Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were 17th- and 18th-century scholars with comparable but different hypotheses about human nature. Rousseau's theory is based on the fact that man lives in a state of harmony with nature, while Hobbes' theory assumes that human nature is naturally violent and competitive. Both of these authors were born in the Age of Enlightenment influencing their personal development and writing. During this time, science was becoming a more prominent topic in the works of many scholars which allowed thinkers such as Hobbes and Rousseau to open their minds. He brought ideas of freedom, progress and reason. Furthermore, it brought about a change in society and people's way of thinking. No one before had examined the functionality of society like Hobbes, since it had simply never been questioned before. Following Hobbes' example, Rousseau intervened to express his different thoughts on society. Although both of these theories have their flaws, Hobbes' argument about human nature is very idealistic and proves superior. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThomas Hobbes experienced many accounts of violence during the English Civil War, the 30 Years' War, and even two other wars between England and the United Kingdom. Netherlands. These wars influenced Hobbes's idea of ​​the state of nature. He believed that, if left unchecked, human beings tend to be violent towards each other. The State of Nature describes man as focused on self-interest with no desire to help others. The State of Nature offers the positive aspect of complete freedom, equality of people and non-submission to authority. These may sound promising, but the negatives far outweigh the positives. Negative aspects include lack of protection from others, conflict being inevitable, and being in constant danger. The most important factor that leads to conflict is that everyone is equal and no man owns anything and anyone can take what they want if they apply enough force. Since no one owns anything, ownership lasts as long as anyone can control it. It is paradoxical that with so much freedom a person is not free at all due to constant concern for safety. Since man has no guarantees about what he controls, the desire for self-preservation is paramount, and more importantly, “Each person wants his own self-preservation above all, not everyone's self-preservation.” This idea of ​​self-preservation is different from person to person and because it is different many conflicts will arise due to each person's goals clashing. Hobbes would say that this is inevitable and can be harmful to people in their state of nature. Furthermore, if someone helped another person, it would be because they would perceive these interactions as benefiting themselves in the hope of profit or honor. In essence the State of Nature brings fear into every man's life because he could easily lose his life to another man; of course this means everyone is at war with each other. However, man still has the use of reason to understand that a society would create an escape from this state of war and mistrust. To exit the State of Nature, people must agree to create an enforcement mechanism tied to the social contract with constituent laws and an agreement to live by those common and universal laws (Friend). Since the Sovereign has the power and authority to impose sanctions forcontractual violations, citizens have good reasons to comply with the law. The Sovereign represents the structure to which men must adhere. Hobbes believed in this idea of ​​the sovereign because it would help protect those who gave up all their rights. The problem with this is morality because according to him men have the instinct to be evil but with this hierarchical structure more order will be shown. Furthermore, morality is not seen as a heavenly matter but a matter that maximizes a person's self-interest. If a person can do good and turn away from evil, his life can now prosper. However, Hobbes' idea for creating this government for society is that it depends heavily on freedom, representation, and will. If the people of society were not willing to give up such rights, the entire government would be a waste of time and knowledge. Someone has to keep people in order otherwise they will fall back into the state of nature and more chaos will ensue. Furthermore, if the representation lacks authority or power, no one will listen. Additionally, when Leviathan was written, the English Civil War was coming to an end, which got people talking and sparked conversations about what kind of government should rule. Thomas Hobbes had the motivation and incentive to create this new world that humans still hold to today. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born more than a century after Thomas Hobbes and had very different ideas about man and government. Rousseau thought of humanity as a good spirit when it is born and fades as soon as it is inserted into society. According to Rousseau, the state of nature was a peaceful time in which people lived simple, solitary lives whose needs were met by nature. He believed there was no competition since the population was small and “people rarely saw each other, much less had any reason for conflict or fear.” Furthermore, in these simple times there was no need for conflict because everyone's needs were met, but the situation changed rapidly due to the increase in population. People began to have families and create small communities leading to the implementation of the division of labor. The division of labor was followed by the introduction of private property and inequality between communities. Slowly private owners realized how important their land was and wanted to establish a government that would guarantee ownership of it. This idea only benefited the strong and the rich; focusing only on how well the social contract is enforced and not on the well-being of the public. The idea behind Rousseau's social contract is how people can be free but also live together. Essentially it can be described as “how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others?”. Rousseau believes that this can be resolved by surrendering the individual will to the general will together with other free people. This raises many questions because if a person chooses not to give up their will to the ruler, they will not be included in society. They will be returned to their natural state. Furthermore, no one has the right to rule over others, so it will be up to the community to choose which direction it wants to go regarding what is best for the common good. Since the ruler cannot do anything to harm the people and relies only on what is good for the people, if a rebellion breaks out no one has the authority to imply any kind of power over them. This is where Rousseau's social contract begins to crumble. Thomas Hobbes' idea about the social contract can be broken down like this: man is born evil, government is necessary to protect the public, government should be omnipotent and incapable of.