Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau were both influential philosophers with two completely different theories about the nature of human beings. While Hobbes' theory was based on the assumption that human nature was born naturally competitive, violent and power-seeking, Rousseau considered human nature to be good and pure, only as long as society does not corrupt it. Although Hobbes and Rousseau viewed the state of nature quite differently, both of their theories were similarly based on the image of what society was like before political government existed. The argument I would like to support is the idea that Hobbes' vision and beliefs on human nature starting from the State of Nature are profoundly more logical and realistic than those of Rousseau. Being human means wanting. According to Hobbes, none of these men has more advantages than the other. Given the facts, Hobbes states that they are both equal and since both men have the same desire to have the apple, this will create competition and conflict. "And therefore if two men desire the same thing, which yet they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end seek to destroy or subdue each other" (Hobbes-76). Since in the state of nature there is no central power or authority, people are free and can do whatever they deem necessary or in their interest to survive. This includes invasions, assaults, robberies and even murders. If one man wanted to kill another to secure the apple, there is no law to prevent him from doing so. These actions could occur at any time, without consequences, which is why in the state of nature no one is safe. The "constant fear and the danger of violent death" is the worst characteristic of human nature, however, the continuous intervention between the emotion of fear and hope is the "determining principle of Rousseau who theorized that the "savage" in the state was not selfish in nature, like Hobbes' idea, but rather arose as a result of the person's interaction with society. He argued that people naturally feel compassion for others who suffer and that civil society encourages us to believe that we are superior to others. Therefore, the thought of being more powerful will lead us to suppress our virtuous feelings of kindness and instead turn us into selfish human beings. Both philosophers agreed that humans are naturally selfish, however Rousseau fails to understand the concept that there are not enough resources for each human being and that brutal competition is part of survival. When discussing Rousseau's theory of the corruption of society, an interesting question arises. If humans are naturally so good, then how could society be so evil? Hobbes would argue that society is what keeps human nature stable through the use of sovereign power, laws, and authority to regulate people's actions. Without society, corruption would continue and people would have absolute freedom to do what they want, which would cause more fear. According to Hobbes "The notions of right and wrong, of justice and injustice, have no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where there is no law, there is no injustice" (Hobbes- 79). Ultimately, life is better when humans are at