Robert Rousseau: Good In A Good Man

1086 Words5 Pages
In 1972, Rousseau argued for the social contract which was meant to rectify the social and moral vices brought in the society due to development. He was very concerned about the history of mankind and how they ought to live together. He argues that when man was born he was free but now he is in chains. He further argues that mankind is and ought to live in a generally free nature but civilization has curbed that freedom and human authenticity through economic and social inequality. In order to restore freedom to mankind, Rousseau suggests there has to be a social contract. The establishment of a social contract in the society requires mankind to wilfully let a political entity govern him and his private property. This kind of submission is called the general will and it aims to govern mankind by allowing free and equal co-existence. Rousseau’s argument is based on the single notion that mankind is generally good by nature, but made evil by the society. However, his argument is not plausible since it does not explain how a society which he claims to be evil is composed of good mankind. Additionally, if mankind is what makes a society then how does evil reign in a society full of good people? Rousseau does not give examples of natural goodness in mankind, and he constantly states that morality is not a natural attribute to mankind. Therefore, when he argues that mankind is good by nature, one can dispute his argument since it is not based on moral goodness as a reader
Open Document