The State Of Nature And The Development Of Society

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

In his Leviathan, Hobbes describes the state of nature as a state of war between all men. Hobbes refers to the state of nature as a state where there is no common power over them (Leviathan 13, 293). By this, Hobbes is explaining the state of nature as a state of existence without a governing entity or laws over men. In this state, men have the right to take anything they need in order to preserve themselves (Leviathan 14, 294). Next, Hobbes explains that all men are equal in ability, and he takes great care to explain that in a single ability, such as strength, men are not equal because there will be stronger men and weaker men (Leviathan 13, 292). However, he explains that such inequalities can be overcome using deception or by acquiring allies (Leviathan 13, 292). The idea of equal ability is key to Hobbes’ argument because it ensures that everyone “has an equal hope of attaining their ends” (Leviathan 13, 293). One way to view this is each individual is able, or has the capacity, to fight because everyone is approximately equal in ability. If some individuals were stronger than others and weaker individuals had no method to counter their strength, then the weaker individuals would not want to fight because they would certainly lose. This capacity to fight gives everyone the ability to fight each other, so if have reason to fight, then they are able to fight. However, the capacity to fight is not enough because it will not necessarily drive men to fight each other

In his "Discourse on the Origins of Inequality," Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences "which first civilized men, ruined humanity." The philosopher challenges Thomas Hobbes' theory of the wicked nature of man, arguing that it is not man's nature but society and the pleasantries of civilization that have weakened and demonized mankind: "It appears, at first view, that men in a state of nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations to one another, could not be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious" (279). The nature of man, therefore, is naturally untainted and based on compassion- a basic, innate virtue. Man's nature is neither good nor evil, neither wracked with steadfast competition nor satiated of philanthropy.

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

We are born neutral with no way to go. It is as such as if we are stuck in a two-lane road and we do not know what path to take ( good or bad). Naturally, we are shaped to be who we are by how we are raised. When we are born we have no idea whats good or bad, however, as we grow we are told what is wrong and what is right. In the article, Jean-Jacques Rousseau- We are Good by Nature but Corrupted by Society, written by Janet Cameron explains the views of historical figure Jean Jacques and his belief that man are corrupted and become who they are by the society that they live in. In the article, it is stated that “We are born weak, we have need of help, we are born destitute… we have need of assistance; we are born stupid, we have need of understanding.” (Jean Jacques- We are Good by Nature but Corrupted by Society).What this Jean Jacques is trying to explain is that as babies we are born with no way of knowing what’s wrong or right and those who assist us (raise us) make us who we are. Society is all about the show and everyone wants to be the best. As a result those who are taught at a young age to behave themselves and have respect show those qualities as they grow older and those who are not taught and are taught by what they see in society will most likely act like the common

THIS TRANSCRIPT IS DEDICATED TO: ALL PEOPLES IN GENERAL AND THE ETHIOPIAN RACE IN PARTICULAR

Rousseau states that “the first person who, having enclosed a plot of ground, thought of saying this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society” (91). As a result of the creation of establishments and institutions of property, men created laws and the creation of laws created inequality among people. Rousseau stated that the only thing natural man cared about was survival. Additionally, natural man did not have possessions and therefore, there was nothing that could trigger envy or jealousy. Competition did not exist. However, civilization has corrupted humans. Today, man cares a lot about power and reputation. Rousseau states that, “ . . . the savage lives within himself; sociable man, always outside himself, knows how to live only in the opinion of others, and it is from their judgment alone that he, so to speak, derives the feeling of his own existence” (117). He continues by stating that, “ . . . everything becomes fabricated and staged -- honor, friendship, virtue, and often even the vices themselves, which men ultimately discover the secret of-- boasting about . . .” (117). In other words, man has not only moved further away from “animal condition” but from oneself.

The question of the morality of humans’ state of nature has long been researched, however a definite answer fails to exist. The state of nature is

For centuries, thinkers have posed the question “What are we? Are we humans? Or animals? Or savages?” In essence, many of these beforementioned philosophers take time to understand what makes us, humans, tick. Graham Greene once said “human nature is not black and white but black and grey.” There is much more to our behavior than meets the eye and it is often difficult to understand human nature apart from biblical revelation. Human nature refers to the patterns of behavior that are typical of our species or our kind. In an era of no rule, many are split on the behaviors of humans; some believe that it would be a place of peace where everyone can live to their own standards while others assert that mayhem and chaos would ensue. William Golding’s

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.

Within “A Discourse on Inequality”, Rousseau reveals a core trait of his philosophy that wasn’t present in any of his predecessors; his faith and trust in the inherent goodness of man. Many of the negative, evil aspects of humanity that he devotes so much of his time to arguing against do not arise from men, but rather from various socio-political institutions. Rousseau was a strong writer, and like any strong writer he used many different rhetorical tactics in his arguments. Rousseau’s strongest rhetorical device was his definition of mankind’s nature, and the ways in which he relied upon this “true state of nature” to continually enforce his argument that man is a naturally good and compassionate being. In his demonstration of a state of nature that “no longer exists, which has, perhaps, never existed,” Rousseau shows his audience what a world where people lived within a pure state of nature would be like. In attempting to define what human nature would be like without any social establishments, Rousseau strengthens his idea that without these institutions, mankind would be truly free and living without any type of dissension or conflict.

For years, natural theologians have searched for answers to human morality by observing nature. By studying the “nonmorality” in nature, it allows for humans to rationalize the inhumanity they see, which justifies our own cruel behaviors. What natural theologians do not understand is that nature is nonmoral; it contains no moral messages and cannot teach humans about how our actions relate to morality. Stephen Jay Gould explores this idea in his essay “Nonmoral Nature” by arguing that the elements within nature do not know the difference between good or bad, they are strictly instinctual. Underneath this argument, he reveals that the answers do not lie in nature, but rather that it lies in humans, and our ability to control good and evil. Gould argues that rather than observing nature in search for the answers on morality, people must to look at themselves to understand it.

In Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau outlines the development of humans from their natural state. He suggests that man undergoes several revolutions, some of which are caused by environmental factors like natural disasters and others that are a product of human progress like the invention of tools, songs and dance, the division of labor, and the distribution of property. All of these revolutions, especially the distribution of land, contribute to inequality among humans. With this inequality that leads to outbreaks of violence and war, contracts that create rules applicable to those of all socioeconomic statuses, leading to the formation of political societies. Through these revolutions, inequality multiplies, and this final state displays “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power… till the government is either entirely dissolved by new revolutions, or brought back again to legitimacy” (Rousseau 35). Thus, it seems that societies undergo cycles of legitimacy with altering states of inequalities present. In a way, this relates to Glaucon’s perception of the creation of laws, as he states covenants are formulated to define what is lawful and just for all individuals of a community, similar to how the formation of contracts for Rousseau seeks to reach greater equality that applies to all people. The first society that Rousseau illustrates is despotism—with one individual unjustly ruling the populace. Rousseau conveys that this is the least desirable form of government, but hints that it is nearly unavoidable in the progressive development of political societies. This aspect connects to Glaucon’s idea of injustice relating to the natural state of humans, and humans’ compulsions toward unjust acts. This similarity suggests an innate

The two views on the state of nature given by Rousseau and Hobbes have similarities and differences. Of the differences, the first is how each philosopher views the state of nature in itself. Rousseau’s view on the state of nature is the state of equality. The savage is his own noble. On the other hand, in Hobbes state of nature it is nothing more than a state of war. This state of nature is where fear rules, all the people in this state only concern themselves with staying alive, morality does not exist. Another difference between their views is the motivation structure. In Rousseau’s state the people are completely sovereign, each person rules over

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