Jeremy Burke

Philosophy 106
09/19/2010

Hobbes v. Rousseau, a Conflict of Freedom

It is without a doubt that the question of freedom, its definition and its

importance, has played a central role in the development of human civilization since its

inception. As such, many have fervently supported philosophies with polarizing

viewpoints, as in the cases of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. As we focus

on the quotes from their respective texts, it is clear that their views are truly incompatible.

Hobbes claims that people cannot make deals with their sovereign, as being sovereign

implies that law is created entirely by the sovereign, and he may choose to ignore it as he

wishes. Rousseau, alternately, argues that a people are bound to support their sovereign

only so as to best benefit the community, and as such, the sovereign are bound to require

the use of an individual’s power, goods, and freedom only so much as is of use to the

community. The views of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are mutually

exclusive, and their differing views on the freedom are largely a result of their conflicting

ideas of sovereignty and human interest.

Hobbes views freedom to be a state of nature; for an individual to be free, one

must be willing to accept what he describes as a state of war – specifically, a lack of

comfort and security. Rights are a natural side effect of the state of nature, in that one is

justified in any act that he or she does due to a lack of objective morality, which exists

only through law and, therefore, a sovereign. The quoted passage essentially states that

the creation of a covenant between a sovereign and its people is inherently doomed to

failure, because such a contract is made up only of words, which have no method of
forcing anything except through the will of the sovereign, making the contract nothing

more than a formality. When a sovereign exists, its subjects relinquish their rights (and

therefore their freedom) to it; all “rights” which people have in this state are at the will of

the leader, and are subject to change at any time for any reason, and therefore the people

have no real freedom in this case.

Alternately, Rousseau’s outlook is markedly different. He believes that when

people come together and form a social compact, they give up only their rights and

freedom which support the compact as a whole. Ultimately, however, the sovereign has

the final decision as to what is important and helps the entire society. As with Hobbes,

Rousseau realizes that a society’s people are obliged to provide all goods and services at

his disposal as the sovereign requires them; the key difference is that the sovereign may

not request such goods and services that do not help the community in some way.

While these distinctions may appear relatively minor on the surface, they are

actually indicative of (as well as the result of) major differences in belief on the matter of

sovereignty. Hobbes essentially implies that freedom is overrated – it exists only in a

state of nature, when undisturbed by law and order. As such, he suggests we relinquish

those rights to a sovereign, whether an individual or a small group of individuals, to

control and protect a society. Rousseau, on the other hand, states that all people within a

social group combine to form a sovereign known as the general will, which is bound to

conform to the wishes of its people by its very nature. Thus, according to Rousseau, the

act of forming a society is the act of becoming free – by choosing that which will help

maintain freedom for all involved.

 In sum, while the observations of these two philosophers on the subject of the

state of nature may not differ greatly on a grand scale, their conclusions on how to solve

the issue of freedom in society certainly do. Hobbes ultimately believes that the people of

a society should not be free, as freedom is a state of nature and therefore a state of war,

lacking peace and security. These rights must be surrendered to the sovereign, who

creates order and law to control and comfort the people of a society. Rousseau disagrees,

investing his ideals in a balance of rights between individuals and the sovereign, the

general will. The social compact surrenders freedom in nature, the unlimited right to

anything acquirable by the individual, in favor of civil freedom, the right to become a

part of the general will in order to benefit the society as a whole (and therefore the lives

of all people within it). Ultimately, both views have merit and are worthy of study, and

differing opinions will hopefully drive humanity toward a more peaceful and harmonious

future.