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. Rousseau defines the general will as concerning “only the general interest,” saying it can be arrived at by taking all individual wills and “[removing] … the pluses and minuses” from each to “cancel each other out” (437). He doesn’t say what parts of individual opinion are “pluses and minuses” however. Rousseau’s outlook on humanity seems to be overwhelmingly positive in this case, since he assumes that people will need no specific guidelines to lead “good” political lives. This faith in humanity is where his arguments become weak. Although Rousseau has faith in human beings to be inherently “good,” he does concede that society is what corrupts people– since his plan is to lay out a new kind of society, it seems strange that he would not plot his theory out more specifically in case anyone failed...
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
...tract theory does raise additional questions. Rousseau envisioned a society in which every voice was heard. A solution to this impracticality is the idea of representation—something which Locke advocated for in The Second Treatise. The idea makes sense; have one person represent a group of people to improve functionality. However, how can a man fully represent an entire group’s interest? Surely there must be some differences between the representative and those he represents. If that is the case, can one call that justice? The man already relinquished certain rights by accepting the contract. With representation, he also gives up his right to full participation in the system. Despite this problem and the other issues with contractarianism, this theory served as a foundation for the American political system and continues to inspire political ideologies worldwide.
Jean¬Jacques Rousseau, Contrat social ou Principes du droit politique (Paris: Garnier Frères 1800), pp. 240¬332, passim. Translated by Henry A. Myers.
In his book A Discourse on Inequality, Jean- Jacques Rousseau turns to the state of nature in search of the real “essence” of man. What made humans to be humans? Rousseau is trying to determine the prodigious events, such as the acquisition of knowledge and errors, the mutations that took place in the constitution of the body, and the constant impact of the passions that eventually led to the separation of man between the state of nature and society (67). He describes how as time change, humanity change as well. He figures that if by first looking into the origin of man, it can lead to the “source of inequality among men” and the unnatural ways man has evolved to become (67).
The principal tension is between a democratic conception, where the general will is simply what the citizen of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly, in simple terms Rousseau is saying the people generally settle for what the leaders of their individual communities lay down and out for them, and an alternative interpretation where the general will is the transcendent incarnation of the citizens common interest that exists in abstraction from what any of them actually want. Both views find some support in Rousseau’s texts, and both have been influential, modern and contemporary epistemic conception of democracy often make reference to Rousseau’s text and have both been
Rousseau states how it has created members of society to be dependent on each other as well as makes them compare themselves to others creating a need to be better than the rest, “But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared,” (Rousseau, 255). In which Smith saw division of labor as more advantageous, Rousseau sees it as more disadvantageous, introducing inequality into society. Now, Rousseau’s solution to the injustice wrought on society is to get rid of laws altogether. Laws have driven us further away from our original state of nature and gave powers to the rich and wealthy, “Such was, or may well have been, the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness,” (Rousseau, 261). These laws enforcing a need for property and distribution of labor only brings inequality and enslavement, therefore they should be forgotten
...hat is prepared by others. To take a walk, one must progress along the streets constructed by others, or along the earth that exists due to a supreme power. To have a conversation, one requires another to communicate with. To comprise a single thought, reverts back to the need to even exist as a human. The examples are endless while the fact is simple: to do anything of an individual desire requires the direct or indirect partnership of another. This sole principle ruins the basis of the social contract. If people are aware of their existing group efforts, they may be reluctant to give up natural rights that they do not have, for a society in which they’ve already established. In reality, Rousseau’s theory is that of natural existence; he just made it sound appealing by adding a few accents. In response to this reality, Rousseau may propose that a social contract must be enforced upon a society to encourage security, general will and proper law regulations. This response may be sufficient enough to blind a society into conformity, but it does not change the natural fact that as a single being, we can do nothing alone.
He tried to convince us of this by describing the difference between the state of nature and the civil state, and in effect, asking which we think is better. To be in the state of nature, would be to act on appetite and so be slavish and bad. To be in the civil state, is to act according to reason and so be noble and good. We ought constantly to bless the moment that we moved in to the civil state because this gives us the chance to be noble and good .So,says Rousseau it is in each of our interests to choose the general will .Therefore, if we think according t...
To start, the basic premise for Rousseau is the movement from the state of nature to civil society is a movement ultimately to a significantly worse situation. Furthermore, the current state in the state of nature leaves us well provided without the help of each other, “it is in fact impossible to conceive why, in a state of nature, one man should stand more in need of the assistance of another” (Discourse, 1, 423). We could also say, humans in the state of nature are self-sufficient. Also, there is no moral relations nor is there obligation between one another, yet there is a desire for self-preservation as well as a motivation for morality in the state of nature. There is no such thing as vanity, esteem, contempt, or private property. In other words, because there are no relations between people, we have not developed self-love or esteem as no interaction has occurred. But, our natural compassion enables us to feel pain when we see others in distress – this is seen quite frequently in parents and in animals (Discourse, 1, 424). From this, we can conclude that compassion in the state of nature is more effective than laws and moral principles that we would see in a civil society. Though there is no reason for anyone to leave the state of nature, the role of private property plays a huge part in moving us away from the state of nature and into civil society, “the first man who say,
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. Prominent, influential, relevant and most important of all as human as they come, Jean Jacques Rousseau was truthfully, brilliant. Rousseau was born in Geneva Switzerland to a watchmaker in 1712, lacking of a formal education his father taught him to read, exposed him to literature and he managed to educate himself while living with Madame Louise de Warens,in the kingdom of Sardinia, modern Italy. Jeans childhood was far from easy “His autobiographical Les Confessions (1783) offers a thorough account of his turbulent life in her household, where he spent eight years studying nature and music, and reading English, German, and French philosophers. He also pursued the study of mathematics and Latin and enjoyed the theater and opera” (Hager 1). After leaving de Warrens in 1744, Rousseau eventually made his way to Paris, where he befriended French philosopher Denis Diderot who actually invited him to contribute to the Encyclopedie a major work of the enlightenment period, which he did, Rousseau wrote articles on music and political theories. Then in 1750 he wrote A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. Where he claimed Human beings were naturally good, he argued; it was only the corrupt institutions of civilization that led them to do evil. Rousseau continuously returned to that theme in his subsequent writings in fact he stated A new-born he thought was intrinsically perfect: all society could do was to limit his views and maim his mind. Hence, the more civilized, the worse. A savage was nearer perfection than a philosopher. Yet he was a philosopher but Rousseau's own view of philosophy and philosophers was firmly negati...
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.
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 Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on The Origins of Inequality, Rousseau is arguing to his readers about the natural state of a man, and how it connects back to inequality. Rousseau argues his ideas of amour propre; living in the eyes of other people and amour de soi; self-preservation. I believe that Rousseau’s analysis of civilization is in fact true, I do agree with his analysis. In the next paragraphs I will be discussing how Rousseau has developed amour propre and amour de soi, as well as his analysis on civilization. Throughout the essay I will also be giving a few pieces of evidence that support my thesis from peer reviewed journals.
It aims to defend the individual in society from corrupt establishments or states that have been influenced by their ego and private property, it also does not sacrifice an individual’s freedom, and instead civil and moral freedom are two of the main motives for Rousseau’s social contract. It reduces the power that the sovereign state has over people by establishing a direct democratic society based on the general will. However there are some concerns that arise with the general will, mainly the will of the people directed towards the common good can itself present a despotism of its own. This social contract theory promotes victimisation of minority groups to preserve the common good. Also what if an individual decides they do not want to live by the common interests of this new society? Rousseau would suggest being forced to be free as the interests of the whole are served only by following rational principles that cultivate the common good which is comparable to a totalitarian