5

To the means of self-preservation. Otherwise the right would be nugatory. But
then who is going to judge of what are and are not good means? Either the wisest men- well. that is bad for you - for us - because the wisest man may not think that we are much worse preserved as we do. Therefore eveyone must be the judge as to what are mueans for self-preservation. And now - that is according to Hobbes the natural law. And now look at society. at Hobbes. society.
who judges of the right means of self-preservation in Hobbes. socitey? The sovereign. That may very well be a king. one man. And how does a king judge of the means to my self-preservation? By making laws because laws are public judgments on means of self- preservation. as you can easily see when you look at certain individuals who steal - yes - or rob. They try to get means for their comfortable or maybe simple self-preservation and the law judes differently and the law decides the matter. So in civil society this fundamental natural right of equal judgment regarding the means of self-preservation and the law judges differently and the law decides the matter. So in civil society this fundamental natural right of equal judgment regarding the means of self-preservation is rejected. Civil society is essentially a state of inequality in Hobbes. teaching. But on the other hand morality: implies or consists in recognition of the natural right of man which includes the right to be the judge of the means. Civil society takes this away. But as Rousseau says from the very beginning morality is the one thing needful. That is the only consideration which ultimately counts. Peace. mere peace. is the lesser good than justice and justice consists in the recognition of the rights of each, including. naturally. myself. to be the judge. Therefore justice. consisting in the recognition of the right of each to be the judge. consists in reccognition of freedom because all freedom is concentrated in that right effectively to judge of the means to self-preservation. This is then the point. the starting point of Rosseau.s criticism of Locke. which became crucial. as we will see.

Now - we have to turn now to the precise procedure of Rousseau: how he tries to refute the Hobbian doctrine on the Hobbian basis. The Hobbian basis. to repeat. is self-preservation and the right of everyone to be the judge as to the means of self-preservation. Now Hobbes had taught that to understand a thing means to understand its genesis and Hobbes accordingly understands the commonwealth or the state by understanding its genesis. There he acts consistently. But Hobbes doesn't apply this demand. this general methodological demand as we can say. to the more fundamental phenomenon. So man.s rationality presupposes his sociality and yet Hobbes taught all the time that man is by nature a pre-social man. a manifest contradiction. because if man.s essence. the genesis of reason. and he never did that and that - that is what Rousseau does. For Roussean the study of man becomes the study of the history of man. of man.s -the study of man.s -of "man" becoming man. This process is the great - of man.s becoming man is the theme of Rousseau.s Second Discourse. the Discourse on the Origin of inequality. and I say only one word about that. This process of man becoming from a kind of orangutan a man is presented not as a teleological process. that the organutan was meant to develop into man. but as a strictly mechanical process. These sllightly -- these beings slightly different from orangutans were compelled by external. accidental causations: by floods or by ice or by heat - I don't know - to change. to come down from trees. as they say today. and then to become man. There is no- not a Teleological pro