Edmond Burke Vs Rousseau

During the Enlightenment, many western political and economic philosophers attempted to describe the transition of mankind towards modernity. Specifically, Edmund Burke (1729-1797) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) were both heavily influenced by the American Revolution (1775-1783) and French Revolution (1789-1799), which compelled each to write about the existence of inequalities in society and transformations that aim to address these inequalities. Burke and Rousseau differed in their interpretations of why inequalities exist within society and had diverging views on radical transformation within society. These differences stem from their conflicting ideology pertaining to the role

Rousseau thought that man was born weak and ignorant, but virtuous. It is only when man became sociable that they became wicked. (Cress, 80) Since civil society makes men corrupt, Rousseau advocated “general will”, more precisely the combined wills of each person, to decide public affairs. General will would become the sovereign and thus it would be impossible for its interests to conflict with the priorities of the citizens, since this would be doing harm to itself. Virtue came from the freedom of men to make decisions for the good of the

He refutes Hobbes’ idea that man is naturally seeking to attack and fight by saying that man in the state of nature is actually man in his most timid form. He states that savage man’s needs are so basic (food, shelter, water, a woman) and easily found that he can have “neither foresight or curiosity”. By this man he means that man lacks the expansive nature that Hobbes’ believed they possessed (natural eternal quest for power). He continues on man’s basic nature adding “With passions so minimally active and such a salutary restraint, being more wild than evil, and more attentive to protecting themselves from the harm they could receive than tempted to do harm to others, men were not subject to very dangerous conflicts.” This is rather opposite of the state of nature in which Hobbes calls man in a constant war with man. He argues, that without society, in fact, that man would be much more pure and that the ills of society have dirtied man. He believed that human nature is very comparable to that of an animal in that it is at its based even natured, but that the separating factor between the two is free will. He argues that since society calls for more cooperation between men, it also causes more competition, creating many of society ills. Rather than saying man fled from the state of nature like Hobbes, Rousseau rather said that man needed society for division of labor as well as the division

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 maintained that compassion is required for mutual preservation; concern for each other is our ultimate security. But a materialistic society has desensitised us, stifling our compassionate nature.7

Due to state laws and policies, Marx and Rousseau both agree men are not living in a free society. In western democracies today, both philosophers’ ideas are clear and visible.

If one compares Locke and Rousseau noticeable similarities and differences can be found. Both men advocate similar ideas with different outcomes regarding the state of nature. Furthermore, Locke and Rousseau both come to distinct actualization and prophecies. Regarding the progression and advancement of mankind. Therefore, by comparing and contrasting these two distinct teachings one can find the true principles behind the state of nature and the natural laws inherent in mankind.

In contrast, Rousseau had a generally positive view on human nature though a rather negative view on modern society. He proposed that humans had once been solitary beings and had learned to be political. He believed that human nature was not fixed and was subject to changed. Likewise, he believed that man was good when in a state of nature, but was corrupted by society as shown in his quotation, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Also differentiating himself from other humanists, Rousseau taught that the sciences and the arts were not beneficial to man. Rousseau believed the general will must always be right and to obey the general will is to be free.

By joining civil society and becoming a part of the general will, man is enriching his actions with a morality and rationality that was previously lacking. As he states in Book I, Chapter VIII, “although in this state he deprives himself of several advantages given to him by nature, he gains such great ones…that changed him from a stupid, limited animal into an intelligent being and a man” (Rousseau 56). What man posses in nature is an unlimited physical freedom to pursue everything that tempts him, although this is viewed by Rousseau as almost an enslavement towards one’s own instincts. In a civil state man is benefited by “substituting justice for instinct in his behaviour and giving his actions the morality they previously lacked” (Rousseau 54). In acting in accordance with the general will man is granted the most important form of all freedoms, civil freedom.

Rousseau disagreed with the idea of natural rights being something you’re born with and believed that there are no rights by nature. In addition, he thought that the classical liberals were wrong to start from the individual because by nature humans are social creatures and there is nothing that is ours, and ours alone. Everything we are has been influenced by other human beings so there is literally nothing that we can call our own. Rousseau believed that human beings are dependant on one another for everything we have. Rousseau also believed that the right of war or conquest doesn’t exist because you can’t talk about rights when there is no choice. He also rejects Aristotle’s idea of slaves by nature. Aristotle believed people were unable to control or govern their passion with their reason which is why they needed to be ruled over. Aristotle said that, “Men are not naturally equal, but that some are born for slavery and others for dominion.” Rousseau countered with, “Aristotle was right; but he mistook the effect for the cause. Nothing is more certain than that all men who are born in slavery are born for slavery. Slaves become so debased by their chains as to lose even the

     Man has no reason or conscience when in contact with others. Possessions begin to be claimed, but the inequality of skill lead to inequality of fortunes. The idea of claiming possessions excites men’s passions, which provoke conflict and leads to war. Rousseau believes men are not perfect in their original state, but have the ability to live in a more perfect society with guidance of

The identity of a society is verified through the rights which are given to the citizens. The rights of man have been at many different standards throughout time. Often being very one sided, and at times striving for a median between the two sides. In Edmund Burke's essay Reflections on the Revolution in France Burke states that a king is in one sense a servant but in everyday situations they are above every individual. All persons under him owe him a legal agreement to serve his hopes. This essay will demonstrate why Thomas Paine's essay The Rights of Man is more convincing than Edmund Burke's through examination of a heredity government, the nature of rights and the uselessness of the monarchy.

This is due to the fact that nature exercises the most freedom because it is void of any restrictions made by man. Rousseau claims that we all once lived in the state of nature under the pleasures of complete freedom. It is the progression of society that obscured this. Rousseau thinks that man only needs three things: food, rest, and to reproduce. According Rousseau, civil society came about by the increase of reason. Rousseau states, “Thus it is the natural inequality imperceptibly manifests itself together with inequality occasioned by the socialization process.” (Rousseau 51) This reason caused man to overcomplicate matters than they need to be because they want more than what they need – therefore, bringing an unnatural inequality. Driven by reasoning, people are exposed to sentiments of jealousy and vanity, which therefore prides itself in assuming potential violence. Thus, the creation of laws and institutionalized authority came about. Messing with the laws of nature yields more inclination towards progress – which is civil society as we know it. This complicates the freedom of man endowed by the state of nature because a form of government restricts this inherent freedom. In consequence, this predicament brings forth the question on what is considered moral and immoral that had to lead to the creation of laws. Locke suggest that the threat on our freedom – which perceives this as entering the state of war – requires an authoritative governing system that identifies these threats and establishes them as the ‘bad’ to the common good. This is in order to protect the rights of the people as they stray from the state of nature. Locke mentions, “To avoid this state of war […] is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature …” (Locke 16) Locke is saying that man leaves the state nature as it seeks the protection for his own property – an idea Rousseau agrees with. This

Man being in the state of nature causes tyranny and in the end does cause some inequality among men, whether or not it changes the moral code of society is the bigger question. Although Rousseau does not believe that inequality exists in the state of nature he wrote a whole essay answering the question of where does man originate from and is he equal in the state of nature?

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