Rousseau Vs. Locke Essay, Research Paper
Rousseau VS. Locke
The origins and Consequences of private property.
We have read two books, John Locke’s “The second treatise on government” and Rousseau’s “Discourse on inequality.” Of the several topics touched upon in each book, many topics seem to deal with the same issues. One topic in particular concerns the origins of land ownership and the consequences it has had for the human race. Locke seems to take one side of the argument, while Rousseau seems to have taken the opposite. I believe that Locke has prepared a more convincing and realistic view of this topic than Rousseau. The focus of this paper will be to explain why I believe Locke has done the better job.
In John Locke’s book, “The second treatise of government,” Locke sketches out a brief history of early man and his progression from simple land dweller to land owner. In this description, Locke explains how the concept of property is necessary to human preservation and that property becomes property by having applied work, or effort upon an object. Locke explains that in the beginning, all of earth’s great wealth belonged to all men in common, where everyone had an equal right to everything. Locke says that without the concept of property, humans would never be able to survive, because being allowed to use anything for ones survival would depend on having the consent of every one else. Therefore its only natural to think for example, that an apple belongs to anyone and everyone only until such a time as one person makes the apple theirs. Locke continues to explain that by nature, humans should not, and generally did not, take from nature more than was necessary to preserve their lives, because to do so would be wasteful and could deprive others of their right to a fair share of food. Locke later explains that ownership of physical land is made possible by first, applying effort to making such land more productive, in the earliest sense that meant cultivating the land to produce more food. This surplus of food was acceptable because the idea was that the individual could then sell this food surplus to his fellow man for something of worth. In the earliest sense, this would have been bartering. For example, if you owned an acre of land, on witch you grew apples, you could use the surplus of apples you have grown to trade for other things that you need, say fish, milk and so on. It is at this point that humans collectively decide on a particular system of trade that involves the use of the first currency. Currency being an item that would never rot, and could be saved for latter use, was a new and wonderful invention because in hoarding money, you would not be wasting that witch nature provides for all, and you also now had a way for the first time to advance from a subsistence way of life to a more comfortable form. With the creation of money, and the ownership of land, all mankind would benefit, and those who were most “rational and industrious” now had a means by which they could advance themselves as far as they wanted. Locke, being a land owner himself was very much in favor of land ownership, and felt that those who had done very well for themselves deserved there wealth, and those who were not so well off were so because they were “quarrelsome and contentious.”
Locke goes to great labor in order to support his belief in the ownership of land. And if you take all that Locke says as the truth, you could easily agree with him. For the most part, I have to agree with Locke on this topic, as it closely shadows what we have in modern society. Modern man has advanced far beyond anything even Locke could have hoped for and in general, all mankind has benefited from the kind of economy that comes with the ownership of land, and the use of currency as a medium for advancement. However, where I have some concern with Lock’s doctrine is his dismissal of the very real consequences that come with this advancement. Locke probably never envisioned a time when man would be as advanced as we are today. I have to believe that if Locke could somehow be brought form the past to see the futures success, as well as some of its failures, he would more than likely have cause to amend some of his earlier thoughts. But even in his time, Locke seems to have failed to realize that not everyone has the same capacity to rise to the standard of living that he himself enjoyed. Property is scarce. And when property is scarce, money is scarce. After having read Locke’s book, one gets the sense that he in fact knows this, and without coming right out and saying it, he is trying to sugar coat the fact that he advocates in a sense, holding down those who are weaker in order that the stronger may retain, or have more. This is precisely what kings had been doing for years, only on a grand scale. An extreme few had all the power and most of the wealth, the rest were kept in extreme poverty as a consequence. Locke companied against this despotism, as it was called, however his plan for a better government hinged around landowners, which he was one. I feel that Locke was for the people, so long as the people were like him. In his scenario, there are still many that will have to do without. He justifies this be attaching an all-inclusive title to the poorest individuals and saying that they are “quarrelsome, and contentious.” Idealistically, Locke does not provide a way for the each and every person to share in what I think of as being a fair share of the wealth. However, Locke seems to have accurately forecast a more realistic doctrine for the future.
Rousseau discuses the topic of land ownership and its consequences in his “Discourse On Inequality” as well. Rousseau is a die-hard believer that modern society is completely without hope. At first glance, you have to respect Rousseau for his completely idealistic view of modern society. Rousseau says, “Oh what atrocities could have been prevented if we had pulled up our stakes, filled in the ditches and said those who lay ownership of the land do so in contempt of nature who has given her bounty to us all.” This poetic statement immediately struck a cord within me and I thought of some of the most horrible atrocities that man has brought on his fellow man. Yet these atrocities are only icons of the underlying inhumanity that humans impose on each other. Sure you would probably save someone from a burning building if you thought you could get away with it. Individually, most humans don’t have it in for there fellow man, but if you think about it. Would you give up all that you have so that the less fortunate may have a better life? I know that I would not. It is our very unwillingness to give up what we have that ultimately forces other so to do with out. It comes back to the idea of scarcity. Not every one can live at a high standard of living. Rousseau points out in his discourse on inequality, that it is this pressure to want more and more that drives men to hold others down, and in the most extreme cases to depravity. Idealistically, how can I disagree with Rousseau? He is right. Humans inherently are out for themselves first and if it comes at the expense of others, than that’s the price of doing business. Rousseau shows that not only is there an inequality based on money and material positions. He also points out that we now have inequality on many levels, not that various types of inequality never existed, but with the introduction of land as personal property, these inequalities explode into very real and menacing problems. It’s not hard to put together a reasonable series of events in witch you start by owning some land. If you’re successful, you prosper and you become wealthy. With this new wealth, you begin to look at yourself as being more intelligent than your fellow man and so on. You get to a point where you honestly believe that you are somehow justified in treating others in a certain way. Rousseau probably would have seen W.W.II as the single most supportive piece of evidence that man has totally been corrupted by what society. And you can easily tie the roots of this insane war back to the fundamental relationship between man and his need to own land. The ownership of land, the scarcity that it involves, and the system of money that the whole system runs on is inherently bad for some, and in the worst cases, out right appalling.
Rousseau clearly has cut past all the sugar coating so to speak, he has genuinely pointed out that there are very real costs that come with the closing off chunks of land and calling it your own and the cost is scarcity. Those that can’t have will try to get it. Those that do have, cant have enough. It is very plausible to think that the vast number of problems faced by today’s society can be directly traced to the notion that land could be owned. It is this idea that Rousseau hinges is “Discourse on Inequality” around. Where Rousseau loses me is with his answer to the problem. Rousseau did something that no one else had ever thought of, and that was attacking a problem from a completely idealistic view. This was good in that it slashed through all of the lies and cover-ups man has created to justify his depravity. Where he failed was in trying to answer this problem form a completely idealistic point of view. As I have stated in an early essay, Rousseau would have you believe that man should look deep within himself and realize that he is not happy. He implies that the only way that men can truly be equal among each other is to return to simpler time, a borderline state of nature. We should cast aside our selfish material needs. In a very generic sense, Rousseau advocates mans return to a state of ignorance. By doing so, man may truly be free. The problem is that Rousseau himself could not live up to these standards. He was an outcast everywhere he went, and in order to live in any society, he had to conform to its standards. Rousseau may hold that even he was too warped by society to be able to live without it. But how does Rousseau know that returning to a semi state of nature is the best answer? As the notion of land ownership comes with a cost, casting it aside also comes with a cost. Can Rousseau expect us to believe that all society has become is bad. Most would agree that many positive advancements have been made possible by what society has become. These advancements could never have been realized in Rousseau’s simple society. I wish I could ask Rousseau; is the cost of having our modern society worth less than the cost of not having it? And how is it that you know that your vision of society would be better than that of the present? I agree our current society has its problems, but its all I’ve ever known. I have been conditioned to understand the rules by which this society works and I’m comfortable with it. How can we say returning to a more primitive existence would be better. We have no proof that I would be better. The notion is based completely on speculation.
Was Locke correct in his view about the ownership of land? Or was Rousseau the one who was correct? In my opinion, Locke has made a stronger case. I think we need the ownership of land. We certainly want the benefits that it has afforded to society, even if Locke skated around the less desirable facts. His ideas are much more applicable to today’s modern society. However I can’t say that Rousseau is without merit. You can’t argue the fact that the cost of owning land is scarcity, and scarcity dives men to do very evil things. There is a very important message to be taken from both Locke and Rousseau. Today more than ever, I think that combining the ideas of both men to create a hybrid in a sense would best assist our society in the future. De-evolution may not be the answer, but abandoning all sense of morality is not good either. We should seek to evolve, but we should never stop asking, how can we evolve better?
32b
Другие работы по теме:
Enlightnement Thinkers Essay Research Paper Enlightenment philosophers
Enlightnement Thinkers Essay, Research Paper Enlightenment philosophers have had a profound impact on the progress of society, they quite simply have provided the structure for government today. European thinkers such as John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are some of the European political thinkers who have changed the course of history.
The Nature Of Government Essay Research Paper
John Locke, an influential early liberal English philosopher, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a brilliant political theorist and one of the main figures of the enlightenment, have a considerable importance in political thought, for which they are best known.
Freedom Essay Research Paper State of Nature
Freedom Essay, Research Paper State of Nature To trigger off any philosophy on what should be the characteristics of the state we must first imagine living in a state of nature (living with the lack of a state). Since we cannot trace back to any time that we’ve been without government, we must imagine what it would be like in a state of nature.
World Civilization Essay Research Paper World Civilization
World Civilization Essay, Research Paper World Civilization II January 14, 2000 The Lesser Half When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote about the inequalities of women it was acceptable for that time period. During the 1700’s a women’s role was primarily to bear and raise their children, which is emphasized by Rousseau in Emile.
Jean Jacques Rosseau Essay Research Paper Rousseau
Jean Jacques Rosseau Essay, Research Paper Rousseau was born in Geneva, the son of a watchmaker. His mother died shortly after his birth, and his aunt and uncle raised him. At 16 he set out on into the world which brought him into contact with Louise de Warens, who became his patron and later his lover. She arranged for his trip to Turin, where he became a Roman Catholic convert.
The State Of Nature
– Jean-Jacques Rousseau Vs. John Locke Essay, Research Paper In this essay, I will attempt to show how Jean-Jacques Rousseau s view of the state of nature differs from that of his predecessor John Locke. I will then compare certain aspects and themes central to each thinker s views and interpretations of the state of nature.
Rousseau Essay Research Paper Jean Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau Essay, Research Paper Jean Jacques Rousseau a French philosopher and theorist, has had an effect on societies of in the past by his expression of general will. In the general will freedom and equality are presupposed. Governments of the past and present have had Roussean content. Freedom and equality have presupposed each other by way of the general will and compelled obedience.
Debate Over Man Being Inherently Good Or
Evil Essay, Research Paper The debate over man being inherently good or evil is a debate which has raged since the beginning of time. Rousseau and William Golding do not shy away from taking a stance on the subject. But while Rousseau believes “nothing can be more gentle than man in his primitive state,” Golding’s believes quite the opposite.
Inferring Freedom And Equality Essay Research Paper
John Wise Sturgeon Honors World History: G 28 October 1995 Inferring Freedom and Equality Many of Earth’s organisms and processes depend on each other to survive the natural world. Jean Jacques Rousseau employed this aspect of natural dependency to connect the ideas of freedom and equality together. Rousseau theorized many ingenious ideas for an upcoming legitimate government.
911 And JeanJacques Rousseau Essay Research Paper
L?Etat C?est Moi : Absolutism in the Age of ReasonBy analyzing the Taliban regime and their motives, Jean-Jacques Rousseau?s ideas, and by comparing the two, it will be made evident that Jean-Jacques Rousseau?s ideas of government rule over people?s lives is true in this specific case.
The Influence Of Enlightenment On The French
Revolution Essay, Research Paper What is enlightenment? The 18th century Enlightenment was a movement of the intellectuals who dared to prove all the aspects in life scientifically. German philosopher Immauel Kant proclaimed the motto of the enlightenment : ?Dare to know!: Have the courage to use your own intelligence!? People were greatly impressed by the scientific revolution.
Mary Wollstonecraft Essay Research Paper The neglected
Mary Wollstonecraft Essay, Research Paper The neglected education of my fellow-creatures is the grand source of the misery I deplore. -Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Rousseau and Wollstonecraft believed that children should be allowed to grow freely and learn to use their education practically.
Role Of Property Philosophers Of Glorious Revolution
? In England Essay, Research Paper The Role of Property In the seventeenth-century, England was recovering from the “Glorious Revolution” and political thought centered on the issues of nature and the limits of government. Two great political thinkers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes took a scientific approach to analyze government and focused on the state of nature and natural rights of individuals.
MacKinnon Essay Research Paper Rousseau and Marx
MacKinnon Essay, Research Paper Rousseau and Marx spearhead the movement of the worker. They attempt to alter current, unjust, stifling situations and bring a natural equivalence to all. Yet, throughout their works, they hardly mention the role of women. Marx does, at one point, acknowledge that women should no longer be known as “private”, but as “collective”: open and free to all men.
Political Philosophers Essay Research Paper Political PhilosophersJeremy
Political Philosophers Essay, Research Paper Political Philosophers Jeremy Bentham figured that laws should be socially useful and not merely reflect the status quo. While he believed that men inevitably pursue pleasure and avoid pain, Bentham thought it to be a sacred truth that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.
Listening To The Past A New
Way To Educate Children Essay, Research Paper Listening To The Past: A New Way to Educate Children Rousseau lobbies against an educational system that tries to teach children concepts and facts before such time, as they would make use of them. He believes that a child should not neglect those studies, which meet his present needs, in order to learn that which he may acquire in later years.
Rousseau And Education Essay Research Paper Rousseau
Rousseau And Education Essay, Research Paper Rousseau’s profound insight can be found in almost every trace of modern philosophy today. Somewhat complicated and ambiguous, Rousseau’s general philosophy tried to grasp an emotional and passionate side of man which he felt was left out of most previous philosophical thinking.
Rousseau Essay Research Paper Rousseau and ReligionRousseau
Rousseau Essay, Research Paper Rousseau and ReligionRousseau concludes his Social Contract with a chapter on religion. His view on the subject is subtle and interesting; and moreover, I maintain that it provides us with one of the keys to Rousseau’s thought. Rousseau’s near-deification of the General Will has led many analysts to argue that Rousseau’s state is merely secularized Christianity.
The Significance Of Reason Essay Research Paper
The significance of reason is discussed both in John Locke?s, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, and in Jean-Jacques Rousseau?s, Emile. However, the definitions that both authors give to the word ?reason? vary significantly. I will now attempt to compare the different meanings that each man considered to be the accurate definition of reason.
General Will And Rousseau
’s Social Contract Essay, Research Paper When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote the Social Contract, the concepts of liberty and freedom were not new ideas. Many political theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and
Enlightenment Essay Research Paper PhilosophersIdeas of enlightenment
Enlightenment Essay, Research Paper Philosophers Ideas of enlightenment have been seen across the world for centuries now, but the first real movements started around 1669. With the majority of its great thinkers in Europe, particularly England and France, enlightenment became a great philosophic movement marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas.
Locke And Rousseau Essay Research Paper The
Locke And Rousseau Essay, Research Paper The idea of consent is a key element in the works of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the ?Second Treatise of Government,? Locke puts forth his
Locke In Rousseau
’s Eye Essay, Research Paper The state of nature, as described by Locke, is a state of perfect freedom, a state in which man is completely free, but would Rousseau agree with this? The answer to this question is more complex than it seems. Locke and Rousseau, both great philosophers of their time, have similar ideas, but the similarities between them end at that.
Theater And Govt Essay Research Paper Government
Theater And Govt Essay, Research Paper Government is an interesting concept developed by humans in order to come together and form a better way of life. Government often times has stepped in to judge what this better way of life should be. In current times, there has been the near censorship of art and in the past theatrical world, the morals of a community are mandated by government.
The Philosophes Essay Research Paper The PhilosophesThe
The Philosophes Essay, Research Paper The Philosophes The Age of Enlightenment was the result of the actions that had taken place by intellectuals who gave new thought to the ideas of politics, economics, religion, and the
Rousseau And The Ideal Society Essay Research
Paper Rousseaue and the Ideal Society “Has the progress of the arts and sciences contributed more to the corruption or purification of morals?” Rousseau criticized social institutions for having corrupted the essential goodness of nature and the human heart. Rousseaue believed that by becoming “civilized”, society has actually become worse because good people are made unhappy and are corrupted by their experiences in society..
What Is Liberty Essay Research Paper What
What Is Liberty Essay, Research Paper What is Liberty? During the age of enlightenment many philosophes had different views on the definition of liberty. In the opinion of the philosophes , Voltaire, Smith, Montesquieu and Rousseau the four ideals were almost identical. Voltaire stated, Liberty is the life of the soul.
Rousseau Origin Of Inequality Essay Research Paper
The Origin of Inequality In Rousseau s Discourse on the Origin of Inequalities , Rousseau tries to explain the birth and evolution of inequality between humans dating back to savage man in the pure state of nature. Rousseau proposes that it was not man that progressed toward inequality as much as it was the state of nature itself.
Laws
– Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau Essay, Research Paper Laws. We all must obey them, but why? For fear of going to jail, or being fined? Those are the individual effects of civil disobedience, but what happens what is the purpose of law in society? Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all attempted to interpret the need for laws in society, in order to maintain the good of the whole and the individual.
Hobbes Locke And Rousseau On Social Contract
Essay, Research Paper “Social Contract, agreement by which human beings are said to have abandoned the “state of nature” in order to form the society in which they now live. HOBBES, LOCKE, and J.J. ROUSSEAU each developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for society’s protection and that the government has definite responsibilities to its citizens.
Locke And Rousseau
– Compare/Contrast Essay, Research Paper Although their ideologies sometimes clashed, and they came from two distinctly different epochs in the course of political development, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau?s fundamental arguments address several similar points. These five main themes which significantly overlap and thus cannot be addressed separately, are the state of nature, the basis for the development of government, the primary intent of government, the state of war, and the ultimate effect of the state on the individual and vice versa.
Hobbes Locke Rousseau Essay Research Paper Thomas
Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau Essay, Research Paper Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, all became three of the most influential political theorists in the world.