PHIL 2001: Homework 1
1. Explain the Hobbesian state of nature and why life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"? Provide a short (1-2 paragraph) critique of this view.
The Hobbesian state of nature is how Hobbes believe mankind would operate without any form of government. This state of nature is incredibly tumultuous, dangerous, and volatile. In Hobbes opinion, humans are naturally prone to conflict. Hobbes also believes that humans are all created equal both intellectually and physically, which contributes to this conflict. Since they are all equal, no one possess enough power to keep them in “awe”. It is for these reasons that Hobbes believes life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
I disagree with Hobbes regarding his ideas that everything a man does benefits himself in some way. We can see this time and time again in human nature. A great example of this is when people donate a kidney to a loved one. They gain nothing from this, but are still more than willing to do it. This selflessness is so engrained in us, it can even be seen in our movies and TV shows. The classic scene where someone jumps in front of a bullet to save their friend has been acted out hundreds of times.
Another point of contention I have with Hobbe’s view of the state of nature, is his idea that a strong ruler must exist to swiftly punish those who defect from the state. I favor Rousseau’s view that this harsh ruler is not necessary because people will not naturally want to defect from the state. They gain the most while cooperating, so there is no reason for them to defect.

2. According to Rousseau, what is the role of the sovereign in social contracts? Explain how this role relates to the general will. Provide a short critique of this view from a descriptive perspective {e.g. is it true of the real world? Why or why not? Rousseau believes that the central