John Locke, And Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Article Analysis

Words: 606
Pages: 3

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau may disagree on which form of supreme power is the most ordered (monarchy vs. democracy), they all claim because an individual’s passions and desires may possibly obstruct the rights of others, some form of government is needed. In order to live successfully, citizens willfully give up their individual freedom for the benefit that a supreme being of power will guarantee their safety and protection through state legislation. The people then can enjoy their property peacefully because of his protection. Marquis de Sade believes that civil liberties contradict the idea of absolute freedom intrinsic to the laws of nature. Criticized for his erotic literature, Sade was looked at in a negative way by many people. But, he argues against earlier political philosophers including their attempts to reconcile nature, reason, and virtue as bases of an ordered society. In this article, the author breaks down Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Sade to try to convey the differences and similarities …show more content…
He makes the argument that all men by nature are equal, so living outside of civil society there is a continuation of war. Hobbes paints an image of the natural state where there is no power and no law and argues that fear and reason will drive men to their own self-preservation through peace rather than war. Due to this, Hobbes is able to develop a theory of sovereignty based on the law of nature. “The fundamental generates the second Law of Nature, which marks the passage from a natural state of war and insecurity, to a societal state by the drawing of an agreement, a “Contract,” in which everyone’s safety and defense of one’s rights is insured through peace” (Messier, pg. 5, par. 2). This idea can be seen in Chapter 14 of the