Hobbes Locke Rousseau Comparison Essay

These rights were “inalienable” (impossible to surrender).

Hobbes Locke Rousseau Comparison Essay-8Hobbes Locke Rousseau Comparison Essay-40

If a sovereign violated these rights, the social contract was broken, and the people had the right to revolt and establish a new government.Hobbes warned against the church meddling with the king’s government.He feared religion could become a source of civil war.For him, it was not just an agreement among the people, but between them and the sovereign (preferably a king).According to Locke, the natural rights of individuals limited the power of the king.As a result, everyone suffered from “continued fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man [was] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In the state of nature, there were no laws or anyone to enforce them.The only way out of this situation, Hobbes said, was for individuals to create some supreme power to impose peace on everyone.BRIA 20:2 Home | How Women Won the Right to Vote | Have Women Achieved Equality?| Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau on Government Starting in the 1600s, European philosophers began debating the question of who should govern a nation.Enlightenment thinkers wanted to improve human conditions on earth rather than concern themselves with religion and the afterlife.These thinkers valued reason, science, religious tolerance, and what they called “natural rights”—life, liberty, and property.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “Hobbes Locke Rousseau Comparison Essay”