European Political Philosophers: John Locke and Jean-Jacues Rousseau

John Locke and Karl Marx, two of the most renowned political philosophers, had many contrasting views when it came the field of political philosophy. Most notably, private property rights ranked high among the plethora of disparities between these two individuals. The main issue at hand was whether or not private property was a natural right. Locke firmly believed that private property was an inherent right, whereas Marx argued otherwise. This essay will examine the views of both Locke and Marx on the subject of private property and will render insight on whose principles appear more credible.

The 1700s saw the waxing and waning of Enlightenment philosophies and a greater fascination in reason and logic. The individual became supremely important and the idea of selfhood was much debated by philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The idea of the individual also led to greater fascination with culture in many areas in Western Europe, leading to an increase in nationalism. This increase on the emphasis of individual and that individual’s relation to the state led many to begin traveling widely across Europe and record their travels. Though stories of vampires began trickling from Eastern Europe to Western Europe as early as the 1690s, vampires did not gain true traction in Western Europe until the 1700s (Nelson). For less

In the book The Basic Political Writings written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Rousseau in the beginning of the book states a very important question that he hopes to answer in parts throughout the book, the question being: What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by the natural law? Rousseau takes a different approach than all the other philosophers on trying to figure out the origin of man and their so-called inequality. Rousseau’s point of view on the state of nature differs from other philosophers such as Locke and Hobbes. How do you find the origin of man? Where can the origin of civil society be traced back too? How are men perceived in the state of nature? Does inequality exist in the state of nature? In what

John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or

A monarch is in control. You are being what to do by someone you do not even want ruling your country. What could you do? This is how your world works, it’s always worked like this, so why change it? Simply change it because you are unhappy with the way the world is, you deserve to enjoy the country you live in. That there, change the society, is exactly what the Enlightenment thinkers wanted to do. The Enlightenment thinkers are a group of people who found countless flaws in the way people decided to run the countries. Therefore, of all the Enlightenment thinkers, I believe John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau impacted the world the most due to them having a full grasp on the ideologies of humanity.

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.

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).

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ

In refutation to Locke’s state of nature argument, we can look towards Hobbes, Rousseau, and Mill to provide us with insightful objections. It can be claimed that first society should not have the right to self-determination but instead the right to self preserve, that property rights are social institutions and not inherent natural rights, and finally that not everyone in society is guaranteed property rights.

The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of

This essay is aimed at discussing how human nature in Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau impact the way that the role and function of the state is viewed. Human Nature is referred to as the essential and immutable character of all human beings. Others may refer to it as the biological or genetic factor suggesting that there is an established and unchanging human core. It highlights what is innate and natural about human life, as opposed to what human beings have gained from education or through social experience. A social contract is an agreements made either among citizens or between citizens which gives rise to the State. When the social contract involves the mutual agreement between individuals in order to gain something from the State, citizens accept the authority of the state in return for benefits which only the state, as a sovereign power, can provide. Social Relations can be defined as the relationship between two or more individuals. There are three philosophers with different views on human nature, the philosophers are Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all have different views on human nature which impact on the conception of the roles and functions of the state. This essay will now discuss the views on human nature, social relations and the social contract according to each philosopher.

John Locke is one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern era. He is a strong-minded empiricist whom expresses radical views about law and order. Locke is a fascinating figure in the history of law and order whose excellence of elucidation and depth of intellectual activity remains extremely influential. His mature political philosophy leant support to the British Whig party and its principles, to the Age of Enlightenment, and to the development of the separation of the State and Church in the American Constitution as well as to the rise of human rights theories in the Twentieth Century. John Locke’s political philosophy influenced law and order through his ideas of the natural foundation of reason, moral role of government and the right to private property.

This essay is aimed at discussing how human nature in Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau impact the way that the role and function of the state is viewed. Human Nature is referred to as the essential and immutable character of all human beings. Others may refer to it as the biological or genetic factor suggesting that there is an established and unchanging human core. It highlights what is innate and natural about human life, as opposed to what human beings have gained from education or through social experience. A social contract is an agreements made either among citizens or between citizens which gives rise to the State. When the social contract involves the mutual agreement between individuals in order to gain something from the

Locke’s profound writings have had significant impact and influence on the works of future political thinkers till today. He is the principal architect of the enlightenment which inspired the American and French revolution. Locke’s view is instrumental to modern philosophy. As a major proponent of liberalism aim to posit …. The work of Locke focusses on establishing civil society, choice of leadership and right of the people to resist oppression or desire change. As derived from his writing on self-preservation Locke noted that development of strength is for security of state and not to increase its power over another state insisting that right is out measured by might. He asserted that "we must hold that as a sacred principle that the end does not justify the means". States fail to follow this maxim in world politics allowing their self-interest determine their actions have caused tremendous problems that is continuously detrimental to others. For example, the war in Syria has being turned into a level playing field for major powers to struggle for hegemony to the devastation of the world society by displacing thousands of people, permit the rise of a terror group (ISIL) and proliferation of arms, trafficking ring and drugs merchant.

The Second Treatise of Government stipulates John Locke’s claim of what a civil society requires to function. Locke discusses why people leave the state of nature (where they are free, equal and possess natural rights) to form societies: it is convenient. Locke believes everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property, they are our natural rights. “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience” (18). When everything belongs to everyone resources aren’t benefiting anyone, that is wasteful and unjust, common resources need to be appropriated. Locke’s view of property is: “every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has a right to body himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his” (19). Locke goes on to discuss the acquisition of private property through mixing labor with common resources to make said resources yours, this theory of property serves as the bases for Locke’s theory of freedom. “That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added, something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private rights” (19). In this paper I will examine how Locke’s view of freedom and theory of property promote and justify economic inequality.