Press, 1998, p84).
Hobbes then sees people basically as simple, rational beings who are simply
governed by passions combined with reason. One passion, Hobbes claims that will
never cease to exist is for another person to exert their superiority over other people.
This then means that people will never stop competing for superiority over others, be
it over power, status or recognition. This then brings out one crucial point in the
Hobbesian argument, when two people compete for the same objective, they will
undoubtedly become foes and will make considerable effort to annihilate each other.
A second cause of war between individuals in the state of nature argues Hobbes is the
competitive nature between human beings for items of need or want. If items are
sparse, it is possible that two or more persons may attempt to claim the same object.
This will then undoubtedly lead to them becoming enemies and possibly lead to a
state of war.
Hobbes argues that the way to put an end to the state of nature is to surrender some of
their rights to a power who will use its new found authority to create a framework of
government within which the persons who have delegated their rights will have some
degree of security and peace, so therefore leading to happiness. Hobbes believed that
this was the only way to curb the anarchy that the state of nature seemed to represent.
‘Rights in political society are defined by law. Property becomes protected in civil
society by "…the establishment of general rules of property prescribes a protected
area of safety to the individual in the enjoyment of his own" (Goldsmith, 1966, CUP,
p193). Hobbes had a staunch belief that there was no such thing as justice or legal
rules in the state of nature, he did believe however that there were a set of natural laws
and rights. A right, argued by Hobbes, was what an individual may do and a law
being what they may not. Hobbes identified many laws, but by far the most important
seem to be "That every man, ought 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, 1998, p87) The other important law being that an
individual should be prepared to accept as much peace as any other in the state.
Hobbes also argues that there are two main rights. The first being, "By all means we
can, to defend our selves." (Hobbes, 1998, p88) The second, "Whatsoever you require
that others should do to you, that do ye to them” (Hobbes, 1998, p88). The
transformation from the state of nature to sovereign rule is a very important part of
‘Leviathan’ and Hobbes argument as a whole. Another of Hobbes laws of nature is
"that men performe their Covenants made" (Hobbes, 1998, p95). He argues that
persons who enter into deals should not break them as it in their own interest to stick
to it, either as a benefit or as a way to building trust and it is "the Fountain and
Originall of Justice" (Hobbes, 1998, p95) It appears the one reason for Hobbes to
advocate this law is that it allows him a way to illustrate a break away from the
natural condition of mankind and into a state of sovereignty.
Hobbes believed that the political institutions of the newly formed state should be
absolute and sovereign. The sovereign, he argued, would find within its rights to act
as a peacemaker in disputes and as a third party in confrontation between two subjects
who could be entrusted with power to defend each subject from another or to join
collectively to ward off a threat from another state. The sovereign, he also stated,
would decide what was right and wrong and punish accordingly in order to keep its
authority and power. The sovereign would receive its authority from its subjects who
consent to be governed, in the form of the social contract. Thus allowing the
sovereign to technically do what he wants in the name of the people. If the sovereign
creates a law, it is the people creating the law. Hobbes argued then that the consent to
be governed is decided by and between the people, the sovereign does not take part in
it as it does not exist until the contract is completed. It therefore seems that the
sovereign cannot break a contract, as it has not technically entered into it in the first
place.
Jean Jacques Rousseau writings came a time after those of Hobbes, a time in which a
generation had the chance to read and contemplate Hobbes writings, and draw
conclusions of their own.
The main concern for Rousseau seems to be liberty, or the freedom of man as a
citizen of a state to act separately from other citizens. Rousseau places great emphasis
on his concept of the General Will. This is where citizens under a system of
governance vote for the laws that they believe are necessary, and so are therefore
incapable and morally inclined into not breaking them because they deem these laws
morally correct, as they have passed them themselves.
Rousseau however believed that the advance of human society was corrupt as liberty
had been eroded and that ‘the state of nature’ was in fact nothing like Hobbes had
argued it, therefore in a modern society Rousseau believed "Man was born free, and
he is everywhere in chains"(Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1958, Aldine Press, p3).
In ‘The State of War’ then, Rousseau expressed his feelings mainly on the state of
nature and the state of war as interpreted by Hobbes, and gives his own definitions
and writings on the same subjects. Rousseau seems to state that in ‘The State of
Nature’ not every man is actively seeking war, to protect or to get what he himself has
or indeed wants, as is argued in Hobbes, “But even if it were true that this boundless
and uncontrollable greed had developed in all men…it would still not produce that
state of universal war between everyone which Hobbes dares to depict in all its
repulsiveness” (Hoffman and Fidler, Rousseau on International Relations, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1991, p33). Rousseau also doubts that in ‘The State of Nature’ war
was waged over just property and what a man wanted, for what good would property
be if no one was there to see you had gained it, “The frantic desire to possess
everything in incompatible with the desire to destroy ones fellow men; and the
conqueror who had the misfortune to remain alone in the world, having killed
everyone else, would not thereby enjoy anything for the very reason that he would
possess all…What are the riches themselves good for if not to be imparted to others?”
(Hoffman and Fidler, 1991, p33). “The state of war is abolished” (Hoffman and
Fidler, 1991, p33) argues Rousseau, if there is no one there to share it with you.
Rousseau also argues that man is a naturally peaceful animal, and only fights through
“…force of habit and experience” (Hoffman and Fidler, 1991, p33) unlike Hobbes,
who believes that in the state of nature all men fight to protect what they have and for
what they want.
Contrary to Hobbes beliefs on ‘The State of War’, Rousseau argues that it is only
when man enters into a sovereign society that he decides to fight, “It is only when he
has entered into society with other men that he decides to attack another…he only
becomes a soldier after he has become a citizen. There are no strong natural
dispositions to make war on one’s fellow man” (Hoffman and Fidler, 1991, p34).
Rousseau also argues that in the state of nature there can be no war, only disputes
between individuals, and that in a sovereign society disputes cannot take place
between individuals, but between two sides, “… a quarrel begins and ends within a
day; and one can have fights and murders…but never…wars. In the civil state…no
one has the right to dispose either of his own life or that of another person, the state of
war can no longer take place between private individuals” (Hoffman and Fidler, 1991,
p35).
“For basically man has no necessary connection with his fellow men; he can maintain
his full strength without their help” (Hoffman and Fidler, 1991, p36). This leads on to
Rousseau’s argument that a mans commitment to the sovereign state leads to that state
becoming bigger, more powerful and structured, and whereas man can find all his
faculties are limited, the state can grow, “…its proper size is undefined; it can always
grow bigger” (Hoffman and Fidler, 1991, p38).
Hobbes and Rousseau then seem to have very different opinions about the state of
nature and the theory and workings of the sovereign state, but what if anything make
their writings a realist manifesto or are they even realist at all?
Hobbesian realism tends to be set on a kind of scientific method, which includes a
thorough enquiry into society as a whole. Hobbes also gives a description of ‘society’
or what the elements of society are about before they are joined, in the state of nature.
Perhaps the key point in Hobbes argument is his realisation that the sovereign power
and its authority must be absolute.
Rousseau however, although he partly believed Hobbes had the right ideas about the
state of nature and the sovereign states existence, he rejected the views Hobbes held
about what was to occur within these spheres. Rousseau’s main objection to Hobbes
was that the causes of conflict lay not in human nature, but in the creation of the
artificial state.
Hobbes and Rousseau then seem to have very different opinions about ‘The State of
Nature’ and the theory and workings of the sovereign state, but what if anything make
their writings a realist manifesto or are they even realist at all?
Hobbesian realism tends to be set on a kind of scientific method, which includes a
thorough enquiry into society as a whole. Hobbes also gives a description of ‘society’
or what the elements of society are about before they are joined, in the state of nature.
Perhaps the key point in Hobbes argument is his realisation that the sovereign power
and its authority must be absolute.
Rousseau however, although he partly believed Hobbes had the right ideas about the
state of nature and the sovereign states existence, he rejected the views Hobbes held
about what was to occur within these spheres. Rousseau’s main objection to Hobbes
was that the causes of conflict lay not in human nature, but in the creation of the
artificial state.
Word count : 2246.
Bibliography.
Jonathan Wolff, An Introduction to Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1996.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Oxford University Press, 1998.
M. M. Goldsmith, Hobbes' Science of Politics, Columbia University Press, 1966.
Jean Jacques Rousseau, The State of War in S. Hoffman and D. Fidler, Rousseau on International Relations, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991.
Jean Jacques Rousseau, Abstract and Judgement of Saint-Pierre’s project for Perpetual Peace in S. Hoffman and D. Fidler, Rousseau on International Relations, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991.
Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1958, Aldine Press.
