Social Inequality In John Locke And Jean-Jacques Rousseau

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

Each of the philosophies discussed the purpose of government as well as which government was the most ideal. For Paine, government, is “a punisher,” in which society is ruled by in order to protect the properties of one’s natural rights (Paine 3). However, he defends a representative democracy as being the ideal. Likewise, John Locke also argues that governments protect the rights of man. Similarly, to

In his work Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Rousseau presents the argument that political inequality is rooted in the origins of human sociality. He suggests that in the state of nature, only physical inequality existed. Thusly meaning that political inequality only came into being as a result of human beings shifting from undifferentiated oneness to differentiated individuals. He illustrates three main stages that lead to this (civil society): the development of village life, the social division of labor and the formation of government. In forming society, we as human beings entered into social relationships and so were able to socially construct agreed upon measurements of human worth (i.e.

Aristotle’s Politics shows Aristotle’s perspective towards anarchy. Though, the Aristotle does not explicitly suggest that anarchy is conflictual, his ideology implies that he is against anarchy. Aristotle notoriously defended slavery when he said, “there must be a union of natural rule and a subject, that both may be preserved. For he who can foresee with his mind is by nature intended to be the lord and the master, and he who can work with his body is a subject” (Aristotle 26). In the above statement, Aristotle is arguing that a society can only be operational Surname 2 when there is a ruler and subjects that work towards attainment of their ‘similar’ goals.

In answering this theory, to preserve individual property, a governmental authority is needed. As he mentions, “For in government, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possessions of land is determined by positive constitutions”( Locke,CP21) The role of Locke’s property doctrine is a way to emphasize the need for a set of laws that protects man;s property and solves the problem presented

10, his views of the inevitability of factions. Madison sees factions as potentially harmful to the political process and dangerous to the progress that government can create for its citizens. Using the works of previous authors such as Lock and Montesquieu, Madison realizes that people are naturally going to strive for their own self-interest when given the liberty to do so, “There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” (Madison pg. 461). Therefore, despite them being somewhat alarming for a government to deal with, there is no way to rid of factions within a fair and free government.

In addition, for a civil government to work well in a society, there must be a social contract that essentially outlines the ability for the people to remove it from power once it no longer satisfies them. It is evident that John Locke’s role in political philosophy is prominent and has significantly aided the development Western government. Overall, Locke believed that if a society could facilitate a government that didn’t violate anyone’s right to life, liberty, health, and possessions, they would all live a life of

By letting citizens control how people were punished for crimes without a higher power to set our guidelines for the offenses/punishments caused injustice in some cases as similar cases begin to vary in punishment. Furthermore, famous philosophers found several flaws in his plan. Thomas Hobbes argued that if society were on the basis of natural law, society would develop an “every man for himself” mentality, causing

He states that “POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good” (Locke 3). He means the government tends to abuse the political power to make laws that they claim is only for the public good but in reality benefit themselves. He goes further to state that “The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property” (Locke 12). Locke is saying that the land is claimed based on who put the work into maintaining and laboring over it.

In this paper I will argue that while Locke believed entrance into a political society would limit an individual’s freedom in regards to what he described as “property”, Rousseau believed that an individual would gain greater freedom by entering into a political society because, whereas Locke understood individuals in the state of nature to be living in perfect freedom, Rousseau believed those in the state of nature were slaves to their own nature and thus incapable of being free.