A Discourse On Inequality By Rousseau

In the philosophical fiction, “A Discourse on Inequality,” John Rousseau, in the state of nature, distinguishes man from animals with the concepts of man possessing freewill and man’s sense of unrealized perfectibility. Furthermore, he emphasizes throughout the first discourse that man, in the state of nature, does not obtain knowledge that surpasses that of animals. Man’s free will is a prerequisite for a further gain in knowledge to be acquired; also, the sense of perfectibility man is naturally derived with allows man to change with time. I argue that free will is a necessary and crucial factor for man to leave the state of nature. Because of free will, man retains the capability to acquire and develop knowledge. Moreover, knowledge

Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality of Men, discusses the beginning and development of inequality of individuals. Rousseau seeks to discern whether the unequal treatment of men is dictated by natural laws or if it is a man made creation. When Rousseau analyzes humans in the state of nature, he claims we are all animalistic by nature. Humans in the state of nature are motivated by self-preservation much like animals and also pity. The difference between man and animals according to Rousseau is man’s perfectibility. Because man has very minimal needs in the state of nature, no concept of morality and limited interaction with other individuals, he is generally happy. Because in the state of nature man embodies the quality of perfectibility, he is able to adapt with his environment. As nature drives men to leave certain areas it forces them to learn new skills as they come in to contact with one another more often. As man connects with more and more individuals around him he becomes aware that he has more needs. As men begin to live in societies with more people they start comparing themselves to those around them and self-preservation and pity are no longer their main goals. Now, they have to do more work in order to be happy such as raise to greater heights then their fellow humans. Moral inequality is created as division of labor and property rights are invented. Owning property allows the rich to take advantage of the poor, leading to unstable relations

Rousseau views on human nature as an evolving person in their self. Rousseau wants the reader to see the human nature in themselves and also understand how it has evolved while reading the inequality of men. Men and animals are very similar to one another, however; men can talk. We cannot really understand how animals communicate with us. We wouldn’t understand what they are saying. In the state of nature, pity and self-preservation is mostly what men worry about. A man evolves, mentally,

99). Rousseau viewed property as a right “which is different from the right deducible from the law of nature” (Rousseau, p. 94). Consequently, “the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary…societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth” (Rousseau, p. 99). Many political societies were developed in order for the rich to preserve their property and resources. Rousseau argues that these societies “owe their origin to the differing degrees of inequality which existed between individuals at the time of their institution,” (Rousseau, p. 108). Overall, the progress of inequality could be constructed into three phases. First, “the establishment of laws and of the right of property” (Rousseau, p. 109) developed stratification between the rich and poor. Then, “the institution of magistracy” and subsequently “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power” (Rousseau, p. 109) created a dichotomy between the week and powerful, which ultimately begot the power struggle between slave and master. According to Rousseau, “there are two kinds of inequality among the human species…natural or physical, because it is established by nature…and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it… is established…by the consent of men,” (Rousseau, p. 49).

Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative

Rousseau believed that people are born originally free and good, but that society and education corrupt them. The French philosopher also claims that with a proper education and upbringing, corruption can be avoided. The State of Nature that Rousseau is discussing within this theory is a society in which humans live completely for themselves, have absolute independence over their lives, and are content with their lives due to these characteristics. Features of the State of Nature include isolation, world peace, and limited desires. On the other hand, the State of Nature becomes flawed as human society beings to develop and individuals gain power, hence, why there is no such thing as a utopia.

The protection of private property and the inalienable right to pursue wealth and possessions through labor are two of the most fundamental aspects of any just society that wants to stand the test of time. This attachment to these personal liberties is a closely held belief by Locke, which is explicitly expressed by him in his Second Treatise. The person prompted in the quote, whom I will refer to as the speaker, sticks closely to Locke’s beliefs and uses them to their advantage in their argument. However, I believe the speakers perceptions of Rousseau's arguments in the Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract are naive. They display traits of the stereotypes that Rousseau elaborates on in the Discourse on Inequality. Furthermore,

Is love a societal construct or is it natural? Before society was formed man lived in a savage state, also referred to as the state of nature, and slowly evolved to what today we call modern man. Through this process language, tools, and reason were all developed and in turn helped to form society; but where did love come into play? In the book Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Rousseau argues that love is not natural, because it only further hinders man and does not benefit him. The only contact that man needs to have with women is to reproduce so that generations can continue growing and evolve.

Rousseau's philosophical claims are rooted deeply in how people should be natural and that how society has ruined us. The primary difference that I have learned in the Rousseauian society is that the people here were once living in a society just like mine. However, after learning the views of Rousseau they choose to leave their old ways behind and create an entirely new society based on the philosophical views that they have learned from Rousseau’s teachings. A majority of this societies time is spent cleaning up their old ways and working to transform their world into something

To better understand Rousseau’s thesis and social contract he proposed, we must first understand why Rousseau felt compelled to write and his main criticism of society during the 18th century. In sum, Rousseau argued that states (specifically France, though never explicitly stated) have not protected man’s right to freedom or equality. Rousseau began The Social Contract in dramatic fashion. He wrote, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (1). This quote is still used today, and is a powerful description of Rousseau’s central issue with society. He believed that every man is “born” naturally free—he has full autonomy and can do what he chooses. However, Rousseau argued that man is bound to the injustices of society.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the author of the work, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. His writings take a strong and interesting stand on the nature of man. More specifically on how mankind started, how mankind is now, and where man kind is heading in the future. His bold assumptions lay out a projection for man kind that is less than optimistic. According to Rousseau, all of man kind is headed for the inequitable ruling of one singular person. Also, according to Rousseau, wealth will become the only standard which people are measured and all of the progress man kind has made has actually made the race worse off instead of improved. Although Rousseau makes a compelling argument, I do not agree with his philosophy on man kind. Due

Rousseau has a point of view when it comes to the state of nature compared to other scholars in his age. Rousseau thinks that man has lost his natural innocence due to technological advances in society during his time period. That we have lost connection with ourselves and traded that in for vices or luxuries. That true progress can only be attained in our natural state in the state of nature. Unfortunately, it's impossible to deny that society has advanced and benefited from these luxuries as it would be impossible for our 21st century society to be highly developed in just the state of nature.

Right before Rousseau dives into the first bit of his arguments, he includes a short introduction that is separate from the preface. In this quick blurb at the beginning, Rousseau not only criticizes other major thinkers, he throws haymakers at them. He recognizes that other philosophers have attempt to conceptualize the state of nature, but denounces all of their work. Rousseau is really standing by his stance that it is his method or no method when it comes to discovering the natural man and the state of nature. It is here where Rousseau solidifies his view that there are two types of inequality, physical (naturally occurring) and moral/ political (spawn from consent and convention of man). Something else expresses in this brief section is that he intends to write from a neutral viewpoint in the rest of the discourse. This choice of viewpoint was probably fueled again, by his motive to have his work widely respected. Now that Rousseau has put the last few touches on his lengthy introduction, he finally moves into the meat of his essay.

By setting aside all the facts, Rousseau creates a state of nature that proves man to be naturally free and good. Once Rousseau sets aside the facts he creates a story that shows man should be “discontented with your present state, for reasons that herald even greater discontent for your unhappy Posterity, you might perhaps wish to be able to go backwards” (133). This is true because man is free. Rousseau starts by “stripping this being, so constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he may have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could only have acquired by prolonged progress” (134). Man in his beginning is unsophisticated and irrational nothing more than “an animal “(134). But, in nature man has no authorities. In nature “men, dispersed among them [other animals], observe, imitate their industry, and so raise themselves to the level of the Beasts’ instinct, with this advantage that each species has but its own instinct, while man perhaps having none that belong to him, appropriates them all, feeds indifferently on most of the various foods” (134-135). Men learn from other animals and imitate their moves but are forced to

On the other hand, Rousseau is of the idea that human beings are good in nature but they are latter to be vitiated by the political societies which are not part of the man’s natural state. Men need to live in collaboration and help each other to face life challenges. However, with the establishment of political and social institutions, men begin to experience inequalities as a result of greed. Rousseau claims that, in man’s natural state, they only strive for the basic needs and once those needs are satisfied they are contented in that state (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Additionally, Rousseau points out that after the inception of social and political institutions, humans began to be self-centered