Part I: The Assignment Parameters 7–9 Pages Title Page And R

Part I The Assignmentparameters7 9 Pages Title Page And References

Part I: The Assignment Parameters: 7-9 pages (title page and references do not count) Times New Roman, 12-point, double spaced, 1 Inch margins Title page with prompt number

Part II: Advice and pitfalls from previous essays

THESIS STATEMENTS! Your introductory paragraph should preview your argument. This is not a work of fiction that will have a twist in the end. The reader should know what your answer to the prompt is by the end of the introduction. Papers that do not have strong thesis statements tended to be much more descriptive, as discussions of the readings did not seem to support an overarching argument.

A thesis should be a statement with which a reasonable person can disagree. A weak thesis statement might be ‘John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had differing views of the state of nature’. A stronger thesis will articulate how those views resulted in different goals and forms for the commonwealth. A thesis statement can be more than one sentence. It is often a good idea to talk about both authors in the same paragraph.

Sometimes talking about only one leads to descriptions more than analysis. Focus on a theme and use both authors to address it if possible. Be careful though, about paragraph length. Some paragraphs were very long. Please consider breaking up paragraphs that are longer than a page.

Block quotes should be used sparingly (more than two in a paper of this length is probably too many). When using a block quote, please put that quote in single space, indented on the left hand side (see APA style guidelines). You do not need to include quotation marks in block quotes. Don’t (or, do not) use contractions in academic writing.

Write an essay comparing Rousseau with Hobbes with respect to the state of nature and social contract

What similarities and differences exist within their projects and where do they come from? Why does Rousseau find Hobbes to be inadequate?

Paper For Above instruction

The political theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes represent two foundational yet contrasting perspectives on the nature of human beings, the origins of the social contract, and the formation of political authority. Both philosophers sought to understand how society ought to be organized, but their views diverge significantly in terms of human nature, the state of nature, and the justification for political power. This essay examines their respective ideas about the state of nature and social contract, explores the similarities and differences in their projects, and analyzes why Rousseau considers Hobbes’s account inadequate.

Introduction

The debate over the natural condition of humanity and the legitimacy of political authority has been central to political philosophy for centuries. Hobbes, in his work "Leviathan," presents a rather pessimistic view of human nature, describing life in the state of nature as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes, 1651/1998). Conversely, Rousseau, in "The Social Contract," posits that humans were largely good in the state of nature, living free and equal, with corruption arising from societal institutions (Rousseau, 1762/1997). This paper compares their portrayals of the state of nature, their visions for the social contract, and considers the reasons behind Rousseau’s critique of Hobbes’s approach.

Hobbes’s View of the State of Nature and Social Contract

Hobbes’s depiction of the state of nature is fundamentally bleak. For Hobbes, in the absence of political authority, humans are driven by competitive instincts, leading to a perpetual state of conflict and insecurity. The natural condition is characterized by a "war of all against all" (Hobbes, 1651/1998), where every individual acts according to their self-interest, often violently. To escape this chaos, individuals enter into a social contract and agree to surrender certain rights to a sovereign authority, which provides security and order. Hobbes's social contract thus entails individuals abdicating their rights to an absolute sovereign, whose authority cannot be challenged (Tuck, 1989).

Rousseau’s View of the State of Nature and Social Contract

Rousseau’s account departs markedly from Hobbes. In his view, humans in the original state of nature were noble savages, living solitary, uncomplicated lives based on basic needs and compassion. Rousseau argues that it is society—particularly private property—that corrupts this natural goodness, leading to inequality, jealousy, and conflict (Rousseau, 1762/1997). The social contract, for Rousseau, is an act of collective self-formation, where individuals come together to create a community rooted in the general will, which aims at the common good. Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau’s social contract seeks not to establish authority over individuals but to enable individuals to be free through their participation in the collective decision-making process.

Similarities and Differences in Their Projects

Both Hobbes and Rousseau aim to justify political authority and establish order, but their projects diverge in fundamental ways. Hobbes sees the state of nature as a state of perpetual war that necessitates an absolute sovereign to prevent chaos, endorsing a top-down authority that suppresses individual freedoms for societal stability. Rousseau, however, believes that humanity’s natural state is inherently good and that corruption arises from societal structures. He advocates for a form of direct democracy rooted in the collective will, emphasizing freedom through participation rather than submission.

The roots of these contrasting visions stem from their differing assumptions about human nature. Hobbes’s pessimism about human self-interest leads him to favor strong, centralized authority. Rousseau’s optimistic view of natural human goodness inspires his emphasis on liberty, equality, and participatory governance.

Why Rousseau Finds Hobbes Inadequate

Rousseau criticizes Hobbes for its authoritarian implications and its neglect of human moral potential. Rousseau contends that Hobbes’s view reduces humans to perpetual competitors seeking security through domination, which justifies tyranny and suppresses true freedom. He argues that Hobbes's model fails to recognize the moral capacity of humans to develop into moral beings through community and collective self-determination (Rousseau, 1762/1997). Rousseau believes that Hobbes’s pessimistic portrayal leads to a dangerous justification for absolute sovereignty, which undermines individual freedom and authentic democracy.

Conclusion

In sum, while both Rousseau and Hobbes endeavor to philosophically justify the organization of society, their views on human nature and the social contract are markedly different. Hobbes’s gloomy portrayal of the natural state underscores the necessity of a powerful absolute sovereign, whereas Rousseau’s more positive outlook champions collective participation and freedom. Rousseau’s critique of Hobbes revolves around the belief that true freedom and moral development are incompatible with Hobbes’s authoritarian model. As modern political theory evolves, understanding these foundational perspectives remains essential for evaluating contemporary debates about authority, freedom, and social justice.

References

• Hobbes, T. (1998). Leviathan. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1651)
• Rousseau, J.-J. (1997). The Social Contract and Discourses. K. Silver (Ed.). The Liberal Arts Press. (Original work published 1762)
• Tuck, R. (1989). Hobbes. Oxford University Press.
• Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of Politics: Volume I. Cambridge University Press.
• Gauthier, D. (1969). Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
• Ladenson, V. (2007). Rousseau and the Problem of the Feminine. SUNY Press.
• Bernard, J. (2007). Rousseau’s Political Writings. Cambridge University Press.
• Bailyn, B. (1992). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press.
• Berlin, I. (2002). Two Concepts of Liberty. In Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press.
• Cranston, M. (1991). The Noble Savage: An Investigation of the Western Idea. University of Chicago Press.