Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau had very different ideas about the essential nature of human beings.

Hobbes argued that without the civilizing effect of society, lives would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, lived in continual fear, and with the danger of violent death.

Rosseau, in contrast, was much more optimistic: in a state of nature, human beings are "noble savages," who live a solitary, peaceful existence, concerned mainly with the satisfaction of their immediate needs.

This difference is reflected in the way that each of these two m en saw civil and political society.

For Hobbes, civilization is a precondition of worthwhile lives. It is only by signing up to a "social contract," and thereby transferring some of our natural rights to an absolute authority (a Leviathan), that it is possible to avoid a war of all against all.

Rousseau also thought a social contract is necessary, but his reasoning was different. He argued that civilization is the original source of our problems. Property rights, enshrined in civil society, generate inequality, with all its attendant vices, inevitable.


The only way to overcome the selfishness and moral depravity that is the consequences of civilization for people to accept the authority of the "general will" of the population.


Is monstrous behavior natural or created by society? Perhaps the answer depends on whether society is part of, or separate from, nature.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think all behavior is ruled by two main influences and then branch off from there. These two main divisions are not really separate, they are not exclusive but have distinct causes.

- Genetics and physical development.
/ These things shape how we instinctively respond to various stimulus. We have powerful visceral responses to stimuli.



- Personal mental Development, and socialization.
/ These things shape how we are taught to respond, our parents have a large influence, but so do any persons for which we develop shared experiences whether positive or negative.

So from this formula arise all of the various shades of character we see in human society. Hobbes was right . . . for himself and perhaps many others . . . He may very well have been nasty, brutish and fearful if it had not been for the developed safety blanket that was provided via the "social contract". However I know people who do not live in large groups, have not been taught many of the precepts of this, "social contract" and yet are far less brutish, nasty, and fearful then many others I have met.

The problem with Rosseau is that the word, "nature" is ambiguous and ill defined. I understand what he means, and this does apply to the example I had given (If I have understood his meaning properly).

I think there are far more shades of grey then either man was willing to admit in his time.

What motivates people's behavior is varied and sometimes complex, sometimes very simple. Certainly both physiological, and mental development plays a huge role.