ipl-logo

John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's State Of Nature

1076 Words5 Pages

How did human civilization come about? Did civilized society always exist, or was it an artificial creation? What is the truth behind the state of nature; was it a real event, and if so then how did civil society emerge out of it? Different political theorists, have differing understandings about how “modern” society came into existence, and three of these prominent figures that stand out are: John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Robert Dahl. Rousseau claims that the state of nature “should not be taken for historical truths, but only for hypothetical and conditional reasonings,” whereas Locke and Dahl portray it as an actually point in time. But regardless, their “states of nature” give insight into why human society evolved in to what is today (Rousseau. p. 46). By looking at the theories from these great scholars about the origins of humanity, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of …show more content…

He also claims that in this state, man lived ideally, in an almost animistic life, content and solitary were “his self-preservation was practically his sole concern” (Rousseau, p. 52). At some point however, man began to live in small, tribal, familial communities, with no established government and where everyone was the “sole judge and avenger of the offences he received” (Rousseau. p. 74). Yet, Rousseau believes that this relatively equal society was completely destroyed by the introduction of metallurgy and agriculture which crated inequality (Rousseau. p. 75). From this inequality, civil society developed by the guidance of the rich. It “gave new fetter to the weak and new forces to the rich, irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, and established forever the law of property and of inequality” (Rousseau. p. 79). According to Rousseau, civil society was corrupted from the beginning; built for the rich, by the rich, at the expense and without the consent of the

Show More
Related
1483 Words | 6 Pages

He states that hierarchy actually does not exist in the state of nature, as it alienates and chains most of the population. Because of this hierarchy, anyone under property owners and the wealthy consequently suffer and do not benefit from the modern social contract. This displaces power and puts a strong emphasize on one’s political life which in return only benefits individual interests. This despotic society where one class rules everything and corrupts the masses, through a liberal social contract, is what Rousseau deemed the most destructive

Read More
1099 Words | 5 Pages

Rousseau meditates that the founder of civil society was the first person who claimed that an object or a piece of land was “theirs,” therefore creating ownership of private property. Private property was the beginning of institutionalizing inequality.

Read More
908 Words | 4 Pages

This flawed ideology of unanimity between God, man, and nature as expressed in the writings of Waldo Emerson’s “Nature” essays (XVIII) (Emerson, pages 16-17), is also evident in Adam Heinrich Müller’s philosophy in which he declares that the state and the nation, lay the basis for man’s entire being, existence and identity (Goetz, pages 281-282). The Romanticism-Transcendentalism socialist view of society, civil-government and pecuniary autonomy incited the 1848 conflicts in European capitals as well as the Civil War (Ferdon, page 114). The consequences of denying the sovereignty of God and His place at the head of the covenant of all institutions, has established a gateway for the evils of destructive process philosophical ideologies, whose sole purpose is to eradicate Christianity and strip us of our God given rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence and lawfully established in the constitution. Intellectuals, even after realizing the flaws of the Romanticism-Transcendentalism movement, continued to rebuke the existence of God and Biblical truths by embracing process philosophies that fostered

Read More
140 Words | 1 Pages

“Artificial faculties” such as language, sociability, and reason are factors leading man to become modern and no longer be in a state of human nature. Furthermore, Rousseau certainly develops a link between inequality and property,

Read More
2000 Words | 8 Pages

In contrast to Hobbes, who argues social bonds form to regulate human nature, Rousseau argues that the formation of the civil state results from and in a “change in man,” that humans must of necessity be denatured in the process of forming society. There are similarities between the two’s philosophies, but it is Rousseau, through his arguments that human nature can be changed, who articulates a political vision more consistent with the claim that humans are asocial by nature. In the beginning, the arguments of both Hobbes and Rousseau are similar. Man in nature is isolated.

Read More
769 Words | 4 Pages

What, according to Rousseau, were the worst effects of socialisation? Jeans-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men is a defence of the original man in a state of nature and an attack on the corrupt and elitist European society of his day. Rousseau sought to ‘go back to an earlier point and try to piece together[… the] slow succession of events’ in order to pinpoint where humanity degenerated from the state of nature to today’s “civilised” society. In this sense, Rousseau seems to be attributing the process of socialisation to ‘all the evils’ in the world.

Read More
1253 Words | 6 Pages

The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining

Read More
835 Words | 4 Pages

He explains that slavery does not equal human preservation and that the king lives well by taking advantage of the labour of others. The king isolates the country by hoarding all of the goods and offers little security for the people. Rousseau interprets this as an unequal exchange and that to give up freedom would be to give up our hopes for humanity. In a monarchy, slavery corrupts individuals by making the people slaves and destroying their rights and freedoms. In order to do so, he introduces the concept of the

Read More
1452 Words | 6 Pages

Improving Human Society Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, examines the problem with modern political institutions. He attempts to demonstrate how the progression of human reason leads to the corruption of human virtue, and the establishment of modern moral inequality. Rousseau argues that the state of nature is more effective for preserving human society, because humans are able to live equally under the natural sentiments of pity and compassion. Rousseau’s argument for human equality would disapprove of the advances in modern day science and technology. He believes that humans would be more compliant in society, if they remained as inarticulate animals or simple savages.

Read More
111 Words | 1 Pages

However, because individuals are imperfect creatures, so then the state of nature is also imperfect. Locke recognizes that a state of war is cultivated in the state of nature when a person violates the laws of nature: the inalienable rights of another. Individuals have the rights to enforce the laws of nature against those who violate and aid those whose rights have been violated (Locke 1982: 2, 8). But only then is there violence in the state of nature, the viciousness of humanity other theorists envisioned is lost in the theories of Locke and Rousseau. In fact, Rousseau explicitly criticizes the other theorists for not going far enough in their explanations.

Read More
1648 Words | 7 Pages

On the other hand, Werther takes an extremely Romantic approach, with his life and experiences demonstrating the limitations of a rational society. In Discourse on the Origin of Moral Inequality, Rousseau rationally determines that the emergence of society and the invention of property directly cause moral inequality between people, specifically, the rich and the poor. First, he establishes the state of nature as a basic system, with no complex morality or rationality involved, unlike the states of nature described by Hobbes and Locke. At the most fundamental degree, Rousseau places mankind at the same level as other animals.

Read More
1507 Words | 7 Pages

Rousseau attempts to define the origins of inequality in mankind, and does so by first outlining a “natural state”. Inequality appears as either a function of nature, or is established with consent of society (Rousseau, 49). In stating that inequality is created with the consent of man, Rousseau equates inequality to a social construct. This construct is based upon the ideal that humans evolved from savages, and departed from this natural stage of savagery due to their environment. Humans then begin to drift away from savages, and the need for self preservation is replaced with a drive for competition, that is to be better, and have more than their fellow humans.

Read More
1914 Words | 8 Pages

The Leviathan by Hobbes and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Rousseau both focus on the effect of the natural world on individuals, however they fiercely disagree on what effect the natural state actually has. Rousseau’s famous disagreement over the influence of the natural world on people provides readers with great insight to the reason for their dichotomy of beliefs on the role of hierarchy and power in their present societies. Their main philosophical difference is best understood through the role that nature plays on individuals. In both texts it becomes apparent that the natural world dictates the actions of individuals, in particular how they treat one another. Furthermore, because the natural world has such a strong influence

Read More
1624 Words | 7 Pages

He states, “the most ancient of all societies and the only natural one is that of the family, children remain bound to their father only so long as they need him to take care of them”. Rousseau’s claims of society being unnatural and that all agreements beyond the family are out of convention implies that there is no relationship between man outside of society. He explains that “men are not naturally enemies, for the simple reason that men living in their original state of independence do not have sufficiently constant relationships among themselves to bring about either a state of peace or a state of war”. Prior to society man went about their natural lives with the family tending to basic needs such as food, clothes, and shelter. This continued until there became a need for man to come together and benefit from the

Read More
1351 Words | 6 Pages

Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form. --- Rousseau begins his

Read More

More about John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's State Of Nature

Related Topics

Open Document