Rousseau v. Hobbes on Human Nature

I have an essay on this topic which I have rewritten about 5 times - consistently getting a C. This is what I have so far. Correct, elaborate, elucidate please.  (H=Hobbes, R=Rousseau)

H: people driven by their passions
R: ???

H: human nature is a problem to be solved with a proper government
R: human nature is good; government should not restrain it

H: restrict man's passions
R: preserve natural freedom

I am so lost in how to compare. If there is a knowledgeable gentleman who is willing to dedicate some time to this, I will reward you in some way.

R: People are driven by their self-interests. Basically Rouseau believes that the State of nature, metaphorically: Hey I see an apple. :Grabs apple:. Random guy behind him, I WANT THAT. :clubs apple guy in the head:. And then another random guy clubs him.

Ok thank you.

Now what about the reasoning for people giving up their rights in Rousseau's government?

I thought their natural rights were the most important thing; why would they give them up for civil liberties?  Or is my question is even valid?

Furthermore, does rousseau's government protect their civil or natural rights?

And this is one of the crucial things that I cannot figure out.

H: people, driven by passions, will inevitably succumb to a state of war
R: people, driven by their self-interests, will ???

So, hobbes is restraining man's passions because they will lead to a state of war. But why does rousseau want to protect man's self-interests?
Is there some good that comes out of them?
Or what is the basic condition that requires a government in the first place, if there seems to be no problem with the natural way of things?

H: is a stuffed toy/tiger
R: is not a tiger

what exactly has proven so far human nature over all is good?

>>6
I thought it was the opposite

>>7
im saying that human nature is evil

>>8
Oh, well nothing really - The evidence suggests the contrary really.
Humans, by nature, are greedy, petulant little shits.
Just observing the day to day goings on of the world is proof enough of this and that they do in fact need policing or they'll pillage and murder till someone puts their rapacious ass down.

Meh. Neither is evil or good, persay.

For Hobbes, man chooses the sovereign because he understands his passions may control him.

For Rousseau, man creates a collective will so that the general will of the people will control him.

Both are coercive in a way, but in Hobbes you have a direct person (king) created to control the people, while in Rousseau you have whatever form of government they choose being based on the collective will.

King = can't remove
Government from collective will = can remove.

Oh, Rousseau is right then - Vesting all power in any one man only serves to amplify the faults of man's nature absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.
Where with the collective you've got the pettiness of each man keeping how much any one individual can grab for himself in check.
Granted, that falls through when they start to work together but their self serving nature will still interfere to some extent.

Sorry if I'm rambling incoherently here.

That is a reasonable argument. I think realistically it's true, but Hobbes was speaking in theory. To him, the sovereign was incapable of error - because this would be against the collective will that he was supposedly manifesting. But yeah, if you ask 'well what if the king was a turd?' there really is no answer.


Now who the shit is going to tell me what's rousseau's reasoning for creating the social contract in the first place?
if everything is just dandy with natural man, why the need for a rule of administration?

>>12
Keep 'em from forming their own collectives from within the collective to fuck over the big picture with petty scheming.

You can simplify this to a single point: Hobbes is a libertarian and Rousseau is a communist.

Both of them protect private property.

And I think both of them essentially agreed with having a monarch rule, just Rousseau would have allowed the people to depose him.

>>14
Yer mum's a communist

>>16
NO YOURS

What's the fucking title of your essay?

Whenever I write an essay I always ask myself the same question over and over, the entire structure should be based on elaborating my explanation of that question. Maybe you are getting a C because while you are knowledgable in the subject you aren't communicating in an essay format. Of course simply asking your teacher why you are getting a C would be 1000 times easier than bitch whining on /newpol/.

FAG

>>9
thats saying the samething as i did jackass.
oh btw this is #8 to lazy to scroll up and link again.

This is late but I am 2nd post. Rouseau believes that people HAVE to give up certain rights. The example I used in my paper when I wrote on how not he is a totalitarian. Is the idea of speeding. See we give up the FREEDOM to do 100MPH on the high way so that we are not rear ended by someone in enjoying that very freedom. Or as Rouseau said, "We are forced to be free". Certain things a human has to give up to make other safe. I may be angry and want to kill someone but killing is illegal so that I do not get killed.

Spoke to my teacher.

He said both give up their rights out of self-preservation.
Neither are good or bad.
Both form a social contract to preserve their rights

For Hobbes, the social contract is society and government together...so you cannot dissolve it because you would be dissolving society.

For Rousseau they are different. The social contract is indissoluble (the general will thing) but the monarch or ruler elected out of it can be removed.

This all stems back to their views on human nature. Hobbes' man is willing to have a coercive restraint on his behavior because he understands that he is at times driven by his passions.
Rousseau's man always acts in self interest and hence he does not need restraint.


He explained it a heck of a lot better but i forgot 90% of what he said.

>>22
That may be a good example, but I have no idea what part of hobbes or rousseau's theory you are referring to.  I suppose the general collective giving up of rights?   Yes I understand we all give up equally therefore lose nothing and gain civil liberties.

Hobbes claims that humanity is driven by egoistic desires in the state-of-nature. Because one's interest conflict with other's interests, you have a state of eternal war of all against all, or bellum omnae contra omnis.  The sovereign is a person representing all other people and seen as their leader. The sovereign can only be a single leader, for a multitude of rulers leads to a war between the rulers.

>>23
Rousseau's man always acts in self interest and hence he does not need restraint
This doesn't make any sense, since individuals will commit crime without restraints (and deterants and preventions) and society will collapse, restraints are needed.