Inequality In Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, And Karl Marx

855 Words2 Pages

Throughout our history as a western civilization, we have made technologic advances and innovations that have furthered ourselves as a society and benefited us greatly by improving the quality of life. However, with these advantages there are also the disadvantages; these advances have also integrated injustice and inequality into our society. Through the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx, it can be shown how our western society has spiraled into a system of inequality amongst its communities. In Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”, he describes the advancement of division of labor and its benefits. Division of labor means more productivity, time conservation, as well as improves the quality of work amongst the laborers. …show more content…

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

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of Adam Smith And Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation

    230 Words  | 1 Pages

    Adam Smith begins his analysis of the market society with a look at the division of labor. He elaborates on the idea that the division of labor is essential for the growth of a civilization. Smith explains how for example, the production of pins can be done more efficiently with the breaking down and deconstruction of

    Read More

  • Rousseau On Inequality Analysis

    121 Words  | 1 Pages

    Some of the philosopher Rousseau’s ideas were mention in Cohen’s Political Philosophy: From Plato to Mao. Rousseau’s theories describe a human in his primitive state (before the formation of societies) as being happier. Society, according to Rousseau, began when humans began to claim property as theirs and settled down in a specific location. Rousseau also supposed that, since the primitive person was happier alone, it must have been some kind of disaster that caused him to live in groups. Cohen then goes on to describe Rousseau’s ideas on inequality, which Rousseau assumed is split to two types. The first is natural or physical inequality, and the second is moral or political inequality. The second one is imaginary even preventative. (Cohen

    Read More

  • Adam Smith's Work Philosophy: A Biblical Perspective

    1265 Words  | 3 Pages

    However, from a Christian perspective, the most important of these is the idea of division of labor. Division of labor is separating tasks for people who will best be able to do them. Division of labor can be traced back to Biblical times when special roles were assigned for to certain people who were best able to perform them. For example, some people were kings, priests, prophets, farmers, merchants, . The division of labor can also be seen in great works such as the Pyramids in Egypt, the Great Wall in China, and the Brooklyn Bridge in the United States (Cafferky, 2012). The example Adam Smith uses in his book The Wealth of Nations is a pin factory. He talks about how if one person in this factory was to try and manufacture a pin without division of labor they might be able to make twenty to one pin a day. However, if ten people work together each one taking a different function of the manufacturing process they would be able to make 48,000 pins a day (Adam Smith: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2008). By dividing tasks among multiple parties people gain the ability to produce in ways they could not on their

    Read More

  • John Locke and the Unequal Distribution of Wealth

    784 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is stated by John Locke that in the state of nature no man may take more then he can consume. “…make use of any advantage of life before it spoils…whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. (Locke 14)” Locke then goes on to say, “God gave the world to man … for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational- and labor was to be his title… (Lock 15)”

    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

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...

    Read More

  • Karl Marx And Marx's View On The Division Of Labor

    1653 Words  | 4 Pages

    Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim all offered differing perspectives on the division of labor. Marx claims that the division of labor is motivated by the market. Weber claims that it developed through the industrious essence of the Protestant ethic. Durkheim claims it developed due to an increase in dynamic density. Each theorist argues that the division of labor impacts society using differing methods. The challenge is the management of attaching different values without causation of detriment to the system. All of the theorists explain how differing values inherently offer intrinsic values to individuals within the division of labor. The division of labor is the cause of evolving societies because it influences individualism and perpetuates

    Read More

  • A Discourse on Inequality

    1445 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

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

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.

    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

  • 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

  • Marx (The Communist Manifesto) and Rousseau

    2059 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Rousseau and Marx: Property and Inequality

    1831 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    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

  • Comparing Rousseau And Mill On Liberty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...gainst the state and the general will. Rousseau contends that, “every offender who attacks the social right becomes through his crimes a rebel and traitor to his homeland” (Rousseau 65). Once this offense has been undertaken, the criminal is longer a member of society and is now viewed as an enemy. The state’s preservation is at odds with the preservation of the offender and therefore the offender must be put to death. Also, Rousseau feels that the danger of members trying to enjoy the benefits of civil society without performing their required duties is a serious threat to civil society. Such actions must be constrained by all other citizens and offenders to this agreement must be “forced to be free” (Rousseau 55). This is a rather paradoxical argument as the idea of forcing someone to be free hardly works in most people’s definition of freedom. What is essential to remember here is that Rousseau believes that the true form of freedom can only come about once an individual enters civil society and accept the terms of the social contract. Therefore by forcing someone to adhere to society’s order, you are really granting them with civil freedom, the most important freedom of all.

    Read More

More about Inequality In Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, And Karl Marx

Open Document