Question

In thinking about Hobbes and Rousseau, there are a few different questions that you should consider. The first one is relatively straightforward: how significantly does the Hobbesian account of natural law in the Leviathan differ from the account we saw in the excerpts we read from St. Thomas's Summa? Following on from that, we might ask: how do those differences point to larger differences between St. Thomas (and Aristotle) on the hand, and Hobbes on the other, in terms of how they understand the place of reason in our moral or ethical life? Turning to Rousseau, you should consider to what extent Rousseau's critique of all prior natural law theories applies to the natural law theory that you see developed in St. Thomas. How persuasive is his critique when applied to Thomas? Furthermore, to what extent do you think Rousseau is right that Hobbes has not yet discovered what the human being is by nature? Hobbes says we are by nature violent; Rousseau says that we are by nature peaceful and stupid. Who, if anyone, is right? Perhaps more importantly: how can we ever know what human nature is apart from the effects of society?

Answer 1

Human nature can be defined as the fundamental traits that every man has, regardless of the type of culture or society in which he is inserted. In nature, man would be free, virtuous, godly, amoral, without society, without state, without technology, without money and without property. Freedom is the ability to dispose of one's life in accordance with one's instincts, without any limitation beyond that imposed by one's own nature.

In nature there would be no good or bad, for morality is a socially created convention. According to Rousseau, one cannot "confuse the savage man with the men before us." Thus Hobbes's approach, to which man is selfish by nature, would be mistaken for imputing to man something which is actually characteristic of civilization.