Locke Vs Rousseau

1553 Words7 Pages

Moving on to John Locke, he pointed that the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct our lives in the way we consider the best, without any free from the intervention of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one please, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest. Individuals are assumed to be equal to one another in a State of Nature, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions". Then, the State …show more content…

So, government gets established, through a contract, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all. Here it is important to mention that Rousseau sees the true purpose in this first contract to extend the inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private …show more content…

This act, where individual persons become a people is "the real foundation of society". Through the collective renunciation of the individual rights and freedom that one has in the State of Nature, and the transfer of these rights to the collective body, a new ‘person', as it were, is formed. The sovereign is thus formed when free and equal persons come together and agree to create themselves a single body, directed to the good of all considered together. So, just as individual wills are directed towards individual interests, the general will, once formed, is directed towards the common good, understood and agreed to collectively. Included in this version of the social contract is the idea of reciprocated duties: the sovereign is committed to the good of the individuals who constitute it, and each individual is likewise committed to the good of the whole. For Rousseau, this implies an extremely strong and direct form of