What does V fro Vendetta say about Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s view of human nature & political philosophy? Is Hobbes correct? Why or why not?
After a series of world crises, Great Britain is under the control of a totalitarian government. Hiding behind the mask of the hero of English history Guy Fawkes and the pseudonym “V”, a single terrorist suits a series of terrorist acts aimed at undermining the inhuman system responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. As the leading political forces realize the threat emanating from the mysterious avenger, more efforts are being made to catch him (Wikipedia n.p.). At the beginning of his personal vendetta, “V” saves a young girl Ivi. She has to reconsider her views on politics and her place in her life, after which, together with a charismatic freedom fighter, they take a number of decisive measures to overthrow the system, which in the eyes of people is the embodiment of cruelty. In the Right-wing corner, we have Thomas Hobbes, establishing the father of political reasoning, who contended that man is conceived fiendish and must be humanized. Left in a “condition of nature”, Hobbes broadly contended, our lives would be “dreadful, brutish and short”. We would battle ceaselessly finished power and assets. Concession to specialists is in this manner a demonstration of self-conservation: we put our confidence in solid pioneers, and municipal establishments, for example, the law, to spare us from ourselves (Hobbes n.p.).
What’s more, on the Left we have Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the first sentimental, whose significance was that people begin blamelessly and are defiled by society. “Nothing is as delicate as a man in his crude state,” he proclaimed; it is eagerness, disparity, and the class framework that twist us rusty. Every one of humankind’s misfortunes, contended Rousseau, could be followed back to the primary individual to encase a plot of land and claim it as his own: “You are lost in the event that you overlook that the products of the earth have a place with all and the earth to nobody (Dillard n.p.).
Hobbes asserts that a condition of, “war of each man against each man,” exists before a social contract (393, Leviathan). This state is all the more commonly known as the condition of nature. Hobbes characterizes this as a period when everyone needed to fight for himself or herself. The conditions were not good to such thing as the” and “mine it was molded for “each man’s, that he can get; and for so long, as he can keep it” (Leviathan 393). Amid this state, regular rights are defenseless against encroachment in light of the fact that there are no disciplines for wrongdoings and there is no focal specialist to protect normal rights. In consistency with Hobbes’ definition, V expresses that before the present government, there existed a “heap of issues which schemed to degenerate your reason and deny you of your presence of mind,” (V for Vendetta). Hobbes describes this state, broadly, as “singular, poor, dreadful, brutish and short,” (Leviathan 393). This dreadful state needs to exist before a social contract can be drawn. It is John Locke who, more than 300 years back, distinguished why individuals progressed from a condition of nature to marking the social contract.
He noticed that to change from a condition of viciousness and confusion, individuals marked the social contract keeping in mind the end goal to safeguard their common rights. It is after individuals go into an agreement that they consent to not encroach on each other’s regular rights (Hobbes n.p.). Locke’s thinking reverberation in V’s discourse when he clears up that individuals acknowledged the flow of government since it guaranteed to secure against war, dread, and infection. The condition of nature, which involved war, fear, and sickness, made individuals swing to the new high chancellor Adam Sutler since he guaranteed them to arrange (V for Vendetta). Presently, it turns into a full circle since V puts forth a similar defense that the general population who looked for arranging, along these lines marking the social contract, would surrender their voices, stay noiseless and respectful and that is the reason they are at fault for their tutelage (David n.p.).
At last, the impacts of Kant, Hobbes, Locke, and Aristotle are obviously evident in V’s evangelist discourse of bringing light onto the dim demonstrations of the legislature. What V gets wrong is the thing that the true objective ought to be. Despite the fact that he knows that individuals left issues for arranging, he needs to come back to a condition of turmoil and disorder. The finish of V’s discourse conveys a final offer to the general population; stay noiseless and comply with the debasement of the administration, or break the tutelage and remain before parliament next November fifth to powerfully surrender the legislature.
David Denby. “BLOWUP: V for Vendetta”. The New Yorker. Conde Nast. Retrieved March 13, 2006. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/20/060320crci_cinema
Dillard, Annie. “ROUSSEAU’S ‘GENERAL WILL’ AND WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY.” Quebecoislibre.org, 1987, http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050715-16.htm.
Hobbes, Thomas. “Hobbes’s Leviathan.” Philosophypages.com, 2011, http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3x.htm.
“V for Vendetta (Film).” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_ (film).