Hobbes vs. Rousseau: Contrasting Views on the Social Contract
Hobbes’s Social Contract Theory
Hobbes represents a compromise between two factions: rejecting the divine right of kings while also rejecting the early democratic view of shared power between Parliament and the king. He argues that political authority stems from the self-interests of equal individuals, with no inherent right to rule. However, he maintains that the monarch, or Sovereign, must have absolute authority for societal survival.
Hobbes’s political theories include:
- The theory of human motivation and psychological egoism
- The theory of the social contract, founded on the hypothetical State of Nature.
The State of Nature
In his books Leviathan and The Citizen, Hobbes describes a pre-societal State of Nature. He believes humans are fundamentally equal in this state, as even the strongest can be killed. However, this state is a nightmare of constant war, making life “solitary, nasty, poor, short, and brutish.” This is due to three factors:
- Scarcity of resources: Limited food, water, and resources lead to conflict.
- Inherent selfishness and rationality: Humans prioritize their well-being and use reason to achieve their desires, leading to competition for resources.
- Diffidence (lack of confidence): Constant threat of attack breeds mistrust, hindering cooperation and fueling tension.
Laws of Nature and the Social Contract
Hobbes views the State of Nature as the worst possible situation. He posits “laws of nature” where humans seek peace and sacrifice freedoms for it. To escape the State of Nature, individuals enter a social contract, surrendering some rights and living under common laws. However, inherent distrust necessitates political power to enforce the contract.
The Sovereign’s Role
Hobbes argues for a sovereign who creates laws and enforces them through punishments. This ensures compliance through self-interest. The sovereign acts as the glue holding society together. However, the sovereign’s burden requires absolute power as compensation to prevent societal collapse. This view was controversial, as it was seen as advocating for absolutism.
Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory
Rousseau viewed the State of Nature as a paradise of peace and simplicity. He believed private property caused humanity’s fall from grace. For Rousseau, societal transition is a regression, not progress.
Rousseau’s State of Nature
Rousseau’s State of Nature had no resource scarcity due to a smaller population and abundant natural provisions. Humans lacked competitive desires, as they couldn’t wish for what they didn’t know. They possessed natural empathy due to their fundamental equality. Natural inequalities like strength and intelligence balanced out, fostering a sense of shared humanity.
Empathy and the Formation of Society
Empathy provided an egotistical reason to help others, as witnessing suffering caused personal distress. As population grew, small collaborative groups like families emerged. However, private property disrupted this harmony.
The Corrupting Influence of Private Property
Private property arose not from necessity but by chance. It introduced envy, greed, and competition, as possession became a measure of worth. This led to inequality and social classes, the root of conflict in modern society. The wealthy established governments and laws to protect their property, creating a system of dependence and inequality.
The Social Contract as a Tool of Oppression
To legitimize this system, a social contract promising equality was proposed. However, its true purpose was to protect private property and perpetuate inequality. Accepting this contract meant sacrificing natural blessings like sympathy and freedom, submitting to the powerful. Rousseau saw this as a betrayal of humanity’s true nature.
Comparing Hobbes and Rousseau
Fundamental Differences
Hobbes believed human nature is inherently competitive and violent, while Rousseau saw humans as living in harmony with nature. Both granted similar powers to the sovereign, but differed on its source. Rousseau believed sovereignty resides with the people, while Hobbes associated it with the government itself.
Differing Conceptions of Human Nature
: Rousseau’s basic trust in human beings and his desire for their
possessing freedom of expression in contrast with Hobbes’ declaration that human beings are so aggressive and power-seeking that an overwhelming power must exist to keep them in check, if we want to live in peace. For Hobbes, avoiding a state of civil war, the worst possible catastrophe, is always the foremost goal; for Rousseau, the preservation of human freedom and equality, without which we cannot maintain our humanity, is the foremost goal. As we might expect then, there is considerable difference between them as to what subjects should be willing to “put up with” from their government. We can also see why European heads of state shuddered at the thought of The Social Contract. Rousseau would reject the coercive element associated with Hobbes’ view of the social contract. Hobbes stresses the point that subjects enter into the commonwealth out of a sense of fear, so much so that it makes no difference in our obligations to the sovereign whether we entered through a voluntary assembly or through the fact of being conquered. Rousseau, on the other hand, asserts that our obedience to a conqueror should last only until the time we can escape from or overcome the usurper’s power. Moreover, Rousseau thinks that, in entering the social contract from a state of nature, we exchange elements of natural freedom for civil and moral freedom; and we cannot assign this worthwhile exchange simply to the motivation of fear. Hobbes and Rousseau differ in their ideas on the state of nature, Hobbes has a negative view(Hobbes theory of social contract supports sovereign without giving any value to individuals), while Rousseau believes we were better off in the state of nature(Rousseau supports individuals more than the state or the government) The basis for their different ideas on the state of nature contribute to their diverging ideas on their accounts of government
by social contract. “Hobbes saw societies divided by war and offered a road to peace. Rousseau saw societies divided by inequality and prophesied their downfall.” If we want to live together peacefully, Hobbes argued, we must submit ourselves to an authoritative body with the power to enforce laws and resolve conflicts.