Ferguson's Dilemmas

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

1.) According to Madison, past experiments in Democratic governments failed because of factions that were formed. He believes that factions ripped apart relationships and caused a collapse and failure within the government.

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).

First off, Rousseau believed that there are two kinds of inequality among the human species; one, which he calls 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 of the soul. And another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorised by the consent of men. The invention of property and the division of labor represent the beginning of moral inequality. Property allows for the domination and exploitation of the poor by the rich. Initially, however, relations between rich and poor are dangerous and unstable, leading to a

This is demonstrated by when Rousseau writes, "…the life of an animal limited at first to mere sensations…” (Rousseau 84). This is when inequality began to become a pervasive force in society. This so-called “state of nature” that supposedly existed, according to Rousseau, was devoid of any economic or social inequality. However, eventually perfectibility came about, which encouraged people to excel and further themselves. Rousseau goes on to talk about how “It now became the interest of men to appear what they really were not” (Rousseau 95) This led to members of societies beginning to compete with one another to be better than their peers, leading to inequality of all sorts – including the economic and social varieties. Rousseau goes on to argue that with time, society has progressed such that modernity has made inequality worse and more corrupted. He describes how he believes that hierarchy in society and governmental

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

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a believer in the state of nature. In the Discourse of Inequality Jean Jacques Rousseau questioned the origin of inequality among men and was it warranted by nature. He discussed two important inequalities

By comparison, Rousseau’s hypothetical State of Nature, theory of human nature, and resulting sovereign was quite different. While Rousseau also considered humans to be savages existing without a state, to him they were essentially free to do what they would, content, equal, and living in peace, uncorrupted by the modern progress of civilization. Physical freedom, however, came not without limitations, such as the preclusion of the existence of rationality and morality. People wandered nomadically, bumped into others, created language, and lived simply unencumbered by passions. They had but two natural passions, that of self-preservation and that of pity, or compassion. One person was responsible for just one task, which was why peace was so easy to maintain. Rousseau found fault with the State of Nature, that problems emerged when it came time to protect everyone’s life, liberty, and property while still maintaining individual freedom. When people came together inequality arose as they discovered they could do more than one task. This was the beginning of property and slavery. Now, where in the previously they weren’t, the people were now slaves to their passions. Rousseau went further, in fact, he actually dispossessed classic theories of human nature from the ideas of personal property, rule of law, and ethical inequality. He argued these evolved as humans progressed towards modern society.

In the presence of a powerful fraction, there is nothing to protect the minority factions from being overpowered; that a true direct democracy would be incapable of maintaining the protection of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. A large republic government will impart power to elected representatives, making the power of factions to affect the vote is greatly decreased. Madison believes that this type of government should be put in the new constitution.

The second way in which a pure democracy differs from a republic is that a republic is much better-suited to be extended over, as Madison puts it, a “greater sphere of country”. This second difference between the two forms of government is significant in ensuring the effectiveness of a large republic over a small republic. Madison holds that there are two options in curing the effects of factions. Factions can be cured by either removing their causes or by controlling their effects. Removing the causes of factions is neither practical nor wise, as there are two ways to remove the causes of factions: destroy the liberty that fuels the formation of factions, or force the same interests and opinions on every citizen. Liberty cannot

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

The reading starts off with Rousseau directing his message towards men stating how he recognizes two different types of inequality in mankind. One involving natural or physical inequality such as different ages, strengths, and features in an individual's mind or soul. The other as moral or political inequality with a clear majority getting to establish and authorize political and moral values which lead to privileges that many enjoyed to the prejudice of others. Before calling out other philosophers for failing to grasp certain details about the state of nature, it is mentioned that the purpose is to find the exact moment when nature was subjected to law.

Rousseau has a rather dismal view of modern society that stems from his beliefs that modernity leads to more ways in which inequality could be seen (Rousseau 181). Before social institutions of any kind existed, he explains that men existed in a state of nature where they were essentially equal (aside from physical differences like skin tone and height) (Rousseau 165). People lived the same lifestyle, ate the same foods, and had the same means of transportation and shelter. Once things like education were introduced, jobs became more complex, and the lifestyles which

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s State of Nature is quite different compared to those of his predecessors Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. Rousseau asserts that his counterparts miscalculated the human tendency of enacting in a state of war and violence, and provides a well thought out and persuasive description of the superiority of his state of nature. Rousseau affirms the unlikelihood of his state of nature but strongly claims that his method of thinking provides the most accurate depiction of what humans were like without societal influences. Further analysis will prove Rousseau’s success at proving the origin of inequality in society.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a renown philosopher from the mid-1700s. His clear-stated opinions are influential, giving forth a great part in the development of modern education and political thoughts. Some may say his thoughts are inspiring a true look into our society and its flaws, while others may see a harsher disproportion to what they refuse to accept. I, for one, believe that Rousseau’s points in the argument of human nature are the most crucial in distinguishing his “pessimistic” view on our world and cultures. He clearly interprets human beings as corrupted, separating themselves from their foundations in such a matter that it becomes hopeless. He discards the idea of inequality, considering it to only exist in the physical sense. He believes