Table of contentsIntroductionHobbes' point of viewRousseau's point of viewCompare/contrast Rousseau and HobbesWhy Rousseau's point of view is more convincingContra- argumentConclusionWorks CitedIntroductionThomas Hobbes's Leviathan and Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequalities both offer contrasting theories of how men act in the state of nature. Hobbes's theory is based on the idea that human nature is naturally competitive and violent while Rousseau's is based on the idea that man is naive. Rousseau's view is a more accurate depiction of man in a state of nature, in that men would not naturally become violent against each other as Hobbes suggests. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Hobbes' ViewHobbes' view of man in a state of nature is competitive and violent. Hobbes says: “And so if two men desire the same thing. which they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes, Leviathan, 3). Hobbes states that when two men in the state of nature both want to acquire the same thing, they will naturally turn to enemies, which will lead them to try to destroy each other. Hobbes believes that in the state of nature there is no law and therefore no justice. Hobbes implies that a state of nature is a war of “every man against every man” (Hobbes 5). Developing this idea of ​​war, Hobbes declares that “the notions of good and evil, justice and injustice have no place in it. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice” (Hobbes 5). Every man can do as he pleases to whomever he pleases and acquire whatever he desires for as long as he can keep it. Hobbes believes that there are three main causes of conflict: “First, competition; second, distrust; third, glory” (Hobbes 3). Hobbes believes that they want to fight to win, to ensure their safety and to achieve glory. Men will resort to violence to obtain the goods of others as well as to defend themselves and obtain glory. In a state of nature, Hobbes refers to the law of nature as "the liberty which each man has to use his own power as he sees fit for good." preservation of one’s own nature” (Hobbes 5). A man can use all his abilities as his judgment requires him to do so. Men can act as they wish according to their own reasoning. This is also in line with Hobbes's belief that "every man has a right to everything, even to the bodies of others" (Hobbes 6). For Hobbes, being in a state of nature gives man the right to act as he sees fit. get everything he feels. Nothing is forbidden to a man as long as he acts within his own limits. Rousseau's View Rousseau believes that, in a state of nature, man would not immediately have any knowledge of good or evil, for he states that "men in a state of nature", nature, do not having no moral relations or determinate obligations with each other, could be neither good nor bad, virtuous or vicious” (Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 5). If man were to be placed in a state of nature, he would not be able to determine what is good or bad, which means he would have no defined morals or any defined way of making decisions. If we have no knowledge of good or evil, Rousseau affirms that "man's first feeling was that of his own existence, and his firstconcern that of its conservation” (Rousseau 10). Man's first goal in a complete state of nature is to survive. Rousseau maintains “that compassion is a natural feeling which, by moderating the violence of self-love in each individual, contributes to the preservation of the entire species” (Rousseau 7). Men are naturally compassionate towards each other because they naturally do not want to harm those around them. Rousseau believes that there are two kinds of inequalities between men – “natural or physical, because they are established” by nature, and consist of a difference in age, health, bodily strength and qualities of mind or of soul and […] in moral or political inequality” (Rousseau 3). Natural inequality is inequality that will always exist. In a complete state of nature, political inequality will not exist, but natural inequality will always be there. For Rousseau, being in the state of nature will lead man to act out of compassion and the instinct for self-preservation. Man is not sure of the differences between good and evil and cannot immediately have established morals. Comparison/Contrast of Rousseau and HobbesAlthough in a state of nature, Hobbes believes that man will act competitively and violently to get what he wants while Rousseau believes that man will. act naturally out of compassion and a need for self-preservation. Rousseau believes that it is civil society which has made man wicked, as he states: "to the extent that each person punished the contempt shown to him by others, in proportion to the opinion he had of himself , revenge became terrible, and men were bloody and cruel. This is precisely the state reached by most of the savage nations that we know” (Rousseau 14). This statement contrasts with Hobbes in that Hobbes believes that men are naturally cruel to one another in order to obtain possessions, security, and glory. Hobbes believes that a civil society is what prevents man from believing that all men had a right to all things, as he states: "For before the constitution of sovereign power, as has already been demonstrated, all men had the right to all things, which necessarily provokes war. » (Hobbes 12). The views of Rousseau and Hobbes are similar in that neither of them believes that laws exist in the state of nature. Their idea differs in that Hobbes believes that civil society prevents men from being so competitive and violent, while Rousseau believes that civil society is what causes men to become cruel to each other. Rousseau's point of view can be considered naive in this sense. it assumes that men in the state of nature are neither good nor bad and have no moral relationship with one another. Hobbes believes that men will naturally compete for the same things and that this competition will undoubtedly lead to violence. Hobbes's view can be seen as generally lacking in emotions and using only reasoning which contrasts with Rousseau's view which is heavily based on human emotions. Why Rousseau's view is more compelling Hobbes's views suggest that man is naturally wicked. His views suggest that men who desire the same thing will become enemies when they compete to achieve it. Hobbes depicts human nature such that man is naturally competitive and violent because he does not know virtue. Rousseau denounces this vision by stating "Hobbes had clearly seen the faults of all modern definitions of natural law: but the consequences which he deduces from his own show that he understands it in an equally false sense"..