Rousseau 's Hypothetical State Of Nature

1417 Words6 Pages
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 argued that war and violence erupted when people began to claim ownership
Get Access