A Different Conception of an Ideal Government in the Case of a Hobbess Civil Society - Research Paper Example

Thomas Hobbes describes his idea of the state of nature using sovereign rule and social contracts. On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau challenged Hobbes assertions using a completely different version or interpretation of the state of nature (Plamenatz, Philp and Pelczynski 138). In general, they present completely dissimilar ideas on the constitutionality of a true state of nature. Hobbes sees a true state of nature as life without authority, whilst Rousseau is more inclined to a theoretical period before man got civilized. In Hobbes’s state of nature, greediness will characterize or typify the actions of every person, but in Rousseau’s state of nature, greed is inexistence. Also in Hobbes’s state of nature, human beings will never live together harmoniously, whilst in Rousseau’s state of nature is taken as period that is relatively peaceful and devoid of hostility that stems from the intricacies or discomfitures of a civilized society. From these positions, it is not difficult to see that, on nearly all aspects, it can be seen that Hobbes and Rousseau are optimistic about their positions and their difference in perspective only serves out school one another’s point of view. This paper therefore, explains Rousseau’s criticism of Hobbes account of the state of nature. In so doing, the paper will also explore how Rousseau’s criticism endorse a different conception of an ideal government and will look at Rousseau’s ideal state can help in ameliorating the problems generated by a civil society. Rousseau’s criticism The idea of complete freedom Hobbes’s take on the idea of complete freedom is that, in a state of nature access to complete freedom is possible when humans are equal and independent of each other. To discount this idea, Rousseau introduces the concepts of evolution, dependence and rational capacity as guiding principles in pursuance of people’s to satisfaction. Rousseau infers that because people are not able to meet all their desires, they evolved and came together because it through depending on each other that they will be able to satisfy their passions. In other words, what Rousseau is saying is that if the essence of man is merely to act upon his wishes and exercising complete freedom or liberty, then they are not making use of their rational capacity and as such they are creating the opportunity to hamper or infringe on the freedom of one another. Aspect of civil society Hobbes acknowledges the value of freedom or liberty as something that cannot be gotten in nature but only possible in civil society. However, the insufficiency with this definition is well exemplified when discussing the importance of positive or civil liberty that exists in any civil society as espoused by Rousseau. Rousseau argues that idea Hobbes idea creates a negative liberty or a civil society that is typified by ‘unlawful chains’ that compels people to conform to a system they actually do not agree with. Pre-social aspect Another criticism against Hobbes's state of nature relates to the existence of man as pre-social. Rousseau wonders how a man would be considered pre-social yet in the state of nature most qualities attributed to him are social in nature. Rousseau describes the aspect of pride as one that can only take place in a social environment. It must be understood, nonetheless, that both of these two scholars base their arguments on men’s qualities that are inter-personal in nature. According to Rousseau it is misleading when Hobbes claims that the life of man is solitary and yet he has inferred used the concept of neighborliness where people are not likely to get satisfied with resources at their disposal, because they are envious about what their neighbors have. B. An ideal Government The concept of power Hobbes supports a government that is headed by a ruler or king. In this case, people would confide their power or sovereignty in the hands of kings as a way of being more resolute and consistent in exercising political authority. Furthermore, Hobbes indicates that once the people have surrendered their absolute power to their ruler or king, they do not have any right to rebel against his wishes. According to Rousseau, all political powers must reside with the citizens, as they exercise their general will. Unlike Hobbes who supports the idea of separation of powers, Rousseau takes the idea espoused by Montesquieu that in an idea state or government, there can be no separation of powers. Under this government, people, meet to willingly deliberate on laws that will guide them. The concept of Democracy In terms of democracy, Rousseau indicates that a government should be entrusted with the responsibility of administering the general will of the people. But such a government would be composed of officials who derive their powers from the people. Rousseau criticizes the position of confiding powers in one person as he is likely vary or make rules that only favor himself and his supports an aspect that is likely to lead to murder, inequality, accumulation of private properties and segregation of dissent voices all which deny people their democratic rights. In short, Rousseau argued that an ideal government would be associated with genuine democracy, equality and civic commitment, as well as a moral association that bind or bring people together in freedom. What Rousseau means is that every person in this ideal state would have to unconditionally surrender all his or her rights to the community as well as to its authority and as such the state or government would govern by the general will of the people and not rule of unanimous vote or the majority, but instead by the plainly visible truth, that is discernible by reason and by common sense. This is based on the fact that Rousseau supported direct and not representative democracy. C. Given that Rousseau’s ideal state cannot bring men back to their state of nature how does it help in ameliorating the problem generated by a civil society? According to, Rousseau a civilized society is inherently or naturally ultra-conservative in all aspects. Rousseau holds the view that natural man, in his entirely uninformed and sovereign state, is actually in his ideal state of humanity for the reason that such a state is not characterized by vices that are associated with civilization (Campbell 38). A civil society according to Rousseau’s perspective is characterized by need, greediness, oppression, pride and desires. Furthermore, he characterizes a civil society with things such as power, inequality and slavery. Rousseau, nonetheless, admits that it is not possible to get back to the state of nature or simply a state of primeval natural man. As such, he indicates that in the present times, people need to be managed or governed as they appear and that any changes in future in nature of man will actually be an outcome or a consequence of re-education to instruct them to conform to the believe that interests of the general public are similar to their private interests. In other words, to ameliorate or suppress the problems associated with the civil society, Rousseau recommends a corrective social contract as a platform through which an appropriate society can be developed. With respect to the newly proposed social contract, Rousseau connotes that people are supposed to seek unanimous agreement that completely removes the problem of overreliance or dependence on one another whilst allowing or according space to every man to only obey himself on top of remaining as free as before. When Rousseau uses the phrase “as free as before” he simply means that at a time of birth, every person was born free and should not be under the control of anything apart from what is established under the general will. Basing on the argument of Rousseau, it can be inferred that the new corrective social contract can be attained via complete alienation of each person who has links whether direct or indirect to the entire community. Further, Rousseau seems to advocate for a complete merger or simply unification in which every person surrenders his right voluntarily in return for an equal voice specifically or strictly in setting the policies or rules that govern whole society without fear or favor. Therefore, when it comes to the question as to how the idea state of Rousseau helps in ameliorating the problems generated by a civil society? The answer to this question is provided by Rousseau himself. That is, after advocating for an ideal society where man is free and devoid of social evils and realizing that achieving such a state is next to impossibility, Rousseau tries to ameliorate the problems associated with the society by advocating a new corrective social contract where people would surrender their rights to a body (government) which also would derive the powers from rights given by the people. Through these powers, that body working with the people would define or make guiding principles that ensures or deters problems associated with the civil society. In other words, people should entrust their government with powers to administer on heir behalf and also where everyone is treated equally and individual rights are not infringed on by other people or even the government itself as is in the case of a Hobbes’s civil society. Works Cited Campbell, Sally. Rousseau and the paradox of alienation. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012. Plamenatz, J, Mark Philp and Z Pelczynski. Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Read More