Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau

•Download as PPT, PDF•

22 likes•26,705 views

The document summarizes the philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau regarding the state of nature and social contracts. For Hobbes, the state of nature is a state of war where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. He argues people form social contracts and sovereign governments to escape this state. For Locke, the state of nature is characterized by perfect freedom and equality under natural law, though it can descend into a state of war. Rousseau posits the state of nature has freedom and force, and the social contract forms a general will where people agree to be compelled for their own freedom.

Education

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

[object Object],[object Object],2,2 1,4 Don't cooperate 4,1 3,3 Cooperate Player 1 Don't cooperate Cooperate Player 2

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Hobbes argued that all humans are by nature equal in faculties of body and mind (i.e., no natural inequalities are so great as to give anyone a "claim" to an exclusive "benefit"). From this equality and other causes in human nature, everyone is naturally willing to fight one another: so that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such a warre as is of every man against every man". In this state every person has a natural right or liberty to do anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's own life; and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"

J J Rousseau by Dr Md Nazeer Hussain

nazeerhussain23

Thomas Hobbes

Lyceum of the Philippines University- Cavite

Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau

A K DAS's | Law

Thomas hobbes

Tallat Satti

Machiavelli

Dr. Tripti Sharma

Thomas Hobbes and The Social Contract

Sheikh Saifullah Ahmed

John Locke by Dr Md Nazeer Hussain

nazeerhussain23

Jean Jacques Rousseau and His Political Philosophy

Frederick Lagrada

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s

Lyceum of the Philippines University- Cavite

Authoritarianism_ Forms of governmentiswander

Rosseau

brianbelen

State and theories of evolution of the state

Rahul Yadav

The Social Contract by J.J. Rousseau

Christina Wibisono

Hobbes, Locke, And RousseauJohn Hext

Hobbes locke and rousseaujtoma84

What's hot

Theory of social contract

HumairaTariq3

John Locke's Political Theory

Lyceum of the Philippines University- Cavite

Aristotle and the Politics

Thomas hobbes

Locke

Hobbes: Leviathan

Locke on the state of nature, property

Naeem Tahir

J J Rousseau by Dr Md Nazeer Hussain

nazeerhussain23

Thomas Hobbes

Lyceum of the Philippines University- Cavite

Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau

A K DAS's | Law

Thomas hobbes

Tallat Satti

Machiavelli

Dr. Tripti Sharma

Thomas Hobbes and The Social Contract

Sheikh Saifullah Ahmed

John Locke by Dr Md Nazeer Hussain

nazeerhussain23

Jean Jacques Rousseau and His Political Philosophy

Frederick Lagrada

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s

Lyceum of the Philippines University- Cavite

Authoritarianism_ Forms of governmentiswander

Rosseau

brianbelen

State and theories of evolution of the state

Rahul Yadav

The Social Contract by J.J. Rousseau

Christina Wibisono

What's hot (20)

Theory of social contract

John Locke's Political Theory

Aristotle and the Politics

Thomas hobbes

Locke

Hobbes: Leviathan

Locke on the state of nature, property

J J Rousseau by Dr Md Nazeer Hussain

Thomas Hobbes

Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau

Thomas hobbes

Machiavelli

Thomas Hobbes and The Social Contract

John Locke by Dr Md Nazeer Hussain

Jean Jacques Rousseau and His Political Philosophy

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s

Authoritarianism_ Forms of government

Rosseau

State and theories of evolution of the state

The Social Contract by J.J. Rousseau

Similar to Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau

Hobbes, Locke, And RousseauJohn Hext

Hobbes locke and rousseaujtoma84

The passion to be reckoned upon is fear

Keisha Guerraro

150 word response for EACH post POST ONEThe general will is .docx

vickeryr87

150 word response for EACH post POST ONE The general will is a phrase used by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract to refer to the wants of the people. All members of society decide together what they want in and from their ruler. By doing so, people in society are truly "free" ( The Social Contract , chap. iv). The general will is an agreement to which citizens will forego some of their individual freedoms to a government and gain rights in return from the establishment of that sovereign. Rousseau stated that in order for the general will to be truly general it must come from all and apply to all (Bertram, 2012). And as Rousseau stated: "Thus, from the very nature of the compact, every act of Sovereignty, i.e., every authentic act of the general will, binds or favours all the citizens equally; so that the Sovereign recognises only the body of the nation, and draws no distinctions between those of whom it is made up" ( The Social Contract , Book I. Sect. 4). The difference between Rousseau's "general will" and the meaning of "will of all" is about perspective: “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only a sum of private will" ( The Social Contract , chap. iv). Rousseau is showing that the will of all is a culmination of what I want from government, what my neighbor wants from government, and what my other neighbor wants from government, and so on. The will of all is nothing more than adding all of our wants together, despite differences. Rousseau is not concerned with a specific style of government and even concedes that it could be a monarchy, so long as the general will is followed through with by that sovereignty. In the selection of a sovereign or of the laws themselves, it is not that the process needs to be unanimous, but that all votes must be counted ( The Social Contract , Book II. Sect. 2). One aspect of Rousseau struck me and that was something that I have had conversations with students about when we have talked about the scope and size of government. I have asked students, and conversations ensued, about our nation being too large--has the U.S. grown to the point where it is unmanageable? And here in Rousseau's writing has he made a claim of that nature: "In this proportion lies the maximum strength of a given number of people; for, if there is too much land, it is troublesome to guard and inadequately cultivated, produces more than is needed, and soon gives rise to wars of defence; if there is not enough, the State depends on its neighbours for what it needs over and above, and this soon gives rise to wars of offence." ( The Social Contract , Book II. Sect. 10) I suppose that he might be correct about this assertion. Although it is possible to have this type of social contract in which the general will is possible, it is probably better suited for smaller and less diverse .

RESPOND to each post150 words EACHPOST ONEAs a result of havin.docx

isbelsejx0m

RESPOND to each post150 words EACH POST ONE As a result of having a different perspective than Thomas Hobbes and the state of nature, John Locke also views the need for enacting a social contract differently. Locke did not see humans as warring in a state of nature as Hobbes had. Instead, Locke's state of nature could be explained as a perfect place where people had the freedom to choose their own paths in life so long as it did not infringe upon others. Locke viewed people as being kind toward one another as a result of the Law of Nature, which was a result of virtues from God. Under the Law of Nature, people were equal and would be treated as such because of their morals stemming from their belief in God. By the same token, Locke acknowledged that having liberty in the state of nature was not synonymous with a "license" to do what we pleased, as, "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…"(Locke, section 6). Only when a man has done something wrong can another man have power over him in the state of nature and this power cannot be used excessively, and only using calm reason and conscience (Locke, section 8) Locke also understood the need for private property for men. Private property was the combining of a person using his (her) own labor along with the natural resources in nature to produce something. When a person used their abilities to produce something, they should have the right to that final product. However, a person could not claim more than what should be considered their own "fair share." In other words, owning excessive private property would now breach the Law of Nature. Because of the desire for private property and the want to maintain it, men would give up the freedom of the state of nature, relying upon a government for protection. To me, Locke's state of nature is more in line with my own thinking. People are not naturally evil and warring, but instead more virtuous, whether stemming from beliefs in God, their own upbringing, or just naturally moral. As a result, the only need for people to enter into a social contract is to settle disputes and not for self preservation as Hobbes suggested. Although I accept (interpret?) the notions of a state of nature from both Locke and Hobbes as theoretical, Locke's description seems closer to what I understand as reality. His description of the importance of property is not only unique from Hobbes', but also makes sense. People "like their things" and do not want them taken away. This seems very natural in society today. Locke's views were instrumental not only in our "re-establishment" of the state of nature when the American colonists declared their independence, but was also instrumental in the writing of the Bill of Rights. POST TWO Locke view of the state of nature is that mankind is "a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others (iep.utm.edu)." In other words people ar.

7th lecture

Munir Hussain

Philosophers a ssignmentSam

Philosophers who influenced the development of liberalismSam

thomas hobbes

qadrianum

Thomas Hobbes & John LockePY201.docx

AASTHA76

Thomas Hobbes & John Locke PY201: Philosophy & Ethical Reasoning 1 Both Hobbes & Locke reject the idea of Divine Right. Hobbes did favor absolutism (minus the divine aspect). Locke advocated a constitutional government (limited government) using philosophical and biblical justifications. Social Contract Theory PY201: Philosophy & Ethical Reasoning Born in 1588 into a family where his father abandoned his mother and he was raised by his uncle (an affluent merchant). He described himself as a "twin to fear." He was born prematurely due to his mother going into an anxious shock about the Spanish Armada attacking England. He went to Oxford and was not attracted to scholastic learning (on Aristotelian thought). Studied natural sciences instead. BA in 1608 and was recommended to William Cavendish, Earl of Devonshire, to serve as a private teacher. Went on a tour of different countries with this family. (Got to meet Galileo and Francis Bacon). PY201: Philosophy & Ethical Reasoning 3 In 1642 he wrote De Cive (Of the Citizen) In 1651 he wrote The Leviathan which Jon Rawls refers to as the most important work in Political Philosophy in the English Language. With Charles II there was a restoration of the Stuart Monarchy. (Hobbes had taught him) Charles II included Hobbes in the high levels of his court, provided him a pension and let him teach at the top ranks. He lived until 91yrs old, but in the late 1660s, he came into trouble with his writings (accused of atheism, profaneness, etc.) He was at risk of arrest and persecution, as a heretic he faced being burned. Later in his life, he wrote an autobiography and then turned to the Ancients and interpreted new translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey. PY201: Philosophy & Ethical Reasoning 4 The Leviathan PY201: Philosophy & Ethical Reasoning Hobbes is the greatest political philosopher who wrote in English. His Leviathan is the most influential work in political philosophy in modern times. He wrote it to justify the absolute power of the monarchy. His argument is basically that one absolute sovereign is necessary to keep us in awe. Hobbes’ conception of mankind is that we are primarily motivated by self-interest. Common sense moral rules, and following them, lies not in religious authority but in everyone's rational self-interest. PY201: Philosophy & Ethical Reasoning 6 Hobbes believed in Egoism... Charity & Pity. Hobbes we were not altruistic but totally selfish. You give out charity because it makes you look good and it also shows that you are very powerful. You are so powerful that you can take care of your own family as well as others. You show pity only people like you. You don't show it to the rapist who runs off and gets flattened by a car... you show it to people like you. You show pity not because you feel sorry for what he went through but because you realize it could be you going through that same thing. Hobbes .

Social Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rul.docx

edmondpburgess27164

Social Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well. Hobbes runs the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism: 1) We are all self-interested, 2) Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests, 3) We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order, Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules. Thomas Hobbes looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was "nasty, brutish, and short" -- a kind of perpetual state of warfare John Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Listen to Locke's audio on the lecture tab and read his lecturette to be able to answer this thread. Locke addressed Hobbes's claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attribute this claim to "some men" not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action to themselves punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature. Which philosophy do you espouse? In coming to grips with the two and considering your experience of society as it is today, think out loud about what you experiences as the State of Nature, and tell us what you would be willing to give up in exchange for civil order and personal security? You might consider what you have already given up in exchange for security as well as what might be required in coming days. .

Week 1, Lecture B Do We Need A GovernmentOften we use words .docx

celenarouzie

Week 1, Lecture B: "Do We Need A Government?" Often we use words like freedom and liberty without ever thinking about what these words mean. We assume that we all mean the same thing by these words; however, in reality, we all live by different personal definitions of freedom and liberty. Our definitions are not based on a dictionary but are informed by our unique personal life experiences. Consider the diversity even in this course. How might someone understand words like liberty and freedom from a background, culture, age, gender, or even race that is different from yours? Each of us has a unique story that has brought us to this point – and each of our stories is intrinsically valuable and important. If we think about this level of diversity – how and why do such different individuals come together to exist together in a society? The State of Nature, or Life Without Government Simply, freedom and liberty are not the same thing. Let’s consider what we mean by freedom. For our purposes, freedom is doing whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it. If everyone had absolute freedom and could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted what would our world look like? What would our relationships with each other look like? These are the questions that political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke asked. These are also question that our founders asked as they pondered the creation of a new nation. They called this condition of absolute freedom the State of Nature – a state in which people lived in absolute freedom with no social structures or government. For Hobbes, life in this state of nature looked very terrible. Hobbes described the state of nature as: “In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short…” Additionally, Hobbes suggested: “For before constitution of sovereign power, as hath already been shown, all men had right to all things, which necessarily causeth war.” For Hobbes, freedom was each individual having the right to all things. If you have new car, in the state of nature, I have right to take your new car – even by force and violence. Hobbes is saying that in the state of nature, or trying to live life without government, no form of cooperation between individuals is possible and thus there will be no grocery stores, no computers, no smartphones, no art, and each individual will suffer a very quick and violent death. The founders of our nation shared Hobbes’ fairly pessimistic outlook regarding human nature. James Madison famously wrote i.

The human person in the society

Dieudonnesawadogo1

Philosophy report

RhanjitKimAngeloFerr

· Minimum of 1 scholarly sourceIntroductionSocial contract the.docx

alinainglis

· Minimum of 1 scholarly source Introduction Social contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well. Hobbes runs the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism: 1. We are all self-interested. 2. Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests. 3. We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order. 4. Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules. Hobbes looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was "nasty, brutish, and short" – a kind of perpetual state of warfare. Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right – and sometimes the duty – to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Locke addressed Hobbes's claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attribute this claim to "some men" not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action themselves to punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature. Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, address the following: · Which philosophy do you espouse? · How much authority should be granted to governments (e.g., the right to kill (death penalty/capital punishment/use of deadly force)? How much would you give up in return for safety? · If you side with Hobbes, do you support at any point recourse if the government violates its own contract (if so, you probably have a bit of Locke in your thinking)? .

Why government 1Maloney9

Social Contracts

wtidwell

Similar to Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau (17)

Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau

Hobbes locke and rousseau

The passion to be reckoned upon is fear

150 word response for EACH post POST ONEThe general will is .docx

RESPOND to each post150 words EACHPOST ONEAs a result of havin.docx

7th lecture

Philosophers a ssignment

Philosophers who influenced the development of liberalism

thomas hobbes

Thomas Hobbes & John LockePY201.docx

Social Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rul.docx

Week 1, Lecture B Do We Need A GovernmentOften we use words .docx

The human person in the society

Philosophy report

· Minimum of 1 scholarly sourceIntroductionSocial contract the.docx

Why government 1

Social Contracts

More from Dan Ewert

60's and Such 2Dan Ewert

60's and Such

Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau

Similar to Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau (17)

More from Dan Ewert

More from Dan Ewert (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Hobbes, Locke, And Rousseau