On The First And Second Discourse By Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of On the Social Contract, the First and Second Discourse, as well as other notable works, had a profound impact on political philosophy and Western thought during the 18th century and still shapes politics today. Rousseau, along with Hobbes, had one of the most interesting conceptions of the state of nature of mankind. However, whereas Hobbes saw mankind’s state in nature as “nasty, poor, brutish and short”, Rousseau had a more positive view. A frequent target for Rousseau was the concept and reality of private property, which he saw as being developed out of egocentrism, yet he also recognized the potential good it could bring. He also saw how man is born free, yet he is suppressed by his society which Rousseau

Some commentators have suggested that Rousseau believed that man in his natural state was the height of perfection, but this is simply not true. Rousseau held that man in his natural state, which was more of a hypothetical scenario rather than his attempt to discern or expound upon the literal truth and historical accuracy of the origins of humanity, was neither virtuous nor vile or unethical. This is because Rousseau also argues that man, in his state of nature, was amoral. Man only becomes moral or immoral, or at the very least concerned with such concepts, when he enters society. Rousseau argues that man lacks the capacity for reason, and being as such man has no concept of good or evil, and so therefore is unable to be moral or immoral. In Rousseau’s view, in the state of nature humanity is essentially solely interested in self-preservation. Whereas Hobbes believed that man was in a constant state of war in his view of man’s state of nature, Rousseau believes that this war is only reached when man leaves the state of nature, because it is then that private property and laws produce friction. He also does not a proponent of going back to the state of nature, not only because that is unrealistic but because he believes that humans have the ability to achieve a higher form of moral goodness through a proper civil

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains (156).” Here Rousseau says, in possibly his most famous paradox, that when man is born he is free, because he is born in the state of nature. However, in society, man is in chains, and by this he means that modern civil societies have repressed the physical freedoms naturally bestowed upon all men at the time of their birth. He also argues that these states and societies do essentially nothing to affirm or promote the inherent equality and freedom that were part of the agreement to get into civil society in the first place. These governments failing to uphold their end of the deal, which isn’t actually made by the government and people but rather Rousseau’s attempt to create a perfect contract, is one of the greatest sins that a government can commit. Any legitimate political authority must rule with the consent of the governed, meaning that all people must convene and agree upon the laws which the sovereign will enact and the government will enforce. It is crucial to note the difference, in Rousseau’s mind, between the sovereign and the government, which are often viewed as synonyms. Rousseau considered the sovereign to be comprised of the general will of all people, not necessarily one person, but the agreement of them all combined. The government was the enforcer and the institution to which day-to-day matters fell to in order to