John Locke And Jacques Rousseau

When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote his Social Contract, the idea of liberty and freedom were not new theories. Many political thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had already evolved with their own clarification of liberty and freedom of mankind, and in fact John Locke had already publicized his views and ideas on the social contract as well. In Rousseau’s case, what he did was to transform the ideas incorporated by such substantial words, and present us to another method to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to leave the state of nature, and enter into a structured civil society? Liberals believes that this was the assurance of protection - liberty to them implied being free from destruction and harm towards one’s property. Rousseau’s concept of freedom was entirely different from that of traditional liberals. According to Rousseau, liberty is meant to voice out your opinion, and participation as human being. “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man” (Wootton, 454).

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

Two of the most prominent figures in social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke established many of the founding ideals that contemporary Liberalism is based on. While the shared many similar positions, there are some key distinctions to be made between the arguments Hobbes and Locke make in Leviathan and Second Treatise of Civil Government, respectively. In this paper I will argue the differences between how each of them viewed the right of the subjects to revolt from the sovereign.

John Locke, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke have several values that are illustrated by today’s society. One of these values would be conservatism. It is true that we have changed today’s society, however; have we quickly changed these values or have we slowly taken our time to introduce them? Property is another value that illustrates today’s society. We need a state in order to own property. There is no other form of regulation that will tell us who has the rights to certain properties. Lastly, and most importantly, freedom is a value that has been illustrated in the United States in several different ways. Street light tickets are an example of theses certain values and what comes with them. Conservatism is a term that means no change; you conserve what you have. Edmund Burke would agree that street light tickets are not suitable. This change disrupts the economy and causes further problems with society.

People had many issues opening their eyes to what is reality and seeing that they are being taken advantage of. People like Martin Luther and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were some people who used documents as eye openers for the society. Martin Luther was a theologian, priest, and lecturer from Germany, who felt that church officials were teaching people that they could buy God’s favor and their way into his kingdom. So during the 16th century, he created the 95 Theses, which were a set of revolutionary ideas expressing his concerns about corruption in the Catholic Church. In order to spread his word, he sent a copy to the printing press and posted the ideas on the church door in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a philosopher, writer, and political theorist from Switzerland who created The Social Contract. This political contract was written in 1762 to explain the views that people’s morals and political commitments are needy upon an agreement or understanding among them to frame the general public in which they live. These documents helped shape how people view things and gave people their freedom, whether it was from a religious standpoint or just every day living.

Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and

John Locke (“Locke”) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (“Rousseau”) are two of the most well known European political philosophers to this day. Locke is a 17th century political philosopher due to him writing his works in the late 1600s. On the other hand Rousseau is an 18th century political philosopher with his writings coming approximately 100 years after Locke’s. While it is known that most philosophers build off the works of their predecessors, there is a vast range between Locke and Rousseau when it comes to the concept of private property. On the one hand, Locke considered the right of property to be a God given right and one that everyone is entitled to. When compared to Locke, Rousseau viewed the notion of owning property to be a negative addition to society. By placing these two political philosopher’s views against each other, this paper will argue that their difference of opinions is based in their account of how each define the state of nature. Rousseau states, “The philosophers who have examined the foundations of society have all felt the necessity of returning to the state of nature…was civilized man they depicted” can be viewed as Rousseau admitting he knows there is a difference between himself and Locke. By exploring the differences between Locke’s civil man and Rousseau’s natural man, this will clarify why these two political philosophers have different foundations and theories when it comes to private property.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both well known to be associated with the state of nature. However, the philosophers have extremely distinct views on how the state of nature should be lived out. Hobbes is a highly conservative and harsh in tone in his views of humans and how they react in a state of nature. For example, he believes that men are selfish and will act in a way that only benefits themselves. Locke, on the contrary, thinks that men are not out to get each other. He has trust in the human nature and believes men will act with integrity and honesty in their everyday lives.

john Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were both Enlightenment thinkers concerned with the liberties of men. Both men believe that all men are born into the state of nature equally. However, Locke believes that men are born into a state of perfect freedom and equality whereas Rousseau believes that men are chained to the other men in their community. The concern that both thinkers have for the liberty of men lead them to both write works concerning a social contract between men with similar and differing ideas.. Locke discussed his ideas in The Two Treatises of Government, and Rousseau’s ideas were expressed in The Social Contract.

The state of nature is the idea of life before society. This is the time before government, state, and law existed. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau all had their own views on state of nature. For Hobbes, the state of nature was a “miserable dangerous place” (Greenstine,2017). On the other hand, Locke saw it as a place with “reasonably tolerable conditions” (Greenstine,2017). For Rousseau, a state of nature is where men are free and equal. There were many similarities and differences between them. Hobbes and Locke views saw that men are equal in a state of nature where Rousseau’s view saw inequality. John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's theories on a state of nature show more compassion and humanity compared to Thomas Hobbes’ theory.

Differing greatly from the views of Plato, Socrates (as seen through Plato’s teachings), and Aristotle, modern philosophers focused more prominently on human nature instead of the pressing matters of diverse government systems. Granted, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke do discuss political systems to some extent, but they are nowhere near as invested in the ideas of the just and political systems which enticed Plato and Socrates. John Locke was a forward thinker who believed that man is inherently a social animal. Thomas Hobbes takes the counter to this theory with the belief that man is not a social animal at all, and the constructs of society can only work through the power of the state. Both of these men are considered modern thinkers for many reasons, even though their ideas might not always line up.

The implementation of a society in which all are guaranteed equal rights has never come to fruition. Through political treatise, formulated essay’s, and prototypical society 's, many have attempted to recreate the works of famed philosophers: John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Disagreeing regarding the innate goodness of humans, both understand that for a political society to function properly, humans must be given a society in which prosperity is the goal. Therefore, underlying the key theme that cooperation amongst all men is key in progressing the society forward. Many nations and world leaders have inferred these core beliefs and have attempted to recreate them, be it decreed in the United States Declaration of Independence or the 1977 Soviet Union Constitution. Aside from the blatant plagiarism by the founding fathers of both nations (and many others), Locke and Rousseau do stress two key separate points of view regarding how cooperation amongst men is key in progressing a society forward. Locke asserts that by having all men as enforcers of the state of nature it helps in bettering the society by providing it with a more competent and productive populous, and Rousseau believes that since we are inherently good we should be left to our own devices, that through collective independence comes strength. Both views aim to better the lives of many, however, how that task is accomplished ranges drastically.

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

Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.

John Locke (1632-1704) and William Godwin (1756-1836) were both English philosophers. Locke and Godwin discuss their views on the origin, purpose as well as extent of authority of a government in their publications. Locke felt that government originated from a social contract and advocated governments which respected their citizens while Godwin saw any form of government as a form of evil thus he advocated self-government and believed that having no government was the ideal state but in the event of being under a government, minimal authority should be exercised. This essay discusses the difference in their views and I will pay attention to the extent of government authority.