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. When speaking about the nature of man, Crèvecoeur speaks about the natural man and man in society. He proclaims ‘Evil preponderates in both; in the first they often eat each other for want of food, and in the other they often starve each other for want of room.’ (Crèvecoeur, 608). He does not see one state as better than the other; he believes that they both have their disadvantages. On the other hand Rousseau as well as Locke both believes that man in his natural state was better. For Rousseau all man’s needs are filled in nature (Rousseau, 47), while in society man can take more than he needs which leaves his fellow man lacking. For Locke, even though man entered society in order to enjoy properties in peace and safety (Locke, 69) he believes that living in society has caused greediness as well as governments governing without the consent of their people. So while the authors disagree about what it was like in the state of nature, with only Locke really insisting that things ... ... middle of paper ... ...o live in a society where the government was democratic and the republic having been established much earlier (Rousseau, 31-32). Crèvecoeur’s preference for a free, democratic government as compared to an absolute monarchy, can be seen as reflecting the opinions of Locke and Rousseau. Despite not being written in the genre of political writing, providing more of a sociological perspective in reality, Letters from an American Farmer is fairly consistent with having the same opinion and views on key philosophical issues such as inequality, government, and the nature of man as in the books Second Treatise of Government and The Basics of Political Writings. Through Crèvecoeur’s writing we see many opinions, such as the greediness of man as well as how man is evil in both society and in nature, which reflects the written opinions and theories of Locke and Rousseau.
Paine introduced his main claim by comparing the differences of a society and government within “Common Sense” (CS). “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher” (Paine 4-5). Using juxtaposition, Paine is able to portray the British government as a form of oppression while society or the American colonies as a virtuous foundation. Government, according to Paine is a means of regulating societies’ sins. By portraying “society” as a form of prosperity, the reader gains an insight to his claim. Furthermore, Paine’s interpretation of society is a means of survival a way for people to work together and prosper. However, in order for Paine to persuaded the audience he relates to their reasoning. “Let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the e...
The Founding Fathers of the United States relied heavily on many of the principles taught by John Locke. Many of the principles of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government may easily be discovered in the Declaration of Independence with some minor differences in wording and order. Many of the ideas of the proper role of government, as found in the Constitution of the United States, may be discovered in the study of Locke. In order to understand the foundation of the United States, it is vital that one studies Locke. A few ideas from Hume may be found but the real influence was from Locke. Rousseau, on the other hand, had none.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau describes the origins of humanity in his book, Discourse on Inequality. Although Rousseau takes a hypothetical approach rather than a factual, historical approach to surmising the history of humankind, he effectively analyzes the foundations of human inequality and whether it is sanctioned by natural law. Throughout the book, Rousseau strives to outline the history of human development, beginning from the state of nature to the establishment of civil society in order to determine the origins and consequences of inequality and to question the legitimacy of political institutions.
In Locke’s state of nature, there was never a need to assume that one must equally divide possessions. Locke’s notion of of the right to property was crucial because it was held on the same accord as rights such as life and liberty respectively. By doing so, property becomes subjected to the whims of political processes just as any similar right would require. This means that Locke was able to justify inequalities in property through the need of political regulation for property. There was also a drastic imbalance in Locke’s civil society due to the two classes that unlimited accumulation of property created. Locke suggested that everyone is a member of society and yet only those who owned property could fully participate in society. Those who did not own property were unable to fully participate, because it could give them the opportunity to use their newfound legitimate power to equalize property ownership, going against Locke’s key belief of unlimited accumulation. In Locke’s views, due to the overwhelming abundance of property, there was never a need for a method to ensure impartiality. The inequality stems from Locke’s inability to realize the discrepancy would become more and more apparent as men used money to expand their possessions. This structure established two different types of class within society, the upper echelon citizens who share in the sovereign power and the second class citizens
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
In his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
Rousseau stated that the origin of mankind relies on the establishment of societies and the abuse of it. He explains that the nature of man and reason gives man the divine right, which means that we get our human rights from god. Rousseau stated, “…independently of the scared dogmas that gives to sovereign authority the sanction of divine right. Its follows from this presentation, that inequality is practically nonexistent in the state of nature, it derives its force and growth from the development of our facilities and the progress of the human mind, and eventually becomes stable and legitimate through the establishment of property and laws.” ( sentence 1 and 2 on page 71). He explains when divine right is later establish in the laws and society, inequality would be the effect of the divine right being establish in society, today. Rousseau, also talks about moral inequality and how it contradicts with positive
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, and G.D.H. Cole. Discourse on Inequality. Nutley, New Jersey: Nutley School District, 1755. PDF.
In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the poor.
John Locke’s Views on Property and Liberty, as Outlined in His Second Treatise of Government
In Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Second Discourse, “Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind”, the Philosopher describes his thoughts on the origin of inequality which he identifies as two types. The first being natural (age, health, strength, etc.) with the second being political moral/political, created by societies. In part two, he discusses his view on the latter of the two sources of inequality, stating that it is derived from the need to control other human beings. Specifically, on page 135 of the text, Rousseau gives his take on modern society by stating “I could prove, in short, that if we behold a handful of rich and powerful men seated on the pinnacle of fortune and greatness, while the crowd grovel in darkness and misery,
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.
John Locke’s social contract theory applies to all types of societies in any time era. Although, Jean-Jacques Rousseau did write during the Renaissance era, his philosophy limits itself to fix the problem of an absolute monarchy and fails to resolve other types of societies. These philosophers have such profound impacts on modern day societies. For example, the United States’ general will is codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, meanwhile individual rights are distinguished in the Declaration of
Rousseau, in the Second Discourses, examines the differences between natural and modern man. As used in his writing, natural man refers to mankind unfettered by social norms, morals, obligations, and duties. Modern man, however, is bound by these factors. Conformity with these factors allows modern man to experience virtue, whereas non-conformity results in vices. In the passage in question, Rousseau explores how natural man is better for himself and society because natural man has no moral relationship or obligations to other men and no subjugated inequality. He then offers a solution to how modern man can return to the natural state.
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.