Explaining the Origins and Evils of Society in Second Treatise of Government by Locke and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Rousseau

John Locke, a Scottish philosopher had a profound influence on some of the most important documents to come about in American history. In The Second Treatise of Civil Government, his political and philosophical thinking can clearly be seen to have influenced the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Since Locke’s political theory influenced these two documents so greatly, one can see the similarities of them. Both documents seem to agree with the same aspects of freedom and government, with very minor disagreements.

In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the

The Founding Fathers of the United States relied heavily on many of the principles taught by John Locke. Many of the principles of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government may easily be discovered in the Declaration of Independence with some minor differences in wording and order. Many of the ideas of the proper role of government, as found in the Constitution of the United States, may be discovered in the study of Locke. In order to understand the foundation of the United States, it is vital that one studies Locke. A few ideas from Hume may be found but the real influence was from Locke. Rousseau, on the other hand, had none.

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?

Commonly known as the “Father of Liberalism,” Locke has had a lasting influence in politics. Locke wrote many political documents, including North Carolina’s first constitution and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, but one of his most famous documents is the Second Treatise of Government. The Second Treatise, which was written during a political crisis in Europe, was a voluntary acceptance of order where the government respects the people and the people respect the government. This document, along with Locke’s many other documents and ideas, led to a political advancement throughout

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

Government is built on the premises of the established ideas of former politicians and then the new outlooks of recent politicians. All ideas on government are based on the structure and laws of former civilizations. Thus, many politicians can have similar viewpoints on government due to basing their ideas on the same former structures. But, in contrast new government structures include a variety of variations. Therefore, Jean Domat, Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau have major differences in their outlooks on government, but they do share similar aspects.

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).

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

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

The purpose f this paper is to answer the following questions, Can you show how Jefferson's theory of revolution (found in its shortest form in the Declaration of Independence) follows from John Locke's theory of government? Could it follow from Hobbes's theory of government? Under what circumstances? In order to find the answers to these questions, a brief explanation of history will be explained. John Locke believed that people were born free and equal; the purpose of Government that Locke wrote was to secure these God-given inalienable rights of individuals.

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are great political philosophers that have many similar insights about society and its political form. However, when closely examining the writings of these thinkers, one can easily discover many subtle differences among them. The two philosophers base their theories on different assumptions, which subsequently lead to dissimilar ideas about the origin of society and the constitution of governments. As a result, their views of the development of society greatly dissent from each other. Locke's and Rousseau's different versions in the development of society cause them to reach disparate conclusions concerning the legislative power, social unit, and revolution rights of the society. Locke believes that

Introduction Both Jean Jacques Rousseau (28 June 1712 - 2 July 1778) and Montesquieu (18 January 1689 – 10 February 1755) wrote theory concerning inequality and its effects. They explored gender relations, slavery, and many other topics. One particular concept that they both address is inequality and its relationship into despotism. While the authors utilize common definition of despotism, it is plain to see that Montesquieu believes that preserving certain privileges can serve to protect from despotism, but Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that inequality breeds it.

John Locke’s views on property and liberty, as outlined in his Second Treatise of Government (1690), have had varying interpretations and treatments by subsequent generations of authors. At one extreme, Locke has been claimed as one of the early originators of Western liberalism, who had sought to lay the foundations for civil government, based on universal consent and the natural rights of individuals. [1] Others have charged that what Locke had really done, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was to provide a justification for the entrenched inequality and privileges of the bourgeoisie, in the emerging capitalist society of seventeenth