Discourse On The Origin Of Inequality By Jean-Jacques Rousseau

766 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Rousseau on human nature

Jean-Jacques Rousseau challenged the set of beliefs that Hobbes and Locke had. Rousseau presents his beliefs on human nature, the state of nature and his governmental views in his writings in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau ultimately believed that people in the state of nature did not have set morals: It appears, at first view, that men in a state of nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations one with another, could not be good or bad, virtuous or vicious; unless we take these terms in a physical sense, and call, in an individual, those qualities vices which may be injurious to his preservation, and those virtues which contribute to it. (Cahn, 1987, pp. 547)
Rousseau believed that man in the state of nature is essentially free and is not dominated by any other man. “Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains… …show more content…

543). The solution that Rousseau had for this political problem was for the people of a society to enter into a social contract. Entering into a social contract would enable the people to give up their rights to the community, not necessarily to an appointed king or ruler. Thus, the general will was done when people gave up rights to the community and made decisions based on what was the best interest for everyone in that community:
There is often a great difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter regards only the common interest, the other regards private interests and is only the sum of particular wills: but remove from these wills the pluses and minuses which cancel each other out and the general will remains as the sum of the differences. (Cahn, 1987, pp.

Show More
Related

  • Lord of the Flies

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...

    Read More

  • John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract

    1125 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    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

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under controlled or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function.

    Read More

  • Rousseau’s: State of Nature and Social Contract

    1176 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the interesting things about Rousseau was that he had different views than previous philosophers, such as Hume and Locke, on the state of nature. In Rousseau’s point of view, humans in the state of nature would be most like a noble savage. What this means is that Rousseau believed that in the state of nature humans are naturally good, and are lead by basic appetites or sentiments. This would also be a prehistoric place where humans would not have discovered rationality or morality. This mainly applies because Rousseau believes that these prehistoric humans made, as later discussed, decisions based on sentiment and not on reason, thus since morality requires the ability to choose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral.

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.

    Read More

  • Rousseau's Discourse On Inequality

    1052 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Aristotle's “Politics” and Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality address the natural right and superiority of man and his subsets. In his piece, Aristotle discusses the emotional feeling of superiority, while Rousseau discusses the more logistic aspects. Together, their writing begs the question of the morality of slavery. Aristotle seems more willing to accept slavery as a natural creation by humans, however, in the end both of their pieces show the immorality and abnormality of slavery.

    Read More

  • Analysis: We Can Force People To Be Free

    2204 Words  | 5 Pages

    To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In his Social Contract, Rousseau describes the transition from a state of of nature, where men are naturally free, to a state where they have to relinquish their naturalistic freedom. In this state, and by giving up their natural rights, individuals communise their rights to a state or body politic. Rousseau thinks by entering this social contract, where individuals unite their power and freedom, they can then gain civic freedom which enables them to remain free as the were before. In this essay, I will endeavour to provide arguments and examples to conclude if Rousseau provides a viable solution to what he calls the 'fundamental problem' posed in the essay title.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes And Jean Jacques Rousseau And The State Of Nature

    1865 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau were both influential philosophers with two completely different theories about the nature of human beings. While Hobbes’s’ theory was based upon the assumption that human nature was naturally born competitive, violent, and seeking power, Rousseau viewed human nature as good and pure, only until society corrupts it. Although Hobbes and Rousseau both viewed the state of nature quite differently, both their theories were similarly based on the image of how society was, before political government existed. The argument I would like to make is the idea that Hobbes’s vision and beliefs of human nature from the State of Nature is profoundly more logical and realistic than of Rousseau’s. To be human is to desire

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.

    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

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live

    Read More

  • General Will and Rousseau's Social Contract

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote the Social Contract, the concepts of liberty and freedom were not new ideas. Many political theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had already developed their own interpretations of liberty, and in fact Locke had already published his views on the social contract. What Rousseau did was to revolutionize the concepts encompassed by such weighty words, and introduce us to another approach to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to leave the state of nature, and enter into an organized society? Liberals believed it was the guarantee of protection - liberty to them signified being free from harm towards one’s property. Rousseau’s notion of freedom was completely different than that of traditional liberals. To him, liberty meant a voice, and participation. It wasn’t enough to be simply protected under the shield of a sovereign, Rousseau believed that to elevate ourselves out of the state of nature, man must participate in the process of being the sovereign that provided the protection. The differences between Rousseau’s theories and those of the liberals of his time, begin with different interpretations of the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes described the state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to one’s property was always present. He felt that man could have no liberty in such a setting, as fear of persecution and enslavement would control his every action. From this dismal setting, Hobbes proposed that man would necessarily rise and enter into a social contract.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Hobbes Locke And Rousseau

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of

    Read More

More about Discourse On The Origin Of Inequality By Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Open Document