Nobel savage or selfish brute – comparing Hobbes and Rousseau
In this essay, I will be comparing the views of Hobbes and Rousseau regarding the natural man. While both Enlightenment political philosophers have some similarities, they arrive at them in very different ways. For Hobbes, the natural man was a savage, self-interested brute whose primary concern was survival, and when this was secured, selfish ambition. This brute enters into a contract with society because it serves his interests and gives up some of his freedom in the process. Society, in return, needs to honour this contract by providing the brute with a safe environment in which to thrive. For Rousseau, the natural man is a noble savage who is compassionate, kind, peaceful, and free. Society needs to nurture this noble savage; but all too often society has a corruptive influence. For both philosophers, society is an artificial thing, something man-made. Quite different from Aristotle’s view that man is by nature political.
Hobbes has his rational, logical approach of taking a self-centered savage and selling himself at a good price into an advanced and civilised world. Rousseau has his noble savage that is corrupted by an unjust society. He is passionate, insightful, and idealistic. He has contributed much to modern Western political philosophy, emphasizing freedom and equality. However, he lacks the logic and reasoning possessed by Hobbes.
I find myself critical of both in regards to their mutual oversimplification of a very complex animal. There are elements of Rousseau’s noble savage and Hobbes’ self-centered brute in every human being. What I object to in both is the idea that society is an artificial thing. I am sure that humans are social creatures; it is in our nature to get together, share stories and songs and food, and philosophize about how to run things for the best.
What I admire in both is their contribution to the value of the individual to society; the system should serve the user. Hobbes’ selfish brute needs to be served, Rousseau’s noble savage needs to be encouraged, and Aristotle’s political animal needs to be considered. We human beings are complex animals and can’t be summed up so easily.
Hobbes published “Leviathan” in 1651 under difficult circumstances. England had just gone through a nasty civil war, and Hobbes had backed the losing side. He was hiding out in Paris while he wrote “Leviathan,” a justification for changing sides. The rebels took him back, and when they put a king back, they gave him a pension. His philosophy was a great contribution that carries through to this day.
Hobbes paints a very dim view of the natural man; a savage brute who just wants to survive and then take power. This brute sells himself out to a leader because it serves his purposes. This gives a from-the-ground-up perspective view on power, quite different from the top-down philosophy that had come before.
In Chapter Seventeen of “Leviathan,” Hobbes looks at ants and bees and why the society of these insects is so different from our own (Hobbes, p.119). But why not look to other animals: a pack of wolves, a herd of deer, or a flock of birds, all with their social issues? Sure, ants don’t compete among themselves for honor, but deer do, and so do many other animals. Human beings are at least as sociable as these animals.
Rousseau paints a very different picture. Democracy is what the Aboriginals had sitting in the shade of gum trees and discussing matters political. The closest we can have to it today is an elected aristocracy, such as we have in Australia in the twenty-first century. Rousseau was born in Geneva, a city-state in French-speaking Switzerland. Geneva was working toward a functional democracy but was having issues with it. Rousseau had to flee to Paris because his ideas upset some people.
Paris was a different world from the tame town he had come from. Rousseau was no fan of bourgeois excesses; he could see how such indulgence could get out of hand. Rousseau saw society as having a corrupting effect on what is basically a good human being. Society needs to nurture this noble savage rather than corrupt the noble character of a good man.
In Hobbes’ time, the scientific revolution was in its infancy but nonetheless underway. Kepler had shown us a heliocentric universe with the planets in elliptical orbits. Newton was yet to explain why it was like this. In this scientific view of the world, all was matter, motion, and void. Hobbes sets out to expose a set of natural laws that govern the behavior of humans in society.
In his book “Leviathan,” which he wrote in exile in Paris while avoiding persecution from a popular uprising in England, Hobbes paints a pretty dim view of the natural man. But in a sound, logical, rational way, he draws from this savage brute an ideal and benevolent society. This is not like Machiavelli’s cynical pragmatism; it is an ideal to make a better functioning government.
While I admire the conclusions Hobbes came to and the logic and reason that brought him there, I take exception to his dim view of the natural man. The human capacity for pity and compassion is unparalleled. Sure, some might laugh, taunt, and tease while watching someone drown, but another will go to great effort to help an animal in distress, expecting nothing in return. The human being is a complex thing, capable of the most terrible cruelty and the most beautiful compassion. To sum up the human being as a savage, self-interested brute seems an injustice to what can at times be a compassionate, kind, and generous creature.
Rousseau, by comparison, has a far more idealistic view of humanity. Man is basically good and then corrupted by society. Society needs to foster the noble savage and set him free to be the good man he was made to be. Freedom is the ideal to strive for, freedom from a corrupt society. However, unlike Hobbes, Rousseau lacks the logical and rational foundations that are popular in modern philosophy.
Yet, at times, he can be so utilitarian. In Book Three of “The Social Contract,” he looks at how climate and geography play a role in deciding the best form of government. How easily could food be produced, how much would be eaten, how far to bring news. There are different kinds of government for different economic and geographic circumstances. But best would be a small elective aristocracy, like his hometown Geneva.
Like Hobbes, Rousseau got into trouble for his ideas and had to hide out in Paris. His hometown, Geneva, was a city-state that was part of the alliance that now makes up Switzerland. The people of the city-state of Geneva were protesting for greater representation, and Rousseau got involved. Like Hobbes, Rousseau was a pacifist intellectual who had no interest in military glory. When he was asked to leave Geneva, he simply did.
In conclusion, while Hobbes and Rousseau present seemingly irreconcilable views of human nature, both perspectives offer valuable lessons. Hobbes reminds us of the necessity of structure and governance to prevent chaos, while Rousseau challenges us to create a society that brings out the best in human beings. Understanding these philosophies enables us to critically evaluate our social and political systems and strive for a balance that acknowledges the complexity of human nature.
By integrating the rationality of Hobbes and the idealism of Rousseau, we can work towards a society that is both just and compassionate, recognising that the human condition encompasses a spectrum of behaviours and motivations. Ultimately, both philosophers underscore the importance of thoughtful governance and the perpetual quest to improve the human experience.
—
**Bibliography**
Hobbes, T. *Leviathan*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Rousseau, J-J. *The Social Contract*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
123 Help Me. “Comparison of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.” 8 June 2018, https://members.123helpme.com/document/250025.
123 Help Me. “Comparison of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.” 8 June 2018, https://members.123helpme.com/document/242284.
Clown Artist Philosopher 