Analysis Of Jean-Jacques RousseauDiscourse On Inequality

One could outline his argument with two basic premises. First, he asserts that monogamy, or moral love as Rousseau puts it, is based in both togetherness and comparisons of beauty and merit that require abstract thinking with regards to “proportion and regularity” (219). Second, he argues that pre-social humans were solitary and lacked many abstract thinking skills, including those of proportion and regularity. Thus, Rousseau concludes, pre-social humans were not monogamous, so monogamy cannot be natural. I would deem this argument valid, as the conclusion must follow if both premises are true. However, I am suspicious of the truthfulness of Rousseau’s premises due to the lack of convincing evidence. His thought experiment is not particularly compelling, since although he appears certain of many of his assumptions regarding pre-social humans, he lacks the experience or evidence necessary for this certainty. It is important that Rousseau is operating in a pre-Darwinian context in this respect. Were one looking for the same answers today, he or she would most likely seek empirical evidence in anthropology or evolutionary biology, studying the social structures of primates, our closest relatives. Rousseau’s assertion of the acquired nature of monogamy could certainly be possible, but his premises lack the certainty necessary for me to

Rousseau’s opinion of women was the more popular at the time. Rousseau argued that in a relationship between a man and a woman, the man should have all the power while the woman

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,

Rousseau illustrates presocial individuals as free, solitary, satisfied and naturally good. His argument does not pertain in any way to science stating that, “On this subject I could form only vague and almost imaginary conjectures” (Rousseau, 105) but instead in terms of mental things constituted by modern society. The natural human is driven by necessity and not filled with ever extending unnecessary desires, like civil humans are. Because the earth is abundant in resources, “covered by immense forests never mutilated by the axe” (Rousseau, 105), the pre social individual lives without stress and complexity. He describes them, writing, “I see him satisfying his hunger under an oak, quenching his thirst at the first stream, finding his bed at the foot of the same tree that furnished his meal; and

Modern man becomes a slave to his society, whether as the wealthiest or the poorest. He lives for the opinion of others, and works to attain that which will never bring him joy but without which causes pain. Man, Rousseau argues, is a cruel and selfish individual, no longer rationally self-interested, but corrupted and trapped in modern society.

As a society it has always been our obligation to determine what is considered morally right from what is wrong. Our views as civil society have changed dramatically from the early eighteenth century to current day. Without having the social contract by which every man in civil society is bounded by there would be no self control therefore causing us humans to act as animals. Rousseau begins the first chapter by stating “Man

The idea is people lived in a time uncorrupted by governments with no property, law, and moral inequality. Rousseau wrote, “...it is easy to conceive how much less the difference between man and man must be in state of nature than in a state of society.” As humans began to organize, Rousseau claims that state of nature faded and amour propre developed. Amour propre is the source of inequality as Rousseau claims. Becoming successful and elite is a status that society idolizes. Rousseau notes that there are two different forms of inequality. First, “...one, which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or soul.” However, this form of natural or physical inequality is not what derives from the effect of amour propre. That would be the second, quoted “...another, which may be called political or moral inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorized, by the consent of men.” Rousseau points out that men over time have created a “convention” in which comparing ourselves is natural. This as a result of civilization as a whole, and its unwritten rules of

Though the civil society and social contract do exist in today’s society, Rousseau’s state of nature could never be in existence. In reality, it is impossible to have ever been in a state of nature. This is supported by Rousseau’s idea that at birth, one is born into a society called “family.” This society is eventually dissolved but children eventually build a social contract with individuals as they grow up and mature. Furthermore, this supports the fact that social contracts and civil societies do exist, even when the state of nature never did. Each day, this is immanent when one forms social bounds with the people around them. Rousseau’s ideas developed from his time period and his life. He was writing this essay during the French Revolution which is in itself a perfect example of the destruction of a social contract between a society and its king and turning into a social contract of the general will of the population to form a new society. Though our time period may be different then those of Rousseau’s, his message will still have a

Amour propre is, essentially, the opposite of self-preservation (amour de soi). Amour propre is an acute awareness of, and regard for, oneself in relation to others. Whilst the savage person cares only for his survival, civilized man also cares deeply about what others think about him. This is an intensive hurtful psychological malformation, associated to the advancement of human comprehension and political societies. At its root is a diversity between being and presenting. Savage man can only "be," and has no concept of pretense: civil man is forced to compare himself to others, and to lie to himself. Rousseau traces the development of amour propre back to the first village festivals, in which competition to dance and sing well increases

He believed that, prior to the Social Contract like was happy and all men were equal in the State of Nature. However, as time passed, humanity started increasing in population. People began living together in small families, then in small communities. Labour was introduced and so was leisure time. This leisure time led to invention of private property which for Rousseau constitutes humanity’s “fall from grace” out of the State of Nature; “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains….how did this change come about?” (Rousseau, 1750) These few lines are the start of Rousseau’s social and political works “The Social Contract”. He starts off describing humanity as being born good but they are ultimately corrupted by society. (Root of Educational Theory, 2003) Potentially arguing that civilization had a corrupting influence on humans. At this time the idea of a contract between citizens and the state should govern according to the “general well”. General will is when a man surrender their rights not to a single individual but to community as a whole. This would be a mutually beneficial relationship in which the state could be removed if people willed it. (Blair, 2004) Thus, Rousseau favoured people’s sovereignty to abandon society’s hypocrisy and

Additionally, Rousseau believes that self-interests are often detrimental to the common good, stating that “each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest: his absolute and naturally independent existence may make him look upon what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution... The continuance of such an injustice could not but prove the undoing of the body politic. (Rousseau, 194-195). It is evident that Rousseau is aware of humankind’s selfish desires stemming from a personal will, and he believes that if individuals begin to ignore the common will and instead act upon their personal desires and will, that it will often lead to pandemonium. This chaos is likely to destroy any Republic, as conflicting and selfish ideals will cause individuals to lose sight of the general will, leading to the collapse of a coexisting society. Rousseau, however, does not address how individual will originates, a point that Marx discusses in length in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts.

According to Rousseau, one’s own inclinations and their own honest feelings is the best guide for the human nature. Rousseau felt that one’s first instinct is always right and that there is no original sin in the human heart. Rousseau felt that physical freedom is our birthright and that the government tries to take away our freedom. Rousseau felt that governments worked on the faulty presumption of human nature, and that they felt that human nature needed to be governed. Hence, this is why he said that man is born free but we see him everywhere in chains. Rousseau felt that a justifiable government

Within the “Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality”, Jean-Jacques Rousseau regards the moral element of love as “an artificial sentiment born of the usage of society” (Rousseau 135). This definition pinpoints my interpretation of Rousseau’s understanding of love as a product of civilization rather than the state of nature. However, Rousseau saw that the “savage” was a product of exclusion. The exclusion of the savage is important because for Rousseau the savage represented the perfections of the mankind within nature. For Rousseau, The savage was a source of opposition to the enlightened. He asserted that “nothing, would have been so miserable as a savage man dazzled by enlightenment, tormented by passions, and reasoning about

Rousseau believes that society has lost its way with itself. That advancements is in his era during the 18th century such as, alcohol, luxuries,