Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality

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

In the book The Basic Political Writings written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Rousseau in the beginning of the book states a very important question that he hopes to answer in parts throughout the book, the question being: What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by the natural law? Rousseau takes a different approach than all the other philosophers on trying to figure out the origin of man and their so-called inequality. Rousseau’s point of view on the state of nature differs from other philosophers such as Locke and Hobbes. How do you find the origin of man? Where can the origin of civil society be traced back too? How are men perceived in the state of nature? Does inequality exist in the state of nature? In what

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

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).

Rousseau accounts for the development of civil society by depicting the development of the savage man into a civil and enlightened man. This development was gradual as “

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

Rousseau too acknowledges that deviation from the laws of nature can be detrimental to man. He points out that though freewill places man at an advantage over other species, and perhaps even other men, but he does not necessarily see it as being all good:

Rousseau also suggests that in modern society, men are unequal because of dependency or "moral and political inequality" (101). The men with power and status control and manipulate others into lives under themselves. Those under then have to act not on their own will and freedom, but subject themselves to those atop. Those being controlled are like puppets on a stage that are not able to think and make choices for themselves and thus, never know who they truly are since they are always doing and saying things to please others. The problem with this is that such a person is confused where he is in life and is constantly under social pressures. Thus, Rousseau argues that "rather than subjecting themselves to a universal dependence and obliging themselves to receive everything from those who do not obligate themselves to give them anything" (128), why not look to the savage man? Savage man does not have such pressures and constraints.

He refutes Hobbes’ idea that man is naturally seeking to attack and fight by saying that man in the state of nature is actually man in his most timid form. He states that savage man’s needs are so basic (food, shelter, water, a woman) and easily found that he can have “neither foresight or curiosity”. By this man he means that man lacks the expansive nature that Hobbes’ believed they possessed (natural eternal quest for power). He continues on man’s basic nature adding “With passions so minimally active and such a salutary restraint, being more wild than evil, and more attentive to protecting themselves from the harm they could receive than tempted to do harm to others, men were not subject to very dangerous conflicts.” This is rather opposite of the state of nature in which Hobbes calls man in a constant war with man. He argues, that without society, in fact, that man would be much more pure and that the ills of society have dirtied man. He believed that human nature is very comparable to that of an animal in that it is at its based even natured, but that the separating factor between the two is free will. He argues that since society calls for more cooperation between men, it also causes more competition, creating many of society ills. Rather than saying man fled from the state of nature like Hobbes, Rousseau rather said that man needed society for division of labor as well as the division

Here he states that if a man employs the use of reason, he cannot be happy. This is because Rousseau believes that happiness is an opposite to reason. Next, he states that “[…] the same cause preventing savages from using their reason, as our jurists claim, is what prevents them from abusing their faculties”(p. 36). While savage man does have reason, he will not use it. As soon as he uses his reason, he ceases to be a savage and becomes a civil man.

Within Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, he creates an argument against the suggestion that moral inequality is naturally found in nature, moral being in terms of law and social order, by claiming that presocial individuals were happier, equal, and naturally good in contrast to civil or societal humans. A central aspect of their happiness relies on the presocial human’s lack of unnecessary desires. Although Rousseau’s theory can in large ways be applied and seen in today’s society, it does not acknowledge the positive and crucial things provided by society that can engender happiness and do not exist in the environment of natural humans.

1. While both John Locke and Jacques Rousseau trusted that each ought to be free and that nobody ought to need to surrender his/her natural rights to a lord, both contrasted on what this situation ought to resemble. Locke had confidence in restricted, delegate government. However, Rousseau had faith in direct government by the general population. The contrasts between John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau need to do as much with dispositions as with frameworks. Both of them upheld political radicalism and religious resistance; however their originations of human instinct contrasted. Rousseau feels that people are inalienably great and that human advancement and customary educating are adulterating impacts. He sees feelings and assumptions as more critical that Locke does. (Elahi) Both Locke and Rousseau concur that the primary route for a social contract to safeguard the privileges of the General Will is for finished inclusion. Rousseau demands the individuals who don 't join the settlement are oblivious to the points of interest of a social contract. These maniacs must be compelled to see the light of the social contract and in this way forced to be free. In a more brutal perspective, Locke sees the inability to join the social get an assault on the safeguarding of humanity and this violator ought to rebuff. That is because the individuals, who abuse the particular law, disregard the safeguarding of humankind. There is a considerable measure of

Continuing with this idea, Rousseau believes that in the state of nature man kind was animal like with one attribute separating the two. Above, I mentioned the term perfectibility. This is what draws distinction between man and beast. What Rousseau is referring to is the human’s ability to advance and develop. In sum, the state of nature consists of man with minimal needs and contact with others. Rousseau believes that man kind was most content in the state of nature. Understanding what Rousseau means by the state of nature is fundamental in understanding the rest of his philosophy.

     Man has no reason or conscience when in contact with others. Possessions begin to be claimed, but the inequality of skill lead to inequality of fortunes. The idea of claiming possessions excites men’s passions, which provoke conflict and leads to war. Rousseau believes men are not perfect in their original state, but have the ability to live in a more perfect society with guidance of

Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Origin of Inequality talks briefly about a savage man in the state of nature and what makes him virtuous. Rousseau said, “Qualities that can harm an individual’s preservation ‘vices’ in him and those than can contribute to its ‘virtues.’ In that case it would be necessary to call the one who least resists the simple impulses of nature the most virtuous,”(35). When reading this, one can clearly see Rousseau depicts the virtuous person being the savage man who gives into his impulses. He believes that man should only fulfill his natural impulses of sex, sleep, and food in