What is the difference between Rousseau and Locke social contract?

What is the difference between Rousseau and Locke social contract?

For Locke, property rights arise prior to the state as an element of natural law, whereas for Rousseau, a social contract is a necessary precondition for the creation and legitimacy of property rights. From this original ownership over the body, the Lockean understanding of property unfolds.

How did Rousseau and Hobbes ideas about the state of nature differ?

Hobbes’ theory is based upon the assumption that human nature is naturally competitive and violent; while Rousseau’s theory about the state of ‘natural man’ is one living in harmony with nature and in a better situation than what he was seeing throughout his life in Europe.

What did Hobbes believe about the state of nature and the social contract?

According to Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651), the state of nature was one in which there were no enforceable criteria of right and wrong. The social contract allows individuals to leave the state of nature and enter civil society, but the former remains a threat and returns as soon as governmental power collapses.

How do Hobbes and Locke view the state of nature?

Locke views the state of nature more positively and presupposes it to be governed by natural law. Hobbes emphasises the free and equal condition of man in the state of nature, as he states that ‘nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of mind and body…the difference between man and man is not so considerable.

How does Rousseau’s view of man’s natural state different from Locke and Hobbes?

While Locke is more positive than Rousseau, Hobbes’ view is filled with pessimism, describing life in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” and as a war of “every man against every man” (Hobbes, 1968: I.

How does Hobbes understand the state of nature?

According to Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651), the state of nature was one in which there were no enforceable criteria of right and wrong. People took for themselves all that they could, and human life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” The state of nature was therefore a state…

How does Locke define state of nature?

In Chapter 2, Locke explains the state of nature as a state of equality in which no one has power over another, and all are free to do as they please. Each individual in the state of nature has the power to execute natural laws, which are universal.

How are Hobbes and Rousseau different?

Whereas Rousseau separates the sovereign from the government, Hobbes does not. Underlying this basic difference is Rousseau’s insistence that civil society must be based upon preservation of everyone’s freedom and equality in contrast with Hobbes’ insistence that civil society must be based upon power and fear.

How does Rousseau describe the state of nature?

The state of nature, for Rousseau, is a morally neutral and peaceful condition in which (mainly) solitary individuals act according to their basic urges (for instance, hunger) as well as their natural desire for self-preservation. This latter instinct, however, is tempered by an equally natural sense of compassion.