The Importance Of Political Inequality In Civil Society

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

In Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, Rousseau argues that man needs to be investigated by distinguishing between natural inequalities, such physical aspects, and moral inequalities, such as comparing man in the State of Nature, in order to determine if modern inequality is artificial and unnatural through analyzing the origin of such inequality and how it compares to present day society. Rousseau does not agree with other philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes since Rousseau believed that they used what they knew of a civilized man and placed him in the State of Nature. In order to challenge this perspective, Rousseau created the Savage Man to represent someone having all their needs met but still needing

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

Rousseau means when he uses the phrase "Inequality among men” that there isn’t one type of man, there are many different kinds. Rousseau states that, “I conceive that there are two kinds of inequality among the human species; one, which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or of the soul: and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorized by the consent of men.” (Rousseau 293). Natural inequality is more physical because you can never change someone’s age, younger men seem stronger than older men. The mind and soul from all types of men are different, yet unique. Moral or political inequality, meaning the wealthy will always have more power over the poor. Rousseau says this is a problem because value seems to come from how much money a person has, and that can destroy itself.

Humanity's greatest deficiency to Rousseau was that they tampered too much with nature. When humans tamper with nature, they become evil as Rousseau writes, "God makes all thing good; man meddles with them and they become evil."5 An example that Rousseau gives is that man forces one soil to yield the products of another. By doing this, humans are defacing nature. Nature is an important aspect to understanding God. Rousseau viewed that nature "is nothing but God's handwriting which can be read and understood by all."6 Nature is then a way for humans and God to communicate. Since man will have nothing as nature made it, he removing God from being part of the world, and is how humanity is evil. Rousseau holds that even humanity will even deform themselves. The changing humanity itself is where the concept of a society develops. Humans tamper with the order of nature in order to fulfill their own desire. The collective desires of a group of people then forms a society. Rousseau was a strong opponent of society. Rousseau wrote, "society has enfeebled man."7 When humans participate in this society, they become civilized. Rousseau writes, "civilized man is born and dies a slave."8 Rousseau contends, "all his long life man is imprisoned by these

This is demonstrated by when Rousseau writes, "…the life of an animal limited at first to mere sensations…” (Rousseau 84). This is when inequality began to become a pervasive force in society. This so-called “state of nature” that supposedly existed, according to Rousseau, was devoid of any economic or social inequality. However, eventually perfectibility came about, which encouraged people to excel and further themselves. Rousseau goes on to talk about how “It now became the interest of men to appear what they really were not” (Rousseau 95) This led to members of societies beginning to compete with one another to be better than their peers, leading to inequality of all sorts – including the economic and social varieties. Rousseau goes on to argue that with time, society has progressed such that modernity has made inequality worse and more corrupted. He describes how he believes that hierarchy in society and governmental

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).

Mordern man's quest for material power, or virtue, creates inequality among themselves by making some individuals subservient to others in order to fulfill their desire for power and luxury. Modern man tries to use reason in order to gain virtue, but instead, reason has resulted in social inequality and vice. Therefore, Rousseau argues reason should be the cure to social inequality but instead becomes the disease.

First off, Rousseau believed that there are two kinds of inequality among the human species; one, which he calls natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or of the soul. And another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorised by the consent of men. The invention of property and the division of labor represent the beginning of moral inequality. Property allows for the domination and exploitation of the poor by the rich. Initially, however, relations between rich and poor are dangerous and unstable, leading to a

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind

In The Discourse of Inequality, Rousseau exemplifies his belief that one should live in a small community. Rousseau states: If I had to make choice of the place of my birth, I should have preferred a society which had an extent proportionate to the limits of the human faculties (p. 2). He believes that one thrives in a society where everyone knows one another and often sees one another. In such community, the citizens will grow with one another to become the best citizens to their own people. Rousseau stands with the belief that if one is within a small society, said society would be able to constrain the vices of its citizens.

In Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Jean-Jacques Rousseau depicts a scathing review of the state of equality in the world. Rousseau depicts man’s slow devolution to a society ruled by a few while the majority laments in inequality. He depicts how “The extreme inequality in our society,” is demonstrated by “excessive idleness among some, excessive labor among others,” (Rousseau 51). Rousseau notes this political inequality, or difference in social status, was absent in the era of savage man, and later asserts that the regression to political inequality originated with the transition to civil society. Rousseau’s claim that political inequality arises from man’s transition to life in civil society is a sound assertion because in civil society, man develops new desires, each with their

The Origin of Inequality is much different from the first discourse for many and particular reasons. What I noticed about this discourse is that Rousseau made it into four different parts, a first part, a second part, a section specifically dedicated to the republic of Geneva, and a prophase. The extent of Rousseau's venture is not essentially unique in relation to that of Hobbes in the Leviathan or Locke in the Second Treatise on Government. Like them, Rousseau comprehends society to be an innovation, and he endeavors to clarify the way of people by stripping them of the greater part of the inadvertent qualities achieved by socialization. In this way, understanding human instinct adds up to understanding what people resemble in an immaculate condition of nature. This unmistakable difference a glaring difference to the established view, most remarkably that of Aristotle, which guarantees that the condition of common society is the regular human state. Like Hobbes and Locke it is dubious that Rousseau implied his pursuers to comprehend the unadulterated condition of nature that he depicts in the Second Discourse as a strict verifiable record. In its opening, he says that it must be denied that men were ever in the immaculate condition of nature, referring to disclosure as a source which reveals to us that God straightforwardly enriched the principal man with comprehension (a limit

In his article Williams brings to light many issues dealing with social inequality including how many philosophers have felt about the issue. Plato believed that inequality made the wealthy lazy and did not give the poor enough to succeed and Thomas Hobbs believed that the wealthy undermined the way the government is supposed to work and made the poor restless and angry. One of the most influential philosophers of inequality was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he believed that inequality serves the “particular will” instead of the “general will”, that it leads to civic unrest, and that it destroys the soul.

I have the newest version of the textbook therefore it was chapter 5 for political inequality. I spent about 50 minutes reading the chapter and taking notes. After reading the chapter, I realized that our political system is truly unfair. It seems to me that politicians will always do things for their own benefit rather than for the people. The upper class people will always be stronger when it comes to politics because the working class do not have the luxury of sitting around and demanding things like the wealthy. After reading this chapter it made me think of the injustice we live in.