Summary
Highlights
Before the Enlightenment, rulers claimed divine right. The Enlightenment introduced social contract philosophy, where power comes from the people, aiming to define the relationship between people and government and the balance between freedom and security.
Hobbes believed human nature is inherently destructive, leading to chaos without strong authority. In his book Leviathan, he argued people would voluntarily give up freedom to an authoritative figure (Leviathan) for security, as a state of nature is a constant 'war of all against all'.
Locke held the opposite view, believing people are born with a 'tabula rasa' (blank slate) and would improve themselves if given freedom. He advocated for limited government that protects 'life, liberty, and property,' promoting representative democracy where people select and can overthrow leaders who fail to act in their interests.
Rousseau believed society corrupts individuals, stating 'man is born free but everywhere in chains.' He envisioned a society where people are free and equal, making decisions together for the 'general will' of the community, avoiding power inequalities that lead to corruption.
Hobbes: 'Nasty, brutish, and short' nature requires strong authoritarian rule for security. Locke: Freedom is paramount, with limited government protecting life, liberty, and property. Rousseau: 'Man is born free, but everywhere in chains,' advocating for stripping away societal structures to achieve pure equality and decisions based on the general will.
Modern societies draw from all three philosophers. Liberal democracies often align with Locke's ideas of personal freedom and private property, but also incorporate elements of restricting individual freedoms for security in certain situations. The core challenge remains: how much freedom should be limited for security and the common good?