other – society and social policies that propagate this enmity; “Therefore, war is not a relationship between man and man, but between state and state, and individuals are only accidentally enemies” (Rousseau 9) Although both Hobbes and Rousseau agree that people exist in a natural state of equality; they show that their views diverge completely from one another because of this fundamental difference of opinion.

Yet there is another difference between the two asserters, from the ideas of each man, whether power is equal to justice or not. Hobbes states that in order for society to be organized, the people must give up all their rights and live under the authority of an almighty ruler. All the citizens within the society are equally imputed to this prince, and all retain his fear and power equally. For Hobbes, it is the fear of retribution that will keep peace among other turbulent peoples. But Rousseau asserts that there is no force or authority which is acquired by coercive force, in any sense of the word, as it is not agreed upon and consented to. (However, it should be noted that Rousseau admits that domination can lead to an unhappy tranquility.) For Rousseau, no one in society has any kind of moral obligation to accept despotic domination. “Power does not create right, and we are bound to obey only legitimate powers.” (9) He affirms that in order to form a stable government, man must first reconcile his behavior to the state of nature, rather than having the necessity of an order of government. This reconciliation takes place through a social contract under the auspices of which all actions will take place. The social contract will involve the general will of the people and allow individuals to decide freely, while all are subject to the community as a whole; “the total alienation of each member, with all rights, from the whole community” (12). Rousseau believed that man’s freedom is the greatest necessity for happiness; of faith, which I shall treat of later, while of the aid of the participation of the government.

Let us begin, then, with the root of Hobbes’s argument for monarchy, that men (because of their base desires and vices) naturally make war, and must be pacified by the fear and reason of an omnipotent prince. Hobbes asserts that we are warring creatures because of our incursions, our want of things, and our vanity. Thankfully, he believes that we are also creatures of reason and skill, so we try to overcome our natural state. To accomplish this great task, it is necessary for people to agree to leave their freedom to act “naturally” (meaning, as they wanted in nature). In a Hobbesian society, a man has only as much freedom against others as he allows others to have against him. Equity is established in the covenant between all the people (not between the people and the prince), that all agree to surrender their freedom and liberty to the prince’s rule. By distracting the masses from decision-making, Hobbes makes personal needs and motivations contentious. All, then, become equally powerless and powerless, prone to conflict. Here we understand that Hobbes (or, more accurately, the people) can condone the supreme blanche wagon as he pleases.

There is certainly an immediate rebuttal to this logical course: What prevents a prince from abuse his power? Technically nothing. For the only justification that Hobbes can offer is that the tyrant would not be in the best interest of the prince, and that he would incline to restraint from his position to preserve order. The Hobbesian covenant is rendered void as soon as it dictates an action that puts a person in a position to lay down his life—an action that Hobbes says cannot be required by law. Furthermore, a leader who promotes and does not suffer promotes peace as a side effect; if they suffer promiscuously in the presence of their prince, what could at last be done, that the impulse may return to the state of nature? When the element of power is replaced by “act”, in terms of retribution, it no longer makes sense to follow the agreement.

Another compelling reason why a monarch would make a better prince than a council or a representative body, is again evident that the monarch is endowed in the individual with the same natural inclination as other men; he desires glory, fame, riches, and fame. In a monarchy, the health and prosperity of the kingdom affect the people’s perception of their king. Thus the Monarch was naturally inclined to preserve a healthy and honorable kingdom, so that his burning ego would not burn. On the other hand, the monarch, whose kingdom lay in ruin, would fail in the name of ruler. Therefore, although the Monarch is not directly imputed to the state over which he presides, he is still bound by the state of eternal nature, which pervades his actions as a man does (Hobbes 48). But on the other hand, when many share virtue, there is much more corruption coming. The ego has no body or plan, therefore, its members can be more dishonest than individual beliefs, not necessarily corrupting the body of which they belong.

As I mentioned above, Rousseau states that no political structure is morally just if it has the power to deny people freedom, for “to give up freedom is to give up man, to give up the rights of humanity and also his duties.” Rousseau 31). This statement underlies all of Rousseau’s political science in that it is a truth that can never be deceived. Indeed, in order for a society to gain any moral authority, society itself must surround the short truth in its political systems.

In Rousseau’s eyes, man is perfectible. The potential for this perfectibility exists in the state of nature, but it is hindered by social-inequality in the civil. the state in which men are subject to government. Rousseau asserts that causes, while attributing natural equality to man, they diverge as a whole. what is honorable and how important a man’s power is in society. Hobbes holds that stability is almost as important as Rousseau, the only stability without tyrannical freedom, dishonorable and lacking from man by giving the system of government that he has to act. That seems to hold according to what history has shown us so far, but this, which is adapted to humanism, is what many wish for.