Hobbes_rousseau Essay, Research Paper

Through the development of the Polis, both Hobbes and Rousseau have stood as highly influential theorists of the Social Contract. Although both writers would strongly agree for the development of society and the importance of a Social Contract, the actual methods and ends are quite distinct for each man. Hobbes contract aims at assuring Civil Peace through the use of the ruler to secure the contract in exchange for obedience of the people. In contrast to this method, Rousseau chooses to generate the legitimacy in the contract through the will of the people and for their prosperity and self-preservation. It is through examining the divergent methods of each author that the true distinctions of each form of Social Contract become apparent.

The development of the Social Contract for both Hobbes and Rousseau forms from man s need to preserve humanity, but this is not the intended purpose of the contract for Rousseau. For Hobbes, man is naturally evil in the State of Nature. The natural condition of man is competitive and causes distrust and vanity among men. Consequently, man turns to reason to dictate the necessity of self-preservation in this state. And therefore, as long as this naturall Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man…of living out the time which Nature ordinarily alloweth men to live (Hobbes p. 190). To preserve, secure and assure the right of self-preservation, man must use reason to escape the continual fear of violent death that occurs in Nature. The created Civil Peace is the purpose of the Social Contract for Hobbes and leads to the Common Wealth.

In contrast, Rousseau sees man as self-interested or barbaric in the State of Nature. It is man s unlimited right to temptation that demonstrates the need for mankind to enter Civil Society. Unlike Hobbes, who sees the State of Nature as a horrible life, Rousseau recognizes that man is quite content in this state. Although he cannot be sustained for extended periods in this state, he chooses to contract into society to align justice with utility, avoid the inconveniences of Nature and gain the greater benefits achieved by submitting to a collective society. For since men cannot engender new forces, but merely unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of maintaining themselves but to form by aggregation a sum of forces that could gain the upper hand over the resistance, so that their forces are directed by mean of single moving power and made to act in concert (Rousseau p. 147). To Rousseau, the Social Contract regulates and unifies man by replacing natural freedom for convention and therefore creating a greater benefit or convenience than what mans self-interest can achieve in Nature.

Although both contracts have similar characteristics, several crucial properties remain distinct in each. In entering the Social Contract, Hobbes and Rousseau believe man must consent to lay down his rights and submit to the created convention to avoid returning to the State of Nature. That man be willing when others are so too, as farre-forth as for Peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right…and be content with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfe (Hobbes p. 190). While laying down of rights and equality for all within the contract is essential, Rousseau s contract allows man to obey himself while remaining as free as before. Rousseau contends that total alienation of property, rights and freedom is needed to form a perfect union where no further demands could be required. Because each citizen has submitted equally to the union, each gains not only what they had sacrificed, but the greater force to preserve these things. Although in this state he deprives himself of several of the advantages belonging to him in the State of Nature, he regains such great ones (Rousseau p. 151).

In contrast, Hobbes sees consent of the contract as freely alienating your current rights, except the right of self-preservation, without expectation of their return. Unlike Rousseau, Hobbes believes that the right of self-preservation must remain an inalienable right, because if man cannot preserve himself, he returns to the State of War and can not hope to accomplish Civil Peace. As a result, Hobbes covenant requires man to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of Warre (Hobbes p. 190). The covenant for Hobbes requires man to maintain his right of self-preservation within society to assure Civil Peace.

The idea of submitting to the created convention of the contract is also crucial for both Hobbes and Rousseau, but each dictates quite opposite methods. Rousseau s contract requires all participants to be equal and submit to the General Will created from this union. To him, the power and legitimacy of the contract is derived from the people. The freedom and rights of the citizens is dependant on society and the enlightened common interest that is produced creates a duty to the General Will. This resulting characteristic is of the absolute sovereignty of the people as an inalienable virtue and therefore, their will is essential in Rousseau s Social Contract.

In contrast, Hobbes society requires all within the covenant to acknowledge each other creating a trust among the individuals. Together as equals, the citizens of the contract act as a majority and vote for a ruler. It is through the authority of the majority that a ruler gains the right to rule, but it is the fear of this ruler which legitimizes and enforces the contract. Unlike Rousseau who felt the legitimacy of the regime depends upon the people, Hobbes believes, covenants, without the Sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure man at all…therefore, if there be no Power erected, or not great enough for security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men (Hobbes p. 223). The importance of the ruler for Hobbes is essential in understanding the security of the covenant. For fear and obedience to the ruler in exchange for security enforces the contract, leads to cooperation, and most of all assures self-preservation or Civil Peace.

Another crucial aspect of the Ruler for Hobbes is his station above the covenant. Since the ruler does not contract within the covenant, all citizens for both Hobbes and Rousseau are equal in the Social Contract. But for Hobbes, the ruler stands above the judgements, laws and powers of the contract and he holds all Legislative, Judicial and Executive powers. As a result, he acts as the author of all laws, judge of all men, and has a right to direct men against their conscious. Due to the enlightened nature of this one man or assembly, the citizens do not fear oppression because the rulers power depends upon the well being of the covenant and he would not want to jeopardize this power.

In contrast, Rousseau believes no one should stand above the absolute sovereignty of the people or the General Will. The first and most important consequence of the principles established above is that only the general will can direct the forces of the state according to the purpose for which it was instituted, which is the common good (Rousseau p. 153). Since the will of the people creates all laws that pertain to society, the General Will must come from a consensus of the people, not one man or assembly. As opposed to the ruler who creates the laws and who is above them as well, the law for Rousseau is the product of the General Will. As a result, all citizens are law makers as well as subject to those laws and nothing can be willed by them which they could not will together. It is obvious that Rousseau would greatly argue against the need for a ruler within the social contract because of the great importance of the General Will in the prosperity and self-preservation of man. Also, the creation of the ruler in the Social Contract creates a conflict for Rousseau who believes loyalty is owed unto the people, not the government. This belief stems from the idea that people and nations form unions which result in the creation of government. The ruler would conflict with the absolute power of the people and destroy the General will which assures self-preservation in the contract. As a result, the utility of the contract is no longer greater than the inconveniences of Nature and the system fails. Also, the authority or inequality of one man in the covenant would create disunity and ultimately self-interested factions. When individual wills are substituted for the General Will, anarchy and tyranny will surely result.

Another point where Hobbes and Rousseau diverge on the position of a ruler is found in Rousseau s belief in limited government. If the contract is led by one man or assembly, laws will result which do not affect civil society. Since he believes that the General Will cannot create laws that are unneeded, any such laws should not exist. Consequently, the ability to limit laws to reduce government from contradicting the General Will and deteriorating society is avoided by Rousseau. As a counter measure to Hobbes position of ruler, Rousseau chooses a Legislator who for desire of honor alone, shapes the General Will and forces society to accept the appropriate rules. But unlike Hobbes, the Legislator never becomes a member of the union and uses religion and power in the image of divine right to provide legitimacy to his duty only.

The concept of the ruler is also seen by Rousseau as a form of destruction in the Social Contract as well. For this type of rule leads to factions, disrespect and abuse of law, and denial of the General Will. As a result, the unity, conveniences and regulation of society cannot be assured. The ending of the Social Contract would ultimately result when the preservation of the rights and freedom of the General Will is no longer possible and prosperity and self-preservation is not assured. The ending of the Social Contract for Hobbes as well results when the purpose of the contract can no longer prevail. Once the fear of the ruler is no longer legitimate and cannot defend the people, obedience to the ruler and contract is no longer valid. This premise is based upon the ideal that once legitimacy of the covenant is violated, self-preservation is no longer assured. Since it goes against the right of self-preservation to make agreements that may harm the body, man must use all available means to preserve himself. Thus, Civil Peace is no longer possible and the contract is dishonored causing man to return to the previous State of Nature.

Although both Hobbes and Rousseau focused on the development of the Social Contract, each has created a system quite distinct from the other. It would be unrealistic to believe that either theorist would condone the contract the other had developed due to the great complexities and contrary methods each employs. For Hobbes, the importance of the Ruler as the absolute authority to secure the regime is crucial in assuring Civil Peace. On the contrary, Rousseau would greatly argue that this role conflicts with the General Will and disrupts the contracts ability to defend man s right to self-preservation. But despite the diverse structures and methods of each Social Contract, both Hobbes and Rousseau recognized man s necessity to form these contracts to raise man from the State of Nature to a more conventional form of society that can preserve mankind.