This is the opinion of C. In this comparative survey we first deal with the nature of state as it is revealed in the writings of these three writers. He studied at Westport Church when he was four years old. He believed we are always in competition with each other for the best food, shelter, money, and so on. All other natural law theorists assumed that man was by nature a social animal. His ideas of human nature are formed with a deist philosophy, meaning that he recognizes that there is a God but does not espouse any particular religion or dogma behind this being or beings. The repetition of the same thing is to be found in Section 97.
Locke, however, views man in a nicer light by countering that since we are governed by natural laws that come from a creator, then there also follows that there are rights that come from this being as well. What is more, Hobbes then says that the sovereign can be above natural law and so can use it to get his subjects to do as he wills. Therefore, all other powers or bodies are subordinate to the legislative authority. In short, for Hobbes, the transition to the state is a necessity to get out of a state of destruction and anarchy. Absolutism is the greatest enemy of individual freedom and democracy.
This inevitably would end up in a. There are certain points at which the theories of both men collide; however, their synonymous beliefs are exactly the point at which their theories begin to diverge again. In a democratic state the general welfare of the society will be placed above the personal interest and in the above passage Rousseau emphasized that. Since his general will is rational and infallible and men are also rational they are supposed to show unqualified obligation to the general will. Throughout my essay I am going to be comparing and contrasting their differences and similarities. Through the power of their reason, groups of people could come together to work their way out of the state of nature. He regarded these as embodiment of justice and for the sake of justice he thought that these rights must be protected.
Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. If we have the same tangible desire and that object is in scarcity then we will be on a path to confrontation. If so, how can we jump upon the conclusion that he directed his arrow against the welfare and interests of individuals? Both men look toward the creation of civil order in order to protect not only the security of the individual, but also the security of the state. Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau leaned towards a more democratic system of government. The state of nature was infested with war, suspicion against each other, involvement in war or conflicts centering around pretty interests. In fact there is very striking similarity between the two. His idea was that a real democracy should be preceded by economic equality.
He had never married, nor had he children; he died in 1704 after a long demur in his health. He sometimes says sovereign power and sometimes supreme power. Both theorists believed in the state and laws of nature; they just had different interpretations of it. Both Hobbes and Locke agreed with the social contract theory the theory that society was created by people agreeing with one another to form a group to protect the rights of the citizens and the laws that had been created, so the overall society could work to its fullest but shown different beliefs about it. Both Hobbes and Locke see government as a necessity, but the amount of government and the means and justifications for ruling are very much different. I guess I agree with parts of what both Hobbs and Locke are saying.
However they differed as to how to obtain this lofty goal and what it consisted of. Common, people deprived of basic necessities, cannot think of peace and security or life, liberty and property. He was also against the interference of the church in the political affairs of the state. If the laws fail the individuals are not obliged to obey laws that are to show obligation to the authority. He reposed his confidence only on the state, to him any other organisation had no importance. In fact, this is the central idea of his theory of sovereignty.
So far as the formation and day-to-day functioning of the state are concerned Locke has introduced the ideas of consent and majority decision. Rousseau apprehended that a conditional obligation may lead the state to collapse. Locke has said that the end of the government is the good of the community. Marx is more quantitative and calculative in his reasoning, while Hobbes's theories are based on natural. The commonwealth may be constituted according to its own nature, but there shall be provision of supremacy of legislature. Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being.
But an in-depth analysis of the various aspects of contract reveals that he had an idea about obligation. In respects to equality, since we all are owing our lives and rights to this creator and we are not God and so are subject to death, this makes all of us equal. Moreover, laws are enacted to realize the welfare and preservation of the body-politic. Of course, in general terms, both carry almost the same idea. From the analysis Rousseau made in the above-noted Chapters in regard to sovereignty, three salient features can be deduced—sovereignty is inalienable, indivisible and absolute. Yet still this is not all, for the picture painted becomes even worse if we consider those who simply enjoy conquest or the suffering of others. Property exists solely by the will of the state, thus in a state of nature men are condemned to endless violent conflict.
This conditional type of obligation is really unique in all constitutional systems of government. Naturally his conception about democracy cannot be accepted. The promises and bargains for truck, etc. Maybe, it is i who is too optimistic, but it seems to me that the human essence is an unfinished product guided by societies structures, the past and many other variables that are forever changing and evolving, consequently producing an ever changing consciousness which has unlimited potential for good. The two men both had very strong views on freedom and how a country should be governed. Hobbes thought that only a state with on absolute sovereignty at the top of power could free the society from anarchy. The reason man forms government is for self preservation and this government is perpetuated by fear.