More handpicked essays just for you.
Rousseau'S Theory Of The Social Contract
Rousseau'S Theory Of The Social Contract
Rousseau'S Theory Of The Social Contract
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau he describes what he believes is the state of nature and the social contract that humans form in civilizations. This discussion mostly takes place in his book called the “Social Contract”. The first area that will be covered is what Rousseau thinks is the state of nature. This will then be followed by what he believes is the social contract that humans enter to live in normal society or civilization. The last portion will be to critic and summarize his findings.
One of the interesting things about Rousseau was that he had different views then 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 chose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral. Rousseau believes that evil starts to occur when civilizations are created. This is mostly due to increasing amounts of dependence on others and the need of unnecessary luxuries. In fact another possible reason that this evil arises and what sets prehistoric human apart from other animals is the need for self-improvement. Thus the prehistoric human would live in solitary state, in complete autonomy, and as his own sovereign. Along with this he would not strive for anything outside their imme...
... middle of paper ...
... someone else then the family or social group might attack the one that was attacking. This would then allow for a person to harm another if the situation arose that the other did not have the capability of attacking back.
Overall Rousseau explanation of the state of nature and social contract are extremely interesting and enticing. Past that it does seem hard to believe, given the supporting data, that humans are not social animals and that a time when humans were completely good. If one of the two main points were to fail, as they truly are the foundation of Rousseau arguments, it seems it would cause his conclusion to fail as well. Unfortunately his arguments lack the backing they need to create a truly infallible argument or beyond reasonable doubt. This does not suggest at all that his ideas are false or are not supported, just that they are on shaky ground.
In this section, Adler corrects the teachings of Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke and their arguments about the state of nature. One teaching Adler disputes goes by the name of “the state of nature”. This phrase, when used by Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau signifies a condition of human life on earth in which individuals live in isolation with complete independence. The second thing Adler disputes is that human beings were dissatisfied with living in a state of nature, that they decided to put up with it no longer and to agree upon certain rules for living together under some form of government that eliminated their isolation. Adler’s argument is that these three treat the state of nature as if it was a historical reality and not a thought experiment. He argues that society and government have grown over time because humans are naturally social
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 ...
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was known for his thoughts that humans are basically good and fair in their natural state but were often corrupted by the shared concepts and joint activities like property, agriculture, science, and commerce (Schmalleger, 2012). He felt that the social contract started when civilized people agreed to establish governments and systems of education that would correct the problems and inequalities that were brought on by civilization (Schmalleger, 2012). Rousseau believed in the formation of a social contract where the government system would fight off the corruption that was brought out. He felt that human rights should be applied to laws (Schmalleger,
Rousseau writes that humanity is a mixture of good and evil. There are people who follow the education of nature and become self-reliant individuals. There are also those who tamper with nature and deprive individuals of their freedoms. They are the evil ones. Rousseau held such a position because he was raised much in the manner he wrote of, with no formal education until his twenties. His work is a production of the Enlightenment. Although he was unaware of psychology, his views on how to educate and raise a child are studied in current theories of human development. Rousseau had a mixed view if humanity was good or evil.
SparkNotes: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778): The Social Contract. (n.d.). SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/rousseau/section2.rhtml
Rousseau came to the conclusion that the best way to examine the inequality in society is to examine the beginning of mankind itself. He tried to imagine the early state of man assuming there was ever actually a state where man existed only with the nature, in a solitary, and primitive lifestyle. He did not however revert as far back to the idea of the Neanderthal man to examine the ideas man held and where they came from. Instead, he looked at a state where man looked, and seemed to have the same physical abilities as he does today. Rousseau also concedes that a time where the ideas of government, ownership, justice, and injustice did not exist may not have ever existed. If what many religions tell us is true, then, in mans beginning, he was from the start, handed down laws from god which would influence his thinking and decisions. Through this, the only way such a period could come about would have to be through some catastrophic event, which would not only be impossible to explain, but consequently, impossible to prove. Therefore, imagining this state could prove not only embarrassing, but would be a contradiction to the Holy Scriptures.
...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.
In Rousseau’s statement above, what I believe he was trying to say was that all humans are born good, but since we have law and order, that makes us become bad. So he is suggesting that if we didn’t have government, we would have a modern society, which would lead to having a better environment. Although some of Rousseau’s beliefs, I believe, where a bit different, some of his beliefs are a little rambunctious. Rousseau’s most famous quote is “men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains.” What this means is that even though we have a lot of...
According to Rousseau, the reason that morals have become corrupted is due to the advancement in the arts and sciences. He believed that we are only concerned with materialism. Rousseau viewed the enlightenment as a time that corrupted the morals of society due to its path of science and art that it expanded. Rousseau believed that the arts and sciences had corrupted man. Although the advancement of the arts and sciences have led to breakthroughs in human civilization, Rousseau believed that they caused us to become self-centered and materialistic. He believed that the enlightenment had corrupted man to only focus on what they may gain and what they may improve for themselves or society. He argues against the materialistic teaching of John
Rousseau's contract was more optimistic than Hobbes and Locke, but that would be expected due to the time-line between the theories. Society had evolved somewhat, and become less regimented . The problems outlined makes it difficult for me to think that Rousseau had found a solution to his problem . I think, his ideas are probably more suited to modern day that when he devised his social contract theory. It seems to me he was a couple of centuries ahead of himself, a man before his time.
Rousseau theorized that the “savage” in the state of nature was not selfish, like Hobbes idea, but rather it arose as a result of the person’s interaction with society. He argued that people naturally have compassion for others who are suffering and that the civil society encourages us to believe we are superior to others. Therefore, the thought of being more powerful will cause us to suppress our virtuous feelings of kindness and instead change us into selfish humans. Both philosophers agreed that humans are naturally self-interested, however, Rousseau fails to understand the concept that there are insufficient resources for every human and that brutal competition is part of survival. When discussing Rousseau’s theory on the corruption of society, an interesting question arises.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher who lived in the Enlightenment. He was a very influential philosopher and “Thinker” he has written many books including The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Rousseau’s theory was in essence that humans were created naturally pure and innocent but over time and new technologies become more evil. He had thought that in the very first light of man he was completely innocent, a being who had no intention to harm anyone else. However as time progressed and the growing capacity for man increased and the
Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born
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.
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