Comparing Locke´s Natural Law with Rousseau´s Discourse on Inequality

2789 Words6 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Differences between Jean Jacques Rousseau and john locke political philosophy

The relationship between nature, the state and individuals is a complex one; political philosophers have been studying these relationships ever since the dawn of time, with the goal being to determine the best way in which the people relate to nature. Based on the ideas of philosopher John Locke, the state does not have the ability to infringe upon the right of people to determine their own destiny; he believes that mankind’s best state is to bring the best parts of their natural instincts into society, collecting together into a “state of perfect freedom.” Conversely, philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that mankind was at its best in its natural state, behaving like an animal and worrying only about its individual needs – the introduction of society makes them into monsters with unequal relationships to each other. These two philosophies are distinctly different, going under two wildly different notions about the influence of nature in a person’s life. Between these two philosophers, a complex understanding of the relationship between man and the natural order can be found, as well as the consequences of evil due to nature.

Locke on Natural Law

John Locke’s ideas are heavily linked with right-libertarianism: in typical liberalism and libertarianism, a small government is the road to a great civilization; individual liberty and free will is valued more than anything else, and people must be permitted to look after their own interests. Free market capitalism as it stands today is often derived from this principle, since it is conceived that the idea of a free market would permit individuals to achieve their dreams based on their will and resources. John Locke was often said to be the Father of Classical Liberali...

... middle of paper ...

...he natural man focuses on himself alone; Locke believes that man can be advantaged by modern society, as long as he brings natural laws like private property into the civilized world. These two philosophers have decidedly opposing views, insofar as Locke thinks the civilized world can include natural law and Rousseau does not. Given the severely entrenched nature of civilization in human history and life, it is easy to see how Rousseau’s philosophy can seem cynical; Locke’s perspective is much more willing to work within the confines of society that have been established.

Works Cited

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill, 1689.

Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy (Oxford University Press), 2010.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. A Discourse on Inequality. New York: Penguin Books, 1984.

Show More
Related

  • Explaining the Origins and Evils of Society in Second Treatise of Government by Locke and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Rousseau

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    Second Treatise of Government by John Locke and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau are books written to try and explain the origin of society. Both try to explain the evils and inequalities of society, and to a certain degree to discuss whether man in his natural state is better than man in society. These political science based theories do not appear, at first, to have anything in common with J. Hector St. John De Crèvecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer, which are letters written by Crèvecoeur during the settling of America and the beginning of the American Revolution, however with examination we can see reflection of both Locke’s and Rousseau’s ideas about things such as human nature, government, and inequality.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of John Locke: The Second Treatise Of Government

    2379 Words  | 5 Pages

    John Locke is considered one of the best political minds of his time. The modern conception of western democracy and government can be attributed to his writing the Second Treatise of Government. John Locke championed many political notions that both liberals and conservatives hold close to their ideologies. He argues that political power should not be concentrated to one specific branch, and that there should be multiple branches in government. In addition to, the need for the government to run by the majority of the population through choosing leaders, at a time where the popular thing was to be under the rule of a monarch. But despite all of his political idea, one thing was extremely evident in his writing. This was that he preferred limited

    Read More

  • How Did The Enlightenment Influence The American Revolution

    424 Words  | 1 Pages

    John Locke is known as the “Father of Classical Liberalism” and is said to be one of the most influential philosophers. Locke believed that all humans are born with natural rights and had the right to protect their “Life, liberty, health and possessions”. Locke also believed that we have the right to overthrow our government if we didn’t like it or got tired of it and he wanted a limited

    Read More

  • Analysis Of John Locke's The Two Treatises Of Government

    1295 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke wrote the Two Treatises of Government. In his work Locke talked about how governments are not created by God, but by human beings. He claimed that by nature all people are free and equal against the claims of God and that a government should work between the governor and the ones being governed, instead of a governor and God. Locke also wrote several religious essays that served as an early model for the separation of the church and the state. His phrase of “life, liberty, and property,” would end up influencing the United States’ early documents. Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding expressed the idea that knowledge neglects inmate ideas and in order to discover the truth beyond simple experience, he suggested methods of experimental science. Thoughts Concerning Education expressed Locke’s idea on how the mind can be educated by having a healthy body, a pure character, and the right academic curriculum. Later on, it would be acknowledged by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Napoleon

    1289 Words  | 3 Pages

    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)

    Read More

  • Rousseau Social Contract

    1087 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau is trying to identify that even though as human beings we are born free the way that the government controls us it is as if people are in chains. Which is the primary focus of Rousseau creating this work to display a society where people be free. This book is aimed to determine whether or not a state can exist that upholds citizens rather than constrain liberty. He rejects the idea that political authority is found in nature and that the only natural form of authority is that between a father and a child. He compares the authority of a father and a child to a ruler and the people or subjects, which in his opinion is the only natural form of authority. Legitimate political authority rests on a Social Contract that is forged between members of society meaning that each person must surrender themselves to each other as a whole community in order to acquire freedom. This is what the main idea of the Social Contract and is how the perfect Utopian society can be achieved. He also goes on to speak about Nature versus Civil Society and how although we would lose the physical ability of being able to follow our instincts freely and do what we please with natural society. With civil society we gain the civil liberty that places the limits of reason and the general will on our behavior, which will render us moral. Which

    Read More

  • Political Science Final Exam

    758 Words  | 2 Pages

    Locke believes that state of nature is pre-political but at the same time it is not pre-moral. He believes that everyone i...

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Essay On John Locke

    1554 Words  | 4 Pages

    John Locke wrote a government idea in the 17th century that many people today would think is the idea of a fool. He thought that the government needed to stay out of the way of the lives of others and let the natural rights take place. Locke thought that the people were good and could live just fine without the government trying to control their every move. Locke implied the government is intended to be an instrument for the people and they could adjust or change the instrument as needed to best fit their needs (Pourly 2) He thought, the government needed to be less, the people needed to be more. People worried that not all mankind were alike and some were cruel, and horrible.

    Read More

  • The Expulsion of Freedom

    1396 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of truculency and servility that nature orbits adversely affects the nature of mankind, resulting in mankinds affinity for greed, and brutal ambition. Inspite of their conflicting perspectives on the state of nature, both support and explicate on the idea that the preservation and proliferation of mankind as a whole is best achieved through their belief, and withholding the policies of a social contract. The intention of Leviathan is to create this perfect government, which people eagerly aspires to become apart of, at the behest of individual relinquishing their born rights. This commonwealth, the aggregation of people for the purposes of preventing unrest and war, is predicated upon laws that prohibit injustice through the implementation of punishment. Essentially in the mind of both Rousseau and Hobbes, constraints are necessary for human beings to be truly free under the covenants and contracts applied to the civil state at which mankind interface through.

    Read More

  • Rousseau’s Social Contract

    580 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rousseau’s political theory revolves around a central idea that in order to deal with moral or political inequality (“social” inequality), man must move out of the state of nature and establish a social contract, “a form of association which defends and protects… the person and goods of each associate, and by the means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 432). Although Rousseau’s plan pledges to protect individual liberty, the plan rests on the legislation of the “general will” and the successful unity of a “body politic,” both of which are vaguely defined and become too concerned with state interest.

    Read More

  • Locke, Rousseau, and King

    929 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...

    Read More

  • Marx (The Communist Manifesto) and Rousseau

    2059 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...believed it kept many in bonds or slavery. While Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that freedom was attained by entering into a social contract with limits established by good will and community participation. Both theories would put restraints on personal property and capital creating ownership relinquished to the state. He believed that laws to protect citizens could not keep up with the changing economic environment. One could conclude that Marx and Rousseau’s theories were relatively close in the role that it plays between citizens and personal property ownership.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    John Stuart Mill defines liberty in relation to three spheres; each successive sphere progressively encompasses and defines more elements relating to political society.... ... middle of paper ... ... Locke’s views simply stem from his faith in man and his potential to succeed independently, which collectively promotes the prosperity of the state. Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state.

    Read More

  • Rousseau and Marx: Property and Inequality

    1831 Words  | 4 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx both had the similar notion that property was the root of inequality, even though they both lived in different eras. Rousseau, who lived during the 18th century, was a staunch proponent of the idea that property gave rise to inequality, due to its unequal distribution. Similarly, Marx, who lived during the 19th century, contended that property gave rise to inequality because it created a class conflict between that of the upper class bourgeoisie, and the working class proletariat. However, for Rousseau, there was an underlying force that gave rise to property and that was amour propre. In simplest terms, amour propre is the vanity and self-love that leads one to seek personal gain, even if it may be at the expense of others (Rousseau 63). Rousseau argued that amour propre and private property were the sources of inequality because they drove man away from his natural state where he was equal amongst others.

    Read More

More about Comparing Locke´s Natural Law with Rousseau´s Discourse on Inequality

Open Document