Comparación Hobbes, Rousseau Y Locke

Introduction

It is interesting to observe in detail the various points of view, from the political theory of the origin of society and theories of the state of nature of human beings. In this work we will focus on at analyzing the different theories of the state of nature of human beings and as a government or civil society (social contract), focusing on the views of philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jeaques Rousseau.

In this present work, I´ll try to prove the hipotesis that, although all three authors are very diferntes what they say in these respects, between Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau, theories are opposing and John Locke being a much more moderate theory, mainly talking state nature of human beings. A review of what the authors plan regarding the state of nature and social contract will be, to go, confome they arise authors, comparing and contrasting the theories to demonstrate the above and finally a conlusion be given to what presented in this paper. State of Nature

Thomas Hobbes

From the point of view of Hobbes human being by nature is, to sum it somehow selfish. Hobbes argued that men are equal by nature, quote: “La naturaleza ha hecho a los hombres tan iguales en la facultades del espíritu y el cuerpo que, si bien un hombre es evidentemente más fuerte de cuerpo o más sagaz de entendimiento… cuando se considera en conjunto, la diferencia entre hombre y hombre no es tan importante” (Hobbes,1994) The state of nature as Hobbes puts it is the stage where one lives in a state of barbarism and constant conflict. A situation of all against all, where there is no law or laws. This is because the man has an insatiable appetite item is powered by natural passion, it suggests that such individual has any right whatsoever, and as every man thinks the same, this causes a permanent state of conflict. In other words Hobbes speaks of the state of nature is a state of war.

Hobbes said that human nature there are three situations that create discord: the competition, which drives men to fight for personal gain; Here, Hobbes argues that through violence is like the man does own the children, women and other men's cattle. Distrust, to achieve security and to defend what man has achieved through violence. And finally, for the glory and reputation make them speak good of man in a way to exert force from the words.

John Locke

From the point of view of John Locke, the state of nature of the speaker is very different from talking Hobbes. While Locke and Hobbes speak of equality of men the context and the reasons they develop are very different from each other. In addition, Locke does not refer to man as selfish by nature; he gives a point of view different from Hobbes, which will be explained below: Locke, as it somehow defines the state of man's nature as a state of mutual aid, unlike Hobbes, who speaks of a permanent state war among men. To quote Locke speaking the state of nature: “es un estado de completa libertad para poder ordenar sus actos y para disponer de sus propiedades y también de sus personas como mejor le plazca, dentro de los límites de la ley natural, sin necesidad de pedir permiso sin depender de la voluntad de otra persona”(Locke, 1989). Here we find another significant difference with Thomas Hobbes: first Hobbes speaks of a state of complete anarchy where there is no law yet when the state or civil government is formed. On the other hand, John Locke speaks of a natural law that, even without being in a civilian government, already exists and governs men in the state of nature.

Importantly, Locke refers to this law governing men in the state of nature, as a natural law is a manifestation of God and is judged by very reason of man. This natural law states that no one ought to harm another, either by depriving him of his liberty, damaging or it taking his life. The men then endowed with reason, as a judge of the natural law, cooperate have a tendency to preserve their rights. This also has complications in the natural state to be explained later.

Jean Jacques Rousseau

The view of Rousseau about the state of human nature is very different from that of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It is clear that Rousseau rejects the natural selfishness and the state of nature a state of war spoken of Thomas Hobbes and rejects natural law governing human beings in the state of nature that is John Locke.

From the point of view of human Rousseau in the state of nature, describes it, totally opposed to the idea of Hobbes of a human being with a negative or evil tendency; Rousseau, as it somehow describes the man in the state of nature as well. To argue this, Rousseau speaks of the human being by nature has two basic emotions: love and mercy itself.

To develop this idea, talk that is when humans begin to socialize when problems start to arise, but this, speak a little later. Rousseau speaks of human beings are born free but in chains live, quote: “El hombre ha nacido libre, y sin embargo, vive encadenado en todas partes entre cadenas. El mismo que se considera amo, no deja por eso de ser menos esclavo que los demás”(Rousseau, 1771). Man has no right, nor language, nor social life; is a being on earth with simple needs, which makes it different to man is in the state of nature, has two feelings: that is the desire of conservation (self-love), for fear of pain and the feeling of empathy (piety) for the pain of others.

Social contract

After explaining what the conditions of human beings in nature were provided as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, and have noted the fundamental differences in their views, will become clearer over the state of nature to a state or government civil and after three contrasts between the social contract theories of different authors.

Thomas Hobbes

From the point of view of Thomas Hobbes, remembering the selfishness of human beings in the state of nature and that this produces permanent conflict among men, ie a permanent state of war of all against all, this causes fear of violent death and is just that moment where the need

...