The Basic Political Writings Written By Jean Jacques Rousseau

In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the

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.

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).

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

While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately,

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

Depravity is due to the corruption of man 's essence by civilization. For Rousseau, civil society resulted from the degeneration of a basically good state of nature. Man 's problems arose because of civil society. He believed that the state of nature changed because it was internally unstable. For example, because talents were not distributed equally among persons, the balance that existed in the state of nature was disturbed and with inequality came conflicting interests. The more talented, able, and intelligent people brought about advances in science, technology, commerce, and so on. Because people simply are born with certain natural endowments, a person cannot be praised for having talent or blamed for not having it. Rousseau saw talent as naturally leading to achievement. Inequality developed as some people produced more and earned more. He failed to acknowledge the importance of motivation, industry, and volitional use of one 's reason and other potentialities.

In the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality”, Rousseau outlines the course of societal developments which, he states, were the ultimate result of moral inequality.  He prides the intermediate stage between the state of nature and civilized society, attributing it to being the happiest period, where human beings had a primitive sense of self as well as others. Claiming that the fatal turning point took place upon the division of labour and thus the establishment of private property, he argues that once people built a dependence upon others for survival it marked a loss of natural freedom. To Rousseau, man who had become aware of power’s benefits grew greedy and brought forth corruption in society. Though there are clear disadvantages in the progression of an enlightened civilization, such as unequal access to various luxuries and opportunities due to one’s social status, I believe that these societal advancements are mainly a good thing. Through the division of labour, humans have been able to specialize in specific fields where they excel and in turn contribute to the overall enhancement of society. Unlike natural man who had to fend for himself since his sole option was self-preservation, civilized individuals have the alternative of obtaining various necessities without directly sacrificing their own time or effort. If primitive man was incapable of acquiring basic necessities due to his or her natural impediments they would be destined for death. However, in civilized

Rousseau believed that the nature of the men allows them to form a tight knit familial connection. He goes on to describe that the natural state of the family is that the father of the family is someone who is needed only for a limited time and after that time the children are given the freedom to either stay or leave and their choice to stay is their own choice. If they are forced to stay then it could cause difficulties within the family (ROUSSEAU). He uses this concept to describe the society too. The state of nature of the society is when people are given the choice to live freely, but when the civil society is formed and men are given a

By setting aside all the facts, Rousseau creates a state of nature that proves man to be naturally free and good. Once Rousseau sets aside the facts he creates a story that shows man should be “discontented with your present state, for reasons that herald even greater discontent for your unhappy Posterity, you might perhaps wish to be able to go backwards” (133). This is true because man is free. Rousseau starts by “stripping this being, so constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he may have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could only have acquired by prolonged progress” (134). Man in his beginning is unsophisticated and irrational nothing more than “an animal “(134). But, in nature man has no authorities. In nature “men, dispersed among them [other animals], observe, imitate their industry, and so raise themselves to the level of the Beasts’ instinct, with this advantage that each species has but its own instinct, while man perhaps having none that belong to him, appropriates them all, feeds indifferently on most of the various foods” (134-135). Men learn from other animals and imitate their moves but are forced to

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

On the other hand, Rousseau is of the idea that human beings are good in nature but they are latter to be vitiated by the political societies which are not part of the man’s natural state. Men need to live in collaboration and help each other to face life challenges. However, with the establishment of political and social institutions, men begin to experience inequalities as a result of greed. Rousseau claims that, in man’s natural state, they only strive for the basic needs and once those needs are satisfied they are contented in that state (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Additionally, Rousseau points out that after the inception of social and political institutions, humans began to be self-centered

Right before Rousseau dives into the first bit of his arguments, he includes a short introduction that is separate from the preface. In this quick blurb at the beginning, Rousseau not only criticizes other major thinkers, he throws haymakers at them. He recognizes that other philosophers have attempt to conceptualize the state of nature, but denounces all of their work. Rousseau is really standing by his stance that it is his method or no method when it comes to discovering the natural man and the state of nature. It is here where Rousseau solidifies his view that there are two types of inequality, physical (naturally occurring) and moral/ political (spawn from consent and convention of man). Something else expresses in this brief section is that he intends to write from a neutral viewpoint in the rest of the discourse. This choice of viewpoint was probably fueled again, by his motive to have his work widely respected. Now that Rousseau has put the last few touches on his lengthy introduction, he finally moves into the meat of his essay.

Rousseau believed that to uplift ourselves out of the state of nature, man must partake in the course of being the sovereign that provided the protection. The contrast between Rousseau’s concepts and those of the liberals of his time, originated with different understandings and interpretations of the state of nature. Classical liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobbes defined the state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to one’s property was always an existent. He

Everyone can follow their primary instincts to take other men’s belongings and property for self-protection and glory. Hobbes state that “the passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them” (185). Peace and order can never be established in this state, therefore there is need for a political institution. On the other hand, Rousseau see human nature to be good and pure and consider society as the cause of its corruption .In the Rousseauian state of nature, solitary exist but men are not brutal to each other. Each man struggles to satisfy his physical needs in order to ensure survival. A man in state of nature does not see fellow men as threats and consider cooperation and collaboration between each man as the best way to guarantee mutual survival. In other words, men in state of nature are linked together by their common struggle with the natural conditions of the environment they live in. However, as political societies are formed, greediness and social inequalities rise. These features are not part of human nature and are caused by “artificial” societies. He considered social sense to be unnatural and stated that if one want to figure out human nature, one should consider a man in state of nature. He states “it will be understood how much less difference from man to man must be in the state