Rousseau's Discourse On The Origin Of Inequality

Preference, superiority, selection and devotion keep monogamous marriage a social institution. Clearly, marriage degenerates when these characteristic traits are not present. In order to have a true monogamous marriage, a man would have to mark the woman he married as superior. However, this cannot be implicitly true. It is evident that some people should not be parents, and should not raise children so there are clearly some flaws in this relationship among society in these social institutions.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was well respected philosopher in the 1700’s who was well respected by many other people. Rousseau’s beliefs are that the male being is corrupted by society itself. In my opinion he is saying that if we didn’t have a strict set of rules and we just let the male being come into our world , then they would be pure forever. In my opinion, this specific idea frightens me because it seems like he is just trying to make chaos and unstableness. Jean- Jacques Rousseaus had also lived during the enlightenment period. The enlightenment period consisted of new philosophy consisting of sayings, meanings, views, and new economic ideas. Since the period he lived in consisted of a stable good community, perhaps that is why he obtains his philosophy, that the typical male being is truly pure and controlled.

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.

Stephanie Coontz is a sociologist who is interested in marriage and the change in its structure over the time-span as love became a main proponent of the relationship involved in marriages. In her article, “What 's Love Got to Do With It,” Coontz argues that the more love becomes a part of the equation the less stable the institution of marriage becomes. Marriage at one point was a social contract that bound two families together to increase their property and wealth as well as ally connections. Each party entered into the contract knowing their roles and if one partner failed to meet the expectations, they were still contractually obligated to one another and were not allowed to divorce. As love became part of the equation, each partner was less sure of their obligations and often chose to end their marriages if at all possible.

Most importantly for Rousseau, however, is not necessarily how history lets him see how men might have been or how history lets him strike a balance between grasping the intricacy of human history and succeeding fluidly from one thought to another; it is how framing his work in such a way lets him give the greatest demonstrative proof of the point he makes. The first part of the work consists in a history of mankind until the institution of the social contract, and it reads easily and freely, just as man in Rousseau’s conception was in those days. The second part of the Second Discourse, which deals with the critique of the social contract itself, however, reads much more heavily, as if Rousseau were attempting to give the reader a taste of the gravity the social contract itself imposes upon man. The opening lines of the second half already launch his scathing attack on civil society by associating this notion with a man who takes advantage of his fellow men:

Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality of Men, discusses the beginning and development of inequality of individuals. Rousseau seeks to discern whether the unequal treatment of men is dictated by natural laws or if it is a man made creation. When Rousseau analyzes humans in the state of nature, he claims we are all animalistic by nature. Humans in the state of nature are motivated by self-preservation much like animals and also pity. The difference between man and animals according to Rousseau is man’s perfectibility. Because man has very minimal needs in the state of nature, no concept of morality and limited interaction with other individuals, he is generally happy. Because in the state of nature man embodies the quality of perfectibility, he is able to adapt with his environment. As nature drives men to leave certain areas it forces them to learn new skills as they come in to contact with one another more often. As man connects with more and more individuals around him he becomes aware that he has more needs. As men begin to live in societies with more people they start comparing themselves to those around them and self-preservation and pity are no longer their main goals. Now, they have to do more work in order to be happy such as raise to greater heights then their fellow humans. Moral inequality is created as division of labor and property rights are invented. Owning property allows the rich to take advantage of the poor, leading to unstable relations

But it’s no less an animal instinct that leads us to marry (species that benefit from monogamy tend to practice it); to organize a neighborhood cleanup campaign (rare and doomed is the creature that fouls its nest); to improvise and enforce morality (many primates socialize their young to be cooperative and ostracize adults who won’t share food)” (9). Based on her opinion, what human is doing has no difference from what animals are doing, except that human prefers to do those things in a more complicated way. For example, people tend to claim that marriage is a result of love and love is a unique property of human. They spent most of their life pursuing love. However, from another point of view, marriage is just an animal instinct whose purpose is to make the community extend. Therefore, Kingsolver argues that most human activities could be explained as animal instincts and human should admit they are actually animal. “Possibly we will have the sense to begin a new century by renewing our membership in the Animal Kingdom” (Kingsolver

The development of amour-propre has played a pivotal role within society: Rousseau believes it is solely responsible for the ills, and inspires all evil in modern society. Civil society was founded when ‘’the first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying ‘This is mine’, and found people simple enough to believe him’’ (Rousseau pg.84). The state of civil society could not have happened overnight, that leap would require great conceptual development in humans, but from the moment that men started staying in communities was the first real sign in the development of amour-propre;

Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative

Women can control the moral sentiment of love, they are what men desire and Rousseau claims that this sentiment of love establishes their hegemony and makes them the dominant sex when in reality they are “the sex that ought to obey”.

People such as Buddhist monks devote their lives to the search for virtue through isolation and meditation. Others believe that just simply living your life as a generous person and practicing self-preservation is virtuous. These two different, yet similar ideas of virtuous living came from the two philosophers known as Aristotle and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and their works in the Nicomachean Ethics and Discourse on The Origin of Inequality. Aristotle believed that the individual had to meet multiple qualifications in order to truly be virtuous; rather than Rousseau who thought a virtuous person simply needed to preserve their own life and have the virtue pity, or defined by him as your natural impulses. While they both disagree on whether impulse or habit is the key to becoming virtuous or even what virtue is, they agree that we pursue the virtuous life in order to avoid pain.

Rousseau starts his discourse with the quote, “What is natural has to be investigated not in beings that are depraved, but in those that are good according to nature” (Aristotle. Politics. II). It is this idea that Rousseau uses to define his second discourse. Rousseau begins his story of human nature by “setting aside all the facts” (132). Rousseau believes the facts of the natural state of humanity are not necessary to determine the natural essence of human nature, and adding facts based on man’s condition in society does not show man’s natural condition. The facts don’t matter for Rousseau because to understand the essence of human nature requires looking to how man is in a completely natural state. Since man is no longer in this state,

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

Today, the idea of marriage conjures images of bashful brides beautifully draped in all white, of grandiose flower arrangements climbing towards the ceiling, of romance personified. As an institution in this modern world, marriage represents the apex of romantic love, with an entire industry of magazines, movies, and television shows devoted to perpetuating marriage as an idealized symbol of the ultimate love between two people. Contrarily, as a sociological institution, marriage comes from much more clinical and impersonal origins, contrasting with the passion surrounding modern understandings of the institution. Notably, french anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss theorizes that the institution of marriage emerged from a need to form alliances between groups, with women functioning as the property exchanged so that such alliances could be solidified (Levi-Strauss).

To start with, Rousseau is of the view that human beings are not naturally sinful. They are galvanized to work together for the greater