Part 1 examines the contrasting perspectives of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the essential nature of humanity—whether people are fundamentally good or evil. The chapter opens with the provocative question of whether a heartwarming anecdote about six boys on the island of ‘Ata is an outlier or a testament to human goodness, setting the stage for an exploration of longstanding philosophical debates.

Thomas Hobbes is introduced as a pessimist who views human nature as fundamentally flawed and corrupt. In his seminal work Leviathan, Hobbes posits that in the “state of nature,” people are driven by fear and a ceaseless desire for power, leading to a condition of war against all. According to Hobbes, the only way to counter this chaos is through the formation of a civil society led by a strong sovereign power—what he metaphorically terms the “Leviathan.” Hobbes’s views have been deeply influential, broadly serving as the philosophical bedrock for arguments in favor of strong centralized authority.

In contrast, Jean-Jacques Rousseau emerges as the optimist, asserting that human beings are innately good. An eye-opening essay contest question, “Has the restoration of the sciences and arts contributed to the purification of morals?” (45), led Rousseau to reflect on the corrupting influence of civilization itself.