John Locke wrote The Second Treatise of Government and within it he expresses his views of how he believed that private property can be originally appropriated and that it can cause inequalities in terms of wealth. The Discourse of Inequalities, written by Jean Jacque Rousseau, can be used to criticize this because of its own particular way of viewing what is natural and unnatural inequality as well as his beliefs of the modernization of civilizations.
In this treaties, Locke explains that the law of nature is basically a state of equality in which the people have no power over one another and they are free to do as they so please. Here, he is careful to state that this is not giving the people the license to abuse others or to be destructive.
…show more content…
For example, they both agree along the lines that a social contract is an agreement that is made between the members in a society. But, Rousseau's Discourse of Inequality criticizes Locke's view of government because Rousseau believed that a government should be established and that everyone should have a say in what they'd like to implement. This helps keep everyone in harmony and united. Locke on the other hand believed that a government's purpose should only be to secure natural rights; such as our right to property and Liberty. Another key difference is that Locke would say that the social contract is shown just by the way that we are living while Rousseau would argue that this is a myth and those in power need to establish a government fit for its people through the making of …show more content…
Rousseau was famous for thinking that were better off in a state of nature because we were goo in compassionate and we had not been exposed to vanity of sin though the corrupt ways of society. He felt that with just the basic passion such as self- love, pity and empathy for others. He felt that through the emergence of modern civilization, a new type of self-love was introduced to the people, one that was vain and started unnecessary competition. He believed that we should be moving towards a time in which we would be “noble savages” such as our ancestors because it was innocent and noble were rather than be moving towards a modernized
In order to determine whose idea of government is to be agreed upon, the proper way is to take into consideration why there exist two completely different ideologies of government where both forms of government believe are born generally with good nature. Like stated above, Locke believes people are fitted with understanding ( Locke two treatises ex. 77) and are under the “ law of nature’ where no one would want to hurt anyone ( Locke two treatises ex.6) and similarly, Godwin believes that men are born naturally “benevolent to their fellows’. However, both of them agreed that there will be an irrational and a greedy side of humans. The difference in their ideologies is their perspective on human nature against time. Locke is firm on the idea of having a government because he sees no change in human nature and there will forever be a need for political authority to govern the people.
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke revealed his interests in new science, developing theories of education and knowledge (SMW, 34). One of the main points in his Treatise is that of the law of nature, where all men are in natural state of perfect freedom (SMW, 34). Locke argues, “Men being…by nature all free, equal, and independent,
However, Rousseau pertains to the American Revolution, and French Revolution because by his premise the Americans, and the French wanted equality. The Americans, and French came together through collectivism measures, and gave up their rights for equal gains. Rousseau philosophy was on the poor, or people with no power which clearly can be interpreted within the Revolutions.
Locke had stated that when an executive act for his own benefit, and not to serve the ends of the people. He “degrades himself” and becomes “but a single private person without power,” at which point he no longer has any right to rule over the people. Locke expresses the idea of rebellion against an unjust government. By giving the idea of rebellion, he also reveals that a human’s rights have changed over the years and that a man now has inherent rights. It was because of his declaration that the statement, “give me liberty or give me death,” become popular among the American people.
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is most known for his justification of private property, but there are many other theories, though not as popular, that are equally as important. One of these is his justification of inequality, which will be covered in this essay. Locke says that until the invention of money, there was no point to accumulate more property, or wealth, than one could use because it would spoil. That changed after the introduction of money because money does not spoil, which allows people to accumulate more than they need. Locke argues that since men agreed to use money as a way to fairly possess more than they could use, they also agreed to the consequence of inequality.
Locke's most important and influential political writings are contained in his Two Treatises on Government. The first treatise is concerned almost exclusively with refuting the argument that political authority was derived from religious authority. The second treatise contains Locke’s own constructive view of the aims and justification for civil government. According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest.
The state of nature is the state in which man first existed. The right to property consists of whether individuals have a defensible right to a certain form of property, whether it be wealth, objects, or land. Social inequality consists of inequality between citizens in political society resulting from differences in property. All references to inequality herein are to social inequality, not to any other type. Finally, for the purpose of brevity, all references to governments are references to governments formed by the consent of the governed unless separately denoted.
However, this statement is not entirely true, if one mixes what one owns with what one does not own, it does not create self-ownership. Locke’s state of nature is then tainted and no longer includes equality and commonality among mankind. Locke repeats himself often in his arguments. He refers to his belief of natural reason and God’s words to deliver his theory of private property. He begins his discussion of property in the state of nature (Locke 6 sect.
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
INTRODUCTION Jean Jacque Rousseau was born in the city state of Geneva, Switzerland in 1772. Rousseau is primarily known for major works like- The Social Contract, Emile, Discourse on the origin of Inequality, the Constitutional Project for Corsica, and Consideration on the Government of Poland. What makes Rousseau such an important figure in the history of philosophy is because of his contribution to both political and moral philosophies and his concept of ‘general will’, which also gained him a lot of criticism. Apart from his philosophical and political contribution, he was also a novelist, an autobiographer, botanist, composer and also a music theorist.
Rousseau, one of the most leading philosophers during the Enlightenment, had indeed left many of legendries behind. Not only his writings had caused many of the reactions at that time, but also influenced many writers’ aspects of the French Revolution and the overall understanding of inequality and the General Will. As one of the chief political theorists during the French Revolution who was also influenced by Rousseau’s ideas, Abbe Sieyes, published the pamphlet, “What is the Third Estate?” in 1789. This pamphlet was one of the documents that changed the world and lit the flame toward the French Revolution, as characterized by Joe Janes, a University of Washington professor (Janes).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society.
In any other system, the people give up their freedom without any reason; it should be created only if all agree to it. The social contract would exist for the purpose of self-preservation, pushing the common will of the Sovereign. To convince his audience of these complex ideas, Rousseau must stay organized and be intentional in his rhetorical
This is a fatal event in Rousseau’s mind as unlike ‘the savage’ who ‘lives in himself’, an individual in society ‘is always outside himself and knows how to live only in the opinion of others’. Very unlike the Hobbesian war-like state of nature where ‘vainglory’ cause people to act like barbarous beasts, Rousseau argues that egocentrism derives solely from social interaction believing that his predecessors were projecting ideas of modern corruption onto the state of nature. Therefore, Rousseau’s analysis of moral psychology reveals how humans have become duplicitous and false through socialisation as the foundations of competition and bettering people are laid and consequently, a ‘desire for inequality’ governs the
However, on the other side of the spectrum is Rousseau, who views society as more of a means to an end. Rousseau theorizes that modern society is unnatural,