Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Differentiate between the political idea of john locke and j.j rousseau
Differentiate between the political idea of john locke and j.j rousseau
How religion influences government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The proper use and limits of governmental power have different implications for each theorist that we have studied. Some see its power as all-encompassing, while others see it as more narrow, controlled and regulated. For this essay, I chose to examine the philosophies of the theorists with whom I disagree with the least: Rousseau, Locke, and Rawls. One can always recall Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s famous line: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” This sentence expressed his opposition to the idea that individual should be forced to give up their natural rights to a king. His idea of political power is that which comes from a social contract, and is entered into by participants who desire protection of life, liberty, and property, while still maintaining a good amount of freedom. Instead of a throne, citizens give up their right to the community, and their role is to deliberate for themselves their individual will, and then come together to exercise the general will, which is voted on by all citizens, in determining laws for the public good. Surely, one’s individual will can coincide with the general will, especially with regards to religion. On this issue, Rousseau expresses opposition to theology, for it was a source of weakness. If anything, the only “religion” he would approve of is that which holds the sanctity of the social contract. If anyone disagreed or disobeyed these laws, they would be “forced to be free,” meaning that residents of the state must follow the laws or be exiled. He compares such a direct democracy to Geneva. However, if the population decided that they don’t care about such matters, then the government is dissolved. Thus, in this view all political power, without separation, rests in the hands... ... middle of paper ... ...tablishing a well-ordered society, which concerns each individual’s comprehensive doctrine. Rawls suggests that it is possible to set aside comprehensive doctrine in order to determine a sense of justice in government, so that the people can reach an overlapping consensus. Doing so would establish the desirable basis for stability, for government would be stable for the right reasons: each affirms a moral doctrine for moral reasons. In conclusion, the three theorists have each chosen some type of democracy. Rousseau presents an extreme type, where the people have a say in most matters. Locke, on the other hand, is on the side of a reluctant democracy, for he sees that it is necessary to secure his insecurities about natural rights. Lastly, Rawls favors a “just” democracy, in that his goal is not necessarily an efficient society, but it is to create a most noble one.
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
Thomas Paine begins his article by first exploring the differences between society and government. He explains that, “society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” (Frohnen 179) What he means by this is that to have society and community is a privilege, because we as humans are designed to have a need for human interaction, while government on the other hand is only a necessary evil, simply because we as humans are also designed to be inherently evil, and therefore government is a necessary evil to have in order to monitor wrongdoing, or to keep us from our own vices in other words. This emphasizes the Classical Christian Anthropological principle of duality, which is the inner struggle that we as humans have between amor sui, the love of self, and amor dei, the love of God. This struggle springs from the fact that evil is found within man, and we must mak...
Even though academic study has frequently engaged with the question as to what form of government is ideal and what should be the goal of the government , there cannot be one absolute answer to this question , not merely because there has been no consensus among the scholarly community but because these questions cannot be detached from the polities which will bear the implications of the answer. Hence , it is pertinent that they must be looked at in a particular context. Mill argues for a representative government where sovereignty is vested in the aggregate of the community while Locke advocates majoritarian rule where legislative is supreme, though he prescribes certain limitations on it, and is coupled with a powerful executive. At the first glance representative government and majoritarian rule might appear to be similar , but after reading their texts it can be certainly be deduced that they did not had the same form of government in mind because it is evident that both envisage different goals of a government and therefore the means to achieve those ends are also different.
Forward thinking John Locke described the government’s purpose in his Second Treatise on government. To this great thinker, political power is “a right of making laws…only for the public good” (Locke). This idea of organization is key to liberty. Government is made to protect the rights of a free person, not to remove or tarnish them. Thus, it is the type...
Rawls begins his work by defining the role of the principles of justice “to specify the fair terms of social cooperation. These principles specify the basic rights and duties to be assigned by the main political and social institutions, and they regulate the division of benefits arising from social cooperation and allot the burdens necessary to sustain it.” (7) Through these fair principles of justice, Rawls aims to build a realistic utopia. The two principles of justice he spells out in his work are: “Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.
Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Inferably, Rousseau admitted that only legitimate powers ought to be obeyed. But what is legitimate power? Where does it come from? If it all comes from God, how can w...
In the Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the idea of forced freedom. “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the entire body; which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free” (Rousseau, SC, Bk 1. Ch. 7). This forced freedom is necessary for a government that is run by the people and not a small group of few to one sovereign(s). For forced freedom allows a difference of opinions but the outcome is the idea with the greatest acceptance. Because political rule requires the consent of the ruled, the citizens of the state are required to take action within their community.
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government are influential literary works while which outlining the theoretical framework of each thinkers optimal state propose two conflicting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they have obtained different views about man’s potential of inheriting pure or evil behavior.
Both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx had some doubts concerning works of Locke and Hobbes about democracy. Still, their delay originated from distinctive bases. For Rousseau, the issue was mostly political; particularly, the question of liberal independence and assent as the special part of managing government. Rousseau's choice was 'General will'. Marx's opinion was farther radical. Trading and loaning was the issue and just by upsetting the economic class framework could a practical unbiased state be made. So, the aim of this paper is to discuss and evaluate differences between Rousseau and Marx’s points of view.
John Rawls’ Justice as fairness attempts to both define the principles typical of justice and describe what a just society would necessary entail by the conception presented. What is described is not a perfectly good society, as justice is but one virtue among many, but a just one. Specifically, Rawls’ conception is that justice and fairness are one in the same. Using this as a starting point, Rawls focuses foremostly on the practices in a society, rather than any individual action. In this way, he expounds on what is meant by the term fairness and what value that term has in explaining justice. In this paper of three parts, I will first describe Rawls position on justice, including this position’s main principles. Secondly, I will examine
Rawls, J. (2007). Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. United States: Harvard University Press.