IndexIntroductionHobbes' point of viewRousseau's point of viewComparison/contrast between Rousseau and HobbesWhy Rousseau's point of view is more convincingCounterargumentConclusionWorks CitedIntroductionThe Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality offer contrasting theories of how men act in the state of nature. Hobbes' 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 portrayal of man in a state of nature since 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Hobbes's View Hobbes's view of man in the state of nature is competitive and violent. Hobbes states: “And therefore if two men desire the same thing. which however 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). Elaborating on this idea of ​​war, Hobbes states that “The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have no place in this context. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where neither law nor injustice” (Hobbes 5). Every man can do what he wants to whom he wants, and can acquire what he wants as long as he can keep it. Hobbes believes that there are three main causes of disputes: “First, competition; secondly, distrust; thirdly, glory” (Hobbes 3). Hobbes believes that they want to fight for gain, to ensure their own safety, and to gain glory. Men will use violence to obtain another man's possessions as well as to defend themselves and gain glory. In a state of nature, Hobbes refers to the right of nature as “the liberty every man has to use his power as he will for his own good.” preservation of one's nature” (Hobbes 5). A man may use all his abilities in any way his judgment compels him to do so. Men can act as they wish according to their own reasoning. This also goes along with Hobbes' belief that "every man has a right to everything, even to another's body" (Hobbes 6). For Hobbes, being in a state of nature gives man every right to act as he sees fit to achieve whatever he feels. Nothing is forbidden to any man as long as he acts within his limits. Rousseau's View Rousseau believes that, in a state of nature, man would have no immediate knowledge of good or evil as he states that "men in a state of nature, having no moral relations nor determinate obligations between them, could be neither good nor bad, virtuous or vicious" (Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 5). If man were placed in a state of nature, he would not be able to determine what is good or bad, which it means that he would not have a fixed morality and a precise way of making decisions. Based on his beliefs that man has no knowledge of good and evil, Rousseau states that “man's first feeling was that of his own existence. , and his first concern that of self-preservation” (Rousseau 10).survival. Rousseau argues “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 as they do not naturally want to bring harm to those around them. Rousseau believes that there are two types of inequality among men: "natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference in age, health, physical strength and quality of mind or soul and [...] into a moral or political inequality” (Rousseau 3). Natural inequality is an inequality that will always exist. In a complete state of nature, political inequality will not exist, but natural inequality will continue to exist. For Rousseau, being in a state of nature will lead man to act through compassion and self-preservation. Man is unsure of the differences between good and evil and cannot immediately have fixed morals. Comparison/Contrast Between Rousseau and Hobbes While 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 do so. act naturally through compassion and the need for self-preservation. Rousseau believes that it was civil society that made man evil because he states “when every man punished the contempt shown to him by others, in proportion to his opinion of himself, revenge became terrible, and men bloodthirsty and cruel. This is precisely the state reached by most of the savage nations known to us” (Rousseau 14). This statement contrasts with that of Hobbes in that Hobbes believes that men are naturally cruel to one another to gain 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 establishment of the sovereign power, as has already been shown, all men had a right to all things things, which necessarily causes war.” ” (Hobbes 12). The views of Rousseau and Hobbes are similar in that neither believes that laws exist in the state of nature. They differ in the idea in the sense that Hobbes believes that civil society causes men to not be as competitive and violent while Rousseau believes that civil society is what makes men cruel towards each other. Rousseau's view can be seen as naive in that it assumes that man in the state of nature is neither good nor bad and has no moral relations between them. Hobbes believes that men naturally compete with each other to achieve the same things and this competition will undoubtedly lead to violence. Hobbes's view can be seen as generally emotionless and using only reasoning which is in contrast to Rousseau's view which is heavily based on human emotions. Why Rousseau's View Is More Convincing Hobbes' view suggests that man is naturally evil. His views suggest that men who want the same thing will become enemies as they compete to get it. Hobbes portrays human nature in such a way that man is naturally competitive and violent because he does not know virtue. Rousseau denounces this view by stating that "Hobbes had clearly seen the defects 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" (Rousseau 6). Rousseau denounces Hobbes's view of human nature by describing man in a state of nature driven by compassion and survival rather than competition and violence. Rousseau believes.