Hobbes Vs Rousseau

Words: 454
Pages: 2

Like Hobbes, Rousseau also shared the idea that mankind was naturally violent/barbaric, as well as separate influences that may prompt human beings to act particular ways in their theories and explain the reality of human nature (behavior) without these influences. However, unlike Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that man’s human nature or natural state is peaceful and that society was the reason for altering that nature. Rousseau gives an example of how mankind had fallen away from morality and virtue, and gives into luxury and leisure by discussing how Greece’s society changed overtime as science and the arts progressed, in addition to explaining the dangers it causes. He also believed that sovereign government only benefited the people’s interest, rather than protecting the people from themselves by enforcing law and order.
Rousseau’s statement, “Man was born free, but everywhere is in chains” is accurate. His statement refers to how people have a certain amount of freedom due to the reason that there are laws and orders we must follow. We all have free will and have the ability to make our own choices and act the way we want to behave, but we still must follow the rules. Our freedom is only limited and varies within different places depending where one lives. Even isolated communities have a system of
…show more content…
However, our freedom is limited because not all the choices we make are acceptable. I would say our freedom would be more dependent and not absolute. But given that there are various views on freedom and what it means to be free brings about different beliefs or ideas that mankind is or is not really free. So are we actually “born free”, given that we still have the will to make our own decisions? Maybe at some point in this life humankind was free, but for now it seems that the type of freedom we have is a partial