Hobbes and Rousseau Views of Human Nature
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are two philosophers who have contributed to the philosophy of human nature. These two philosophers hold opposing views of human nature. Hobbes maintains that humans are inherently evil and brutal, and their life can be short if they are not in an organized society that has rules and regulations and a central authority to ensure that these laws are followed (Hobbes). On the other hand, Rousseau believes humans are inherently good, and they can live peacefully even in the absence of a central authority that has set laws to be followed by every member of society.
The views about the state of nature, as presented by Hobbes, were introduced in 1651. The opinions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau came almost a century later and were directed towards criticizing the works of Hobbes. Rousseau believed that the views by Hobbes were misplaced considering the time that they were presented. During the time that Hobbes was formulating his views about human nature, the society experienced a period of instability that called for an organized human society with laws to be put in place to control the people. According to Rousseau, the views of Hobbes would have been different if they were formulated during time of peace when humans would be behaving normally. Rousseau’s views were developed during periods of peace when humans behaved normally and did not need to be governed.
The views held by these two philosophers influence their view relating to the direction that societies should take. Hobbes believes that there must be some form of authority in the community to control human behavior is influence by his views that humans are evil and, therefore, incapable of controlling themselves without external power from the authority. The brutal nature of humans means that they are likely to cause harm to others hence the need for laws that would act as a deterrent to ensure that people do not harm others. Hobbes believes that humans are individualistic, and they will try to fulfill their desires at the expense of others in society. Such people can easily harm others in an attempt to get what they desire and, therefore, be contained by the use of laws. The fear of consequences will make these people obey the law.
Rousseau’s view of human nature also influences his prescription on how a society should be run and the direction that it should take. According to him, humans can live in a community that has no rules as they are capable of guiding themselves (Rousseau). In the state of nature, men are peaceful and have few ambitions that can make them turn against each other. Rousseau holds that the presence of social institutions corrupts man in the state of nature as he tries to oppose the restrictions and lack of freedom associated with these institutions. Therefore, the presence of social institutions is counterproductive as they lead to tensions in the state of nature.
The views held by Hobbes relating to human nature and how they should live in the society are more compelling as opposed to the reviews that are presented by Rousseau. In any group, people will have diverse views, which will affect how they relate and interact with others. These views must be protected as they form the fundamental rights of an individual in society. It is however, not automatic that people will respect the diverse opinions of others. Many conflicts in society have been a result of the diversity of the views where society members differ in opinion. For example, religious warfare that has been recorded in history has been as a result of people failing to respect the right of worship for others by thinking that the other group is not justified in following their religious beliefs. To avoid the occurrence of such situations, there must be laws that force people to respect the rights of others, such as the freedom to worship to ensure that there is no conflict in the society. People will, therefore, respect the rights of others due to the fear of legal consequences that are caused by their inability to follow the law.
The views by Rousseau are not compelling, and they seem to be out of touch with reality. He fails to take into account that people will always differ in opinion and, therefore, the need to have a system that would reconcile them. While it is true that people can be good, it does not mean that these people cannot have disputes that would need to be resolved. As such, even good people would require living in a society that has laws. Living in a community with no laws will lead to some people disregarding others’ rights and, eventually conflict would arise. To avoid such conflicts from taking place in society, Hobbes’s views must be taken into consideration as a precaution to ensure there is some form of order in society.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common-Wealth
Ecclesiasticall and Civil. London. 1651
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract or Principles Of Political Right. France. 1762