Political Philosophy

Prof. Steinberg
Essay #1: question 1

Allen Jeffrey Gurfel
September 22, 2014


Outline:

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau present divergent views on human nature
and sociability. These views lead them to different political perspectives. First I sketch
the essentials of Hobbes and Rousseaus views on human nature and political
organizations. Then I claim that while there are compelling features of both views,
Rousseaus is the more compelling for pragmatic reasons. Yet this may be an illusion
I may be giving him a benefit of the doubt I havent extended to Hobbes. On the
question of human nature there may be a draw.



I.
Hobbes paints a dismal portrait of humankind in the state of natureself-
interested, we exist in a state of war of all against all. Under conditions of
continual fear and danger of violent death, the life of man is bound to be
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Every individual must be permanently on
guard against others. Thus, with the fruits of industry uncertain and man
perpetually fearful, there will be no culture, no arts or letters, no science, no
cooperation, no building, no society.
Facing this undesirable state, individuals enter a social contract. They
surrender their freedom to do whatever their own powers permit. Whereas in
nature each person was the rightful author of his own actions, entry into the social
contract transfers that authorship to the monarch. Henceforth, all will be subject to
the complete authority of the sovereign.
II.
Rousseaus picture of man in the state of nature is brighter. Man in nature is
characterized by self-love, the will to preservation, and compassion. Hes solitary
but well-equipped to satisfy essential needs. Hes distinguished from animals by
freedomthe ability to override desiresand perfectibilitythe ability to learn
new skills.
With cooperative settlements individuals become sluggish, heading toward
decadence. Individuals compare themselves with others and crave recognition and
superiority. Some clever charlatan builds a fence and says, this is minethe
beginning of property. Its a hop and a skip toward inequality and exploitation. We
grow interdependent and incapable of satisfying our own needs. Conflict abounds.
With Hobbesian motivations we agree to form a state. This state reinforces the
power of the privileged.
Were not doomed. Rousseau proposes a direct democracy. The people are
the sovereign; the government carries out the general will. Some problems arise.
How to reconcile private wills and the general will? How to ensure that the general
will doesnt oppress a minority? How to prevent a faction, a corporate will, from
imposing its will on the majority? Rousseau argues that the law must apply to all
equally. He argues that good laws will make good citizens, but initially this might
require some propaganda, inculcating a collective sense of identity.



III.
Hobbes has cold realism. We perceive in us desires, aggression, and fears.
The law prevents us from fulfilling all desires and acting aggressively. It protects us
from those who would seek to do so, providing stability, allaying fear.
Against Hobbes: the plausibility of inequality breeding strife; the gloomy
history of sovereign rule; the possibility of better political organizations.
Rousseau imagines peoples goodness, tracing the bad to plausible sources.
Thus he imagines political organization that is preferable to Hobbesian subjugation
to the whims of a monarch.
Against Rousseau: his society may a) not be possible as described and b)
might lead to troubling elements, i.e. it needs tweaking. Were willing to tweak
Rousseau, we should be willing to tweak Hobbes. We could stipulate clauses to the
contract placing certain limits and obligations on the sovereign.
Pragmatics might fail to decide which view of human nature to endorse. I
suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. We are aggressive and self-interested,
but we are also empathetic and compassionate. We may well benefit from a State, as
Hobbes argues, but it doesnt have to be the State he suggests. There are better
alternatives. Rousseau points us in a better direction.