When the point comes where two men want the same thing, they become enemies of each other. Since men often want the same things, they will try to take whatever they can get from each other. Therefore, any man's possession is not safe as long as someone else wants it. From this comes the constant state of war of everyone wanting what another possesses. With no government instituted every man is against the other with no median in which to protect anyone. Because everyone is against the other in war, there is no right or wrong, or any basis for these. There is no justice or injustice because these come from laws, and there is no government.

Rousseau would then argue that men come to peace and work together instead of against each other because it is good for them, and wouldn't like to see another man hurt. Hobbes says that man comes to an agreement of peace purely on fear. Man realizes that each person has the ability to kill the other, and therefore wants to be protected; so they declare peace to not kill one an

other. Whereas Rousseau says that man comes to peace because each cares about the next, Hobbes says that it occurs because it is in the best interest of a person for personal gain.

In the same way, Rousseau would say that if a man's neighbor needed food, he would give it to him because he was compassionate for the man and sympathized with him. Hobbes would say that man would be thinking the question in his head, "What will I get in return, and is it worth me doing it?" If it is not, then man will not help his neighbor and give food. Even acts of kindness such as charity; Hobbes would say that they are done because they make the individual feel good for doing something else, or it allows for others to look upon that person with esteem. Both the former and the latter are personal benefits.

Rousseau says that one must prescribe the law for himself. In this he means that one must use his acquired reason to make laws and morals for himself, similarly to how Kant described it. Reason should be well developed and put into use by forming strong beliefs. These beliefs can shape a person, and a person should live by them at all times. The ability to live by one's own beliefs is similar to when Kant talks about courage.

It is much easier to accept someone else's idea or belief then to come up with one for oneself. Therefore it takes courage to get rid of dogmas and doubt all of one's beliefs and build up one's own ideas from them. It is also hard to break down ideas and come up with personal beliefs. It may turn out that a person comes up with the same idea that he started out with, they are two separate things, even though seemingly the same. The former idea as dogma is just any idea; no dogma means more than another. The latter evaluation of the idea is a belief that becomes an argument with backing. It takes courage for one to doubt one's beliefs, but also if the new idea contradicts the norm, it takes courage to stick with it.

Rousseau claims that there are no new forces in man, just old ones, and old ones that change into new ones. If man changes states, for instance, from the state of nature to a civil state, there isn't a change in forces at work among man, but a change in the old force. It is a redirected force because care has changed from the individual to the whole.

Since man must now worry about everyone else, that is not natural; only self-interest is a natural instinctual thought. Instinct is then replaced with reason in order to cope with the needs of others

Some common words found in the essay are:
Rousseau Hobbes, Similarly Rousseau, , Enlightenment Rousseau, Whereas Rousseau, one's own, takes courage, one's beliefs, doubt one's beliefs, kant's idea enlightenment, supports kant's, self-interest natural, neighbor food, nature civil, idea enlightenment, moral immoral, kant's idea,
Approximate Word count = 1696
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)