By: Cindy nguyen

Civics, Mr. Jeffery October 2011

Thomas Hobbes vs. Jean Jacques Rousseau

I believe that there should be equal rights and freedom with a sense of the fairness of having to be ready for the consequences of my actions to an extent. There are both pros and cons in each of the philosophers ideas but when it comes down to who I agree with, it is Jean Jacques Rousseau. Jean Jacques Rousseaus view is what I agree with because his central concept is liberty. One of his ideas I agreed with was the idea of the social contract, in which the government and authority are in a mutual contract between authorities and the governed; which implies that the governed(us), agree to be ruled only so that our rights, property and happiness be protected by said ruler. I liked the fact that if the rulers cease to protect our rights, property and happiness, that they themselves would be breaking and defying the social contract and we are free to choose another set of governors or magistrates. It is a great thing to choose who may be allowed to govern us. Another idea of his was that the natural moral state of human beings was to be compassionate; civilization has made us cruel, selfish, and bloodthirsty. I agree that the natural state for us humans is to be compassionate. I believe that somewhere down the line we have become, cruel and selfish, because we had to be civilized. Civilization made us have to do things with a composure that have made us feel somewhat angry because we just HAD to be civil. Thomas Hobbes - Although I understand what his views are, I didnt really agree with him as much as I did with Rousseaus view. For example, he believed that the first principle of human behavior was egoism, or self-interest, and it was this egoism that was the root of all conflict. I dont believe that the first principle of human behaviour was egoism, I believe the first human behaviour or emotion was love. Maybe humans back in the day did not realize what they were feeling when they made the choice to extend our population. The root of all conflict couldnt have been egoism, Im not quite sure what to believe in with that, but I surely do not believe that egoism was what caused conflict. Another view I did not agree with was what he chose to call the life of man in a pre-social state of nature, nasty, brutish and short, a constant war of everyman with everyman. I just happened to not like what he called that, I dont think that man was chaotic and brutal pre-social life, I just think that man was confused and was unsure of their whereabouts. But I dont think that man created constant war with everyman. Like Ive stated before, there are both pros and cons, but when it comes down to it, Id have to say I agree with the views of Jean Jacques Rousseau.