Deep in Philosophy: Theories of Democracy - Essay Example

March, Deep In Philosophy: Theories of Democracy Philosophy is a field of searching and thinking to understand the mysteries of existence. Indeed, philosophy seeks to detect the reality of human, state, nature and the connection between them all. Philosophy focuses on finding reasons to explain the value of life and it is created by focusing on the relationship between humans in one state and how power creates different social classes between creations from the same species. Some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes clarified that humans are greedy and selfish, motivated by their self-interests and not caring about benefiting others (Hobbes 59). While other philosophers like Rousseau opposed this crucial view of humans by viewing them as cooperative, selfishness and fear are the main reasons why humans harm each other (Rousseau, paragraph 12). Shifting from the evil human image that Hobbes explained, to the well-disposed human image of Rousseau, makes an obvious antagonism between both philosophers. Indeed, both Hobbes and Rousseau wrote about the same points, which are human nature, social contract, and the form of government, but each of them had different explanations to these ideas. In the idea of human nature, Hobbes started by explaining his idea through arguing that all men are created equal in their aptitude and wish (Hobbes 57). Indeed, Hobbes indicates that no man is above other men, but what make men different are sciences and the amount of knowledge that each person carries (Hobbes 59). Even though each man has a different amount of knowledge, a man in his nature always sees himself better than others and do not like to admit that other men are better than him (Hobbes 59). Rousseau illustrated that men are equal but they are different from each other based on two facts, which are their physical features such as their age, way of looking and the soul, which is mainly about human behavior and morals (Rousseau, paragraph 1). In addition, Rousseau views all men as free and this is evident when he argues that though man was born without any restrictions, everywhere he goes he is in chains. (Rousseau 81). The Chains Rousseau means in his writing are the restrictions and the power the government puts on men’s freedom (Rousseau 81). Rousseau also believes that power is not created by nature but it is created by God’s wish. In other words, God is the one who choose specific people to give them power similar to the relationship between a parent and his or her child (Rousseau, paragraph 4, 10). Moving to the idea of conflict and competition, according to Hobbes, men are motivated by their self-interest, as they seek to get their own benefits even if they have to harm other people (Hobbes 59). Hobbes believes that men conflict with each other because of their fear of lack or resources and to protect their property because in the state of nature, the government does not exist (Hobbes 59). Indeed, to Hobbes, men conflict with each other because of three reasons; first is competition, where each man seeks to gain resources and property; second diffidence, where a man needs to use violence to keep his property protected; and the last reason is glory, where a man tries to improve his power and value to others (Hobbes 60). To Rousseau, men conflict with each other because of their fear from the unpredicted future and the unpredicted behavior of other creatures. Thus, men use violence to protect their resources and property (Rousseau, paragraph 3). Indeed, the one who wins will gain more resources, which will create more inequality, as other men will fear him and view him stronger than them (Rousseau, paragraph 16). To Rousseau, inequality creates the different classes in society. Furthermore, Rousseau views human way of living as similar to the animal state as humans only motive is to provide them with the source of living (Rousseau, paragraph 8). Hobbes views no excuse for the behavior except the three reasons that were mentioned above, and they are all driven by human self-interest. Rousseau illustrates that human actions in the state of nature are all motivated because of humans fear that their resources and property will be lost, especially when there is no higher power such as the government to protect each man’s property. When it comes to the idea of social contract, Hobbes explains that the social contract is an agreement between the government and the citizens. This agreement consists of human men giving the least of their freedom to the government in order to create equality and protect their resources and property from others. Indeed, this given freedom allows the government to provide laws and rules for people to follow and create punishment for people who break the rules. In fact, without this given freedom, the government would not have the power and the ability to create any law and punishment (Hobbes 66-67). The two philosophers have also advanced their ideas concerning what they perceived as the best form of government. Rousseau posits that the best form of government is where direct participation is allowed ─ where society members are at the centre of decision-making process. On his side, Hobbes approves absolute monarchy as the only feasible solution in the society. In order to better understand the way they came about their argument of the best government form in the society, both Rousseau and Hobbes started by conceptualizing a man in his most primitive natural state. Their understanding is that human being’s basic tendencies dictate the just form of government. According to Hobbes, men exist in a perpetual state of war with each other in what he calls “…every man against every man…every man is enemy to every man” (Hobbes 60). Rousseau does not agree with the idea that men are naturally war mongers; he instead holds that it is the society that initiates human beings into animosity. In this case, Rousseau posits that war is not a relation between men, but a battle between states. In this contest, human being is accidentally caught in the battle. The two philosophers concur in the fact that men are naturally equal. In another of their philosophy of government, the two theorists literally disagree on whether power is equal to justice. In the view of Hobbes, an orderly society is the one that relinquishes all its individual rights and places them on the hands of a monarch; an all powerful sovereign. In this case, the society members must be equally accountable to the monarch and must fear and equally respect his authority and power. According to Hobbes, a turbulent population will be repressed by this fear to maintain peace in the society. Rousseau does not agree that power and authority obtained through this coercive manner is just, and is not agreed upon by the members. Although, despotism can lead to joyless tranquility, no individual from the society has a moral obligation to bow to a despotic rule. He argues in this case that “…besides the public person, we have to consider the private person… whose life and liberty are naturally independent of it” (Rousseau 84). Rousseau continues to argue that for a stable government to be established, man should reconcile his conduct naturally for the orderly governance to be established. He posits that this kind of reconciliation is attained through a social contract that ensures that all other transactions take place in its control. The social contract according to Rousseau contains the general will of the society members and allows individuals to make free decision and, at the same time, ensure that these individuals are liable to the whole state. Therefore, for Rousseau, the liberty of man is the greatest necessity for the attained happiness. Hobbes, on his side, analyzes that as a result of the desire and the erroneous nature of people, they are constantly warring and the only way they can be pacified and subdued is by involving an all powerful sovereign authority. Hobbes has it that due to insecurities, scarcity of resources and vanity, man becomes a warring creature. To Hobbes, human beings are creatures of reason and prudence, and he is always striving to overcome his natural state of being. However, he argues that these accomplishments are not attainable unless men agree to relinquish their freedom of act. In a Hobbesian society, men have liberties against others just as others have for themselves. In this case, liberty is established through a covenant between all members of the society. This is done so far as all members agree to abdicate their freedom to the rule of the monarch. This way, the argument by Hobbes has it that men do not have a part in decision making and, therefore, individual interests and motives are rendered controversial. In other way, all members of the society are powerless and their possibility of resulting to war is impossible. Most critics have argued that this form of government would allow the sovereign power to abuse the powers. However, Hobbes posits that the sovereign power is placed as such by the people and the tyrant will be compelled to practice restraint lest he be strewn of the powers invested in him by the people. The monarch according to Hobbes makes a better sovereign power than any other form of government. This is because being a human a monarch has all natural tendencies and clamors for glory, riches, fame, and reputation. Hobbes argues that the way the kingdom prospers affects the way people perceive its king. This way, the monarch will be compelled to maintain a healthy and reputable kingdom so as to enjoy a smooth relation. On the other hand, a monarch who fails to lead his kingdom to prosperity is termed as a failed ruler, and no one would like to be in this category (Hobbes 65). As for Rousseau, he says that no political make up in the form of a monarch can be morally justified provided it denies men their liberty. He holds that “to renounce one’s liberty is to renounce one’s quality as a man, the rights and the duties of humanity” (Rousseau 83). This is the fact that Rousseau bases all his arguments that man can not be morally free when their liberty is denied, whether willingly or unwillingly. Therefore, Rousseau argues that popular sovereignty and not a monarch is the only way to correct the dilemma where human liberty is denied. The Rousseauian society, encapsulated in the concept of social contract enables a society member to be controlled by the general will while still maintaining his own will or liberty. The general will that should be followed by Rousseau’s form of government does not imply the majority or unanimity. The idea is that the will should be truly for the betterment of all members of the society. This means that people under the Rousseauian form of government are capable of self rule and that they are not always a warring lot. Conclusion These different ideas of Hobbes, Rousseau and other philosophers such as John Locke about human nature, social contract and form of government have caused a sensation in the world of politics and international relations. Rousseau’s idea of social contract is similar to that of Hobbes. Rousseau believes that by having a social contract, citizens will gain their freedom again as the government will provide protection for all the citizens. Thus, equality will also be provided (Rousseau 83). However, the two are diametrically opposed on what actually constitutes the best form of government in the society. Regardless of these differences, the ideas of social contract, human nature and forms of government from Rousseau and Hobbes have, indeed, been adopted by many states. Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury,. Ed. William Molesworth. London: J. Bohn, 1839. Print. Rousseau, Jean. A discourse on inequality on the origin and basis of inequality among men. Waiheke Island: Floating Press, 2009. Print. Rousseau, Jean. The Social Contract. London: Swan Senmenschein & Co, 1902. Print Read More