Locke and Rousseau Essay

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an Enlightenment thinker during the eighteenth century and is most noted for his work The Social Contract. The Social Contract published in 1762 and is a philosophical document that expresses the ideas of popular sovereignty. Popular Sovereignty is a form of government in which “the doctrine that sovereign power is vested in the people and that those chosen to govern, as trustees of such power, must exercise it in conformity with the general will.” This is basically a fancy way of saying that the people have the power of authority of their government and the people should decide how they are governed. Like The Social Contract, the Declaration of Independence is a document that sets out to explain the relationship between a government and its people based on an an understanding of that relationship. The Declaration of Independence was composed by Thomas Jefferson in 1766, and shares many of the same ideals as The Social Contract. The Social Contract and the Declaration of Independence are more similar than different because Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced John Locke, whose Social Contract Theories directly influenced Thomas Jefferson during the writing of the Declaration of Independence.

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 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.

Mankind has been fighting for Liberty and Freedom for as long as we can remember. Liberty and freedom has been a topic which has been debated for many decades. What does it mean to be free , and how far can we go to strive for freedom. These important questions have been answered and studied by two of the greatest English philosophers, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Locke and Mill men will attempt to uncover the mysteries of Liberty and Freedom and unveil the importance of being free. This essay will look at John Locke’s principle works” Second Treatise of government” and John Stuart Mills. “ On Liberty and Other Essays”. This essay will attempt to compare and contrast Lockes ideology on Liberty and Freedom to that of Mill.

In the philosophical fiction, “A Discourse on Inequality,” John Rousseau, in the state of nature, distinguishes man from animals with the concepts of man possessing freewill and man’s sense of unrealized perfectibility. Furthermore, he emphasizes throughout the first discourse that man, in the state of nature, does not obtain knowledge that surpasses that of animals. Man’s free will is a prerequisite for a further gain in knowledge to be acquired; also, the sense of perfectibility man is naturally derived with allows man to change with time. I argue that free will is a necessary and crucial factor for man to leave the state of nature. Because of free will, man retains the capability to acquire and develop knowledge. Moreover, knowledge

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?

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

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).

Jean Jacques Rousseau and Edmond Burke may appear to fall on opposite extremes of political ideology. Credited with having inspired the French Revolution, Rousseau is seen a proponent of liberalism. Denouncing the French revolution on the other hand Burke is seen a strong advocate of conservatism. As far removed from one another as these political ideologies may be, in some key areas, some of the fundamental elements constituting the building blocks of of Rousseau and Burke’s individual political thoughts are to a certain degree comparable. Highlighted in this paper, is their understanding of the freedom and liberty of man.

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

Rousseau expressed his opinion about freedom in many of his pieces about Political Philosophy. He explains how men in the state of nature are blessed with an enviable and total freedom. He believed that the modern man’s enslavement was to his own needs and was responsible for all sorts of social ills, from exploitation and domination of others to poor self-esteem and depression. “Men are

According to the Rousseau the state of nature which he mentioned was suppositious, primordial habitation where humans live uncontaminated by the society. He said men are born with the blank face which is neither good nor bad, but the society and social environment in which he is brought up plays an important role in shaping their nature. People have complete physical and emotional freedom for doing anything in society. But he also mentioned some of the drawbacks of humans are that they have not yet learned wisdom and morality. But Rousseau views state of nature as a good thing and the man who find this state should understand its role as a member of the society and retain their natural goodness. (Page 31)

While one might not go as far as to see them as diametrically opposite, they are at the very least distinctively different. Rousseau, Mill, and Constant exhibit a very different view of the modernizing society. This paper seeks to flash out the distinct visions of liberty that Rousseau, Mill, and Constant articulated by unpacking and discerning the central premises of each argument, pitting them against each other through comparing and contrasting.

The founding tenets of Locke's political philosophy rest are the belief in inalienable rights and freedoms as individuals from birth (as he states in paragraph 61 of the second treatise, “We are born free as we are born rational” and it is from this rationality that stems our autonomy as individuals) and our duty as creations and property of god to preserve the lives of ourselves and others, as seen in the duty of all in the state of nature to uphold and enforce the law of nature. The same rationality that grants us our freedom in the state of nature, however, is the driving factor into our aggregation into societies and our creation of governments, as we recognise that social groupings under political authority established by mutual consent of all affected parties are the

In the Age of Enlightenment, both Rousseau and Kant discuss the idea of freedom concerning a man’s will. In spite of their shared conception of freedom as self-legislative autonomy, they differ markedly in terms of what freedom really means. The substantive differences between their accounts of freedom illustrate the two philosophers’ different perceptions about the norms of a civil state, which I suggest, are both flawed and inapplicable to real life. In this paper, I first compare and contrast the conceptions of freedom according to the two philosophers. Then I discuss why those conceptions are flawed. Finally, I provide a possible alternative: instead of clinging on the idea of the free will, I turn to the idea of free action, a less arbitrary conception of freedom.