More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast locke and Rousseau political philosophy
Compare and contrast Locke's and Rousseau's political theories
Rouseau and Locke's theories of government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau were both thinkers that contributed to the notion of government by social contract in their writing by expressing ideas of the human state of nature, natural rights and human innovation. The “ideal” government has been debated by many, but these two thinkers identified revolutionary concepts that were discouraged during their time. There are many notable differences between the two thinkers, but there are similarities as well, including their contribution in this period commonly referred to as the “Enlightenment”. It is especially important to note that the American government is founded on some of their concepts because of their efficiency and relatability. Often times, the ones who speak out radical ideas during their time, are later studied and tested to determine effectiveness in government. Despite differences in their writing styles, they both concentrated on more realistic ideas and observations than previous contributors. The common goal is to preserve our lives and create a safe, stable society that is striving for the common good. …show more content…
Locke argues against this, he believes that the human state of nature is not parallel to a state of war because we are moral individuals. Due to this morality, we abide by a moral code to act reasonably. He favors societal revolts so long as the public has good reason and the government is showing clear tyrannical signs. Locke believes that there is natural justice and if the government is failing to practice this, it is faulty. He gives the people the duty to participate in the government, but more importantly, act as a check to control tyranny and
The enlightenment ideas affected politics for both the French and the American peoples through the form of government and individual rights. Thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed in the individual right of man as a citizen of a sovereign nation. In 1789, Marquis de Lafayette used Rousseau and other free thinker’s ideas to draft his Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen to the National Constituent Assembly in France (http://www.pbs.org/marieantoinette/revolution/america_france.html). This established universal rights for individuals that always existed at all times. The document shows many similarities to American documents such as the declaration of Human Rights in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. For instance, they all show a relationship through the declaration of individual rights such as free speech and freedom of religion. However, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen focuses more on individualism while American documents focus more on a community “We the People” (http://www.pbs.org/marieantoin...
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
The authors of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and the United States Constitution pulled from many different sources during the infancy of these invaluable documents. They used pieces such as Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, Rousseau’s Of The Social Contract, and Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws as inspiration for America’s fundamental government. Each of these influential political philosophers were instrumental in making our government what it is today. Hobbes brought the ideas of natural equality, a strong, powerful government, and the principle that governments must be able to protect the people to American political philosophy. Locke added that
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
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
It is clear that Locke and Rousseau had different views on equality and democracy. Locke believed in reason and self-governance whereas Rousseau advocated for decision making for the good of the community rather than just the individual. Locke believed that the government is responsible for the protection of rights and freedoms in the state of nature, yet Rousseau relinquishes these rights and says that it is the government’s job to advance the general will of the people.
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.
John Locke, one of the leading philosophers of the European Enlightenment was very important when it came to political thought in the United States. His ideas of the reasons, nature, and limits of the government became especially important in the development of the Constitution. In one of his most famous writings of that time, Two Treatises on Government (1689), Locke established a theory where personal liberty could coexist with political power ; meaning that the people would agree to obey the government and in return, the government would have the responsibility of respecting the people’s natural rights. In other words, he laid out a social contract theory that provided the philosophy and source of a governing author...
According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the main problem of modern societies is that they do not promote equality and freedom. He strongly believes that the only way to avoid this problem is to create a government based on the “general will”, because only through the pursuing of a common good, a state is able to guarantee freedom and equality to everybody. Therefore, Rousseau’s ideal government is a directed democracy, where people are deciding the laws and obeying to them. In order to do so, people need to be educated to a common civic sense. However, in my opinion, this model of government ensures equality at the expense of personal freedoms, because there is no
Locke used the arguments that a government is nothing if it is not supported by the power of its citizens. He argued that the citizens of the government were not well represented in the government so it was justified to be overthrown. This is what he thought about the overthrowing of King James of England in 1688. Locke argued that if the people in a country were to dissolve then the government in that country will also dissolve. He saw a country as a big group of people with similar views. He talks about how society decides to act as a whole group. When they split apart is when society becomes different groups and the government then falls. Many colonists were from England and witnessed or knew about the Glorious revolution and felt like they were mistreated the same way the people of England did at that time. Locke’s ideas played a major role in influencing the colonists to realize they were not being treated fairly and they had a right to fight for freedom to create their own
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not delve as far back as Rousseau does and he begins his mission of finding a way to preserve people’s liberty in an organized society by looking to order of the ancient societies of Greece, Rome and England (Mill 5). These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizen’s were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mill’s conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will.