Locke And Rousseau Response Paper

With the exception of Native Americans, there is no race of people that originated in America. Yet today, we all come together under the colors of red, white and blue, sing the National Anthem and call ourselves "Americans". Despite our differences in religion, norms, values, national origins, our pasts, and our creeds, we all combine under one common denominator. Alain Locke addresses this issue of cultural pluralism in his article, "Who and What is `Negro'?" In this article, Locke states that, "There is, in brief, no `The Negro'. " By this, he means that blacks are not a uniform and unchanging body of people. He emphasizes that we, as Americans, need to mentally mature to a point where we do not view

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher in 1712-1778. He believed that all humans are born innocent and what corrupt them and makes evil is society. He believes that if there was no society it would not make human beings feel so judged, shy or depended on others. Without society people would feel more equal they would not want to compare themselves Humans would feel freer. Rousseau thought that society weakens humans that if someone were to grow up in a natural place and place far from society they would be stronger. Compared o the people that grow up in a society they weaken.

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).

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

Locke's natural rights were the foundation of the primary document of the Scientific Revolution. The natural rights also was the foundation for the Declaration of Independence. Rousseau was one who developed individual rights which was very much so very similar to John Locke's rights, they both revolved around the rights of the people. The idea of the republic was one of the main concepts during the Revolution and at the end of it all France became a

The three people I think are important people are Baron de Montesquieu, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Baron de Montesquieu is division between church and state (government). John locke is important because he is the one who gave us the natural rights. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is important because he is good with the direct democracy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau spent his much of his life traveling throughout Europe. A lot of his time was spent in France and Geneva. He was born in the city-state of Geneva on June 28, 1712. His mother was Suzanne Bernard Rousseau, and his father was Isaac Rousseau. His mother died a few days later of puerperal fever. Rousseau was raised and educated by his father until he was ten. A minor offense by his father eventually led to him being exiled from the city. Therefore, putting Rousseau in the care of a nearby pastor.

Within the field of political theory, the notion of private property is often discussed and historically has been a difficult philosophical argument to overcome. The ability to govern over land and other material objects privately compared to communally has been disputed and shown to be problematic for philosophers because of the idea of the development of the individual. Modern thinkers John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau also fall into this category. During the 18th century, Locke and Rousseau excelled in the world of philosophy, extending their views to broaden the horizons of government and political principles. Both men begin them by stating their version of the State of Nation, just as Hobbes did before them through his writings. Once men find their way out of the State of Nature in both societies, Locke and Rousseau provide natural orders which allow the discussion of property and the private rights of man. Locke argues for private property as a positive to mankind, allowing the individual to flourish while Rousseau opposes it and the division of labor will break down mankind’s virtue. In the Second Treatise and Discourse on Inequality, both men demonstrate conflicting ideas of the human state of nature, which lead to their differing opinions on the progression of mankind out of that state and the privatization of property.

Rousseau sees the first step of exiting the state of nature and getting closer to origin of tyranny is when man decides to leave the lifestyle of being alone and always wandering to settling down and making a house and trying to provide for his basic needs and the ones that are not as necessary as: nourishment, rest, shelter and self-preservation. This is the stage where you see the element playing a part in man’s life and in the way civil society came to be. Man is no longer just worried about himself he has to provide not only for himself but for his entire family which he is searching for. Natural man or savage man lives within himself whereas Rousseau argues that civil man lives in the judgement of others. This is one of the big reasons has to how inequality fomed. All the inequalities Rousseau does take about or basically economic things that happen in nature. This type of economic ineuality is among the many other inequalities but is one of many that inequality originated from. If man had stayed restricted to working by themselves they would have remained free, healthy, good and happy as

According to Rousseau "...it is impossible to conceive how property can come from anything but manual labour... " (). Although both philosophers can agree on where wealth comes from, there is a rather large distinction between the two. The first main distinction that must be made is the belief in the importance of the expansion of wealth. Rousseau believes that the expansion of wealth will only lead to the further suffering of man. Rosseau quotes, "... so long as they undertook only what a single person could accomplish, and confined themselves to such arts as did not require the joint labour of several hands, they lived free, healthy, honest and happy lives, so long as their nature allowed...But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable... and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops"( ). Rousseau clearly had a much more doom and gloom approach when it came to the idea of the expansion of wealth. The second criticism being Locke believes that one can expand their wealth without fear of violating the rights of others. Rousseau, however, believes "... one man could aggrandise himself only at the

The purpose which Rousseau ostensibly gives his social contract is to free man from the illegitimate chains to which existing governments have shackled him. If this is his aim, then it follows that he should be most concerned with the preservation of freedom in political society, initially so that savage man might be lured out of nature and into society in the first place, and afterwards so that Rousseau’s framework for this society will prevent the present tyranny from reasserting itself. Indeed, in his definition of purpose for man’s initial union into society, he claims that, despite his membership in an association to which he must necessarily have some sort of obligation if the

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all claim an integral space in the realm of political philosophy. Through their respective dissertations, each author analyzed man in his natural state and derived a form of civil society from that conclusion. While each author observes man in his own way and thus come to his own forms of subsequent government, equality seems to be a defining feature in all of their theories. All authors engage this notion heavily within their texts and use this comparison of man to man to draw powerful inferences from that. This paper will briefly summarize Hobbes’, Locke, and Rousseau’s definition of the state of nature and then critically analyze the role of equality in crafting the construction of government.

The two views on the state of nature given by Rousseau and Hobbes have similarities and differences. Of the differences, the first is how each philosopher views the state of nature in itself. Rousseau’s view on the state of nature is the state of equality. The savage is his own noble. On the other hand, in Hobbes state of nature it is nothing more than a state of war. This state of nature is where fear rules, all the people in this state only concern themselves with staying alive, morality does not exist. Another difference between their views is the motivation structure. In Rousseau’s state the people are completely sovereign, each person rules over

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

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss-born French Enlightenment thinker most famous for the 1762, “The Social Contract.” “The Social Contract” is Rousseau’s most valued work due to its ties within the French Revolution.