The Course Project Requires You To Research And Write An Ana

The Course Project Requires You To Research And Write An Analytical Pa

The course project requires you to research and write an analytical paper comparing and contrasting the political views of two philosophers on one of the following areas: Human Conflict – the nature and causes thereof. Within the paper, discuss how the views of the two chosen philosophers on the political issue relate to that same political issue today. Share your own well-supported views on the matter in a conclusion. Your paper should be 6-8 full pages in length, plus a cover page and a References Page. The topic, thesis, outline, and references to use are attached. Please follow the structure of the outline and restate the thesis in the conclusion. The paper should focus on the thesis statement.

Paper For Above instruction

The analysis and comparison of philosophical perspectives on human conflict provide a profound understanding of both historical and contemporary implications of political thought. For this paper, I will examine the contrasting views of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the nature and causes of human conflict, drawing connections to current political issues and conflicts.

Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work “Leviathan,” posited that human conflict arises from inherent self-interest and the anarchic condition of natural statehood. Hobbes famously described life in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” emphasizing a fundamentally self-preserving nature that leads individuals to perpetual conflict. According to Hobbes, the only way to escape this chaos is through an absolute sovereign or overarching authority that enforces law and order, thus ensuring stability and peace. His political philosophy underscores the importance of strong central authority as a necessary condition to mitigate innate human conflict and prevent societal collapse.

In contrast, Jean-Jacques Rousseau viewed human conflict through a different lens, emphasizing the corrupting influence of society and the loss of innate goodness in humans. Rousseau argued that in the “noble savage,” humans are naturally peaceful and cooperative. The roots of conflict, therefore, stem from societal inequalities, private property, and the development of civil institutions that distort natural harmony. Rousseau’s concept of the “general will” suggests that true political authority should reflect collective consensus and promote social equality, aiming to reduce conflict caused by disparities and alienation within society.

When examining contemporary issues, Hobbes’ view helps explain the tendencies toward authoritarianism and the necessity of law enforcement in maintaining order amid modern conflicts, such as terrorism, civil unrest, and political polarization. His emphasis on authority can be seen in current debates about national security and surveillance, where the balance between individual rights and collective safety is paramount. Conversely, Rousseau's ideas resonate with movements advocating for social justice, equality, and participatory democracy, which aim to address systemic inequalities and reduce societal conflicts rooted in injustice.

Both philosophies offer valuable perspectives. Hobbes’ emphasis on authority and order underscores the importance of strong institutions in managing conflict, especially in volatile environments. Rousseau’s focus on social equity underscores the need for structural reform and inclusive governance to prevent the emergence of conflict. Understanding these views helps contextualize current political debates, such as debates over police power, social welfare, and civil rights.

Personal viewpoints align with the idea that while strong institutions are essential in conflict management, they must operate within frameworks that promote fairness and social justice. A balanced approach, recognizing the importance of authority as Hobbes suggested and the need for societal reform as Rousseau advocates, can contribute to more sustainable peace and cooperation. The integration of these perspectives supports a nuanced political strategy capable of addressing both the symptoms and root causes of conflict.

In conclusion, the contrasting views of Hobbes and Rousseau shed light on the enduring debate over human conflict and the role of authority versus social equity. Their philosophies remain relevant today as nations grapple with conflicts driven by innate human tendencies, societal inequalities, and political power. Reaching a balanced approach that incorporates the necessity of order with the pursuit of justice aligns with contemporary efforts to foster peaceful and equitable societies. Their insights continue to inform political theory and practice, highlighting the importance of addressing both the causes and solutions of human conflict.

References

• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.
• Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). The Social Contract. Geneva: Marc-Michel Rey.
• Gray, J. (1986). Hobbes: A Biography. Stanford University Press.
• Hampson, F. (2012). Rousseau's Social Contract: An Introduction. Routledge.
• Tuck, R. (1985). Hobbes. Cambridge University Press.
• Colonial, S. (2018). Modern Political Philosophy: A Comparative Study. Oxford University Press.
• Crosby, S. (2009). The Social Contract and Its Critics. Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, G. A. (2012). Why Not Socialism? Princeton University Press.
• Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press.
• Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.