Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were 17th and 18th century scholars with comparable but different hypotheses about the human nature. Rousseau's theory is based on man living in harmony with nature while Hobbes' theory assumes that human nature is naturally violent and competitive. Both of these authors were born during the Enlightenment, which influenced their personal development and writing. At this time, science was becoming a more pronounced topic in the works of many researchers, allowing thinkers such as Hobbes and Rousseau to open their minds. It brought ideas of freedom, progress and reason. Moreover, it brought about a change in society and people's way of thinking. No one had previously looked into the functionality of society as much as Hobbes, because it had simply never been questioned before. Following the example of Hobbes, Rousseau intervened to express his different thoughts on society. Although both theories have their flaws, Hobbes's argument about human nature is very idealistic and proves superior. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'? Get the original essay Thomas Hobbes experienced many accounts of violence during the English Civil War, the 30 Years' War and even two other wars between the 'England and England. The Netherlands. These wars influenced Hobbes's idea of ​​the state of nature. He believed that if left unchecked, humans tended to be violent towards each other. The State of Nature describes man as being focused on self-interest and with no desire to help others. The state of nature offers the positive aspect of total freedom, equality of people and freedom from submission to authority. These may seem promising, but the negatives far outnumber the positives. Negative aspects include no protection from others, conflict is inevitable, and danger is constant. The main factor leading to conflict is that everyone is equal and no man owns anything and everyone can take what they want if they apply enough force. Since no one owns anything, ownership lasts as long as someone can control it. It is paradoxical that with so much freedom, a person is not free at all because of the constant concern for his safety. Since man has no guarantees over what he controls, the desire for self-preservation is essential and, more importantly, "each person wants above all his own self-preservation, not self-preservation of everyone.” This idea of ​​self-preservation is different for each person and because it is different, many conflicts will arise due to each person's conflicting goals. Hobbes would say that this is inevitable and can be detrimental to people in their state of nature. Furthermore, if someone were to help another person, it would be because they would perceive these interactions as benefiting themselves in the hope of profit or honor. Basically, the state of nature brings fear into every man's life because he could easily lose his life to another man; this naturally means that 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 escape the state of nature, men must agree to create an enforcement mechanism linked to the social contract with the laws that constitute it and an agreement to liveaccording to these common and universal laws (Friend). Since the sovereign has the power and authority to impose sanctions for breach of contract, citizens have good reason to adapt to the law. The Sovereign constitutes a structure to which men must conform. Hobbes believed in this idea of ​​a sovereign because it would help protect those who gave up all their rights. The issue is moral because according to him, men have the instinct for evil but with this hierarchical structure, more order will appear. Moreover, morality is not considered a heavenly matter but a matter that maximizes a person's self-interest. If a person can do good and stay away from evil, his life can now prosper. However, Hobbes' idea for creating this government for society is that it depends heavily on liberty, representation, and will. If members of society are not willing to give up these rights, then government as a whole would be a waste of time and knowledge. Someone has to keep people in order, otherwise they will relapse into the state of nature and more chaos will ensue. Furthermore, if the representation lacks authority or power, no one will listen to it. 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 live in today. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born more than a century after Thomas Hobbes and had very different ideas about man and government. Rousseau viewed humanity as good spirits at birth and tarnished as soon as they become involved in society. According to Rousseau, the state of nature was a peaceful time when people lived simple, solitary lives and had their needs met by nature. He believed there was no competition since the population was small and "people rarely saw each other and had even less reason for conflict or fear." Additionally, in those simple times there was no need for conflict as everyone's needs were met, but this changed quickly due to the increase in population. People began to start families and create small communities, which led to the implementation of a division of labor. The division of labor was followed by the introduction of private property and inequalities between communities. Gradually, private landowners realized the importance of their land and wanted to establish a government to guarantee ownership. This idea only benefited the strong and the rich; focusing only on how 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, this can be described as: “How can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? Rousseau believes that this problem can be solved by abandoning individual wills to the general will with other free people. This raises many issues, because if a person chooses not to renounce their will for the sovereign, they will not be included in society. They will be returned to the state of nature. Furthermore, no one has the right to rule others, so it will be up to the community to choose the direction it wishes to take based on what is best for the common good. Since the ruler cannot do anything that would harm the people and he only bases it on what is good for the people, if a rebellion breaks out, no one has the authority to exercise any power over him. This is where the.