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

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

In the paragraph before, Rousseau compares the rich and the poor to help the readers understand his idea and visualize it better.

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

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

The Origin of Inequality is much different from the first discourse for many and particular reasons. What I noticed about this discourse is that Rousseau made it into four different parts, a first part, a second part, a section specifically dedicated to the republic of Geneva, and a prophase. The extent of Rousseau's venture is not essentially unique in relation to that of Hobbes in the Leviathan or Locke in the Second Treatise on Government. Like them, Rousseau comprehends society to be an innovation, and he endeavors to clarify the way of people by stripping them of the greater part of the inadvertent qualities achieved by socialization. In this way, understanding human instinct adds up to understanding what people resemble in an immaculate condition of nature. This unmistakable difference a glaring difference to the established view, most remarkably that of Aristotle, which guarantees that the condition of common society is the regular human state. Like Hobbes and Locke it is dubious that Rousseau implied his pursuers to comprehend the unadulterated condition of nature that he depicts in the Second Discourse as a strict verifiable record. In its opening, he says that it must be denied that men were ever in the immaculate condition of nature, referring to disclosure as a source which reveals to us that God straightforwardly enriched the principal man with comprehension (a limit

Within “A Discourse on Inequality”, Rousseau reveals a core trait of his philosophy that wasn’t present in any of his predecessors; his faith and trust in the inherent goodness of man. Many of the negative, evil aspects of humanity that he devotes so much of his time to arguing against do not arise from men, but rather from various socio-political institutions. Rousseau was a strong writer, and like any strong writer he used many different rhetorical tactics in his arguments. Rousseau’s strongest rhetorical device was his definition of mankind’s nature, and the ways in which he relied upon this “true state of nature” to continually enforce his argument that man is a naturally good and compassionate being. In his demonstration of a state of nature that “no longer exists, which has, perhaps, never existed,” Rousseau shows his audience what a world where people lived within a pure state of nature would be like. In attempting to define what human nature would be like without any social establishments, Rousseau strengthens his idea that without these institutions, mankind would be truly free and living without any type of dissension or conflict.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

In the, Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau discusses the progression of human civilization from the state of nature to nascent government to modern civil order. Rousseau argues how the development of society and community introduced institutions such as property that cultivated avarice, corruption and self-interests. He posits that property accentuated natural inequality that existed between those who are talented and those who are not. Communities developed as a result of people’s dependency on others; thus value was attributed to talents and ability. Those who are talented and/or have ability are more likely benefactors than beneficiaries. Rousseau argues that such people become ambitious and garner property. This initial acquisition of property induces competition and envy among men in civil society. Hence, men in civil society become more corrupted and are not as free as the “Noble Savage.”5 This initial phase of reliance on men who are stronger, smarter, quicker, etc …, would progress, as Rousseau states, into the subjugation of the poor by the rich. The rich’s desire to dominate and become the master of men would lead to the creation of the fraudulent social

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