Comparing Locke And Rousseau

Many political philosophers use the theme of morality to introduce their theories of civilization. Human morals are intertwined with the political system and are presented in human nature. By definition, morality is the distinction between right and wrong. Thus, philosophers use the concept of morality in the same distinction, but understand and apply them in different context depending on their theories. The interpretations vary between political thinkers.; One particular pair of theorists believe morals are presented in the lives of humans, but created in a different manner. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the two political social contractist that are concerned with the issue of morality; although, both use the concept to explain

According to Locke, political power is given up to the legislative and should therefore set moral limits on the authority. The natural law set for humans hold the natural rights that should be respected by the civil government: “keep citizens safe and secure within the limits of the law; and thy rulers too kept within their bounds, and not be tempted, by the power they have in their hands…” (Locke Sec. 137). Locke states, in the Two Treaties of Government, that humans are given these unwritten natural rights by God and made all equally so that no one can cause harm to one another. Locke purposed the idea of natural rights giving humans the ability to distinguish between right and wrong; by doing so, their life and possessions would be protected. Furthermore, the rights are described as moral liberties that men have “for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind…” (Locke Sec. 135). Nevertheless, Locke asserts his theory of morality present in the natural state of humans; whereas Rousseau suggests morality is artificial and constructed by the civil

While Locke believes natural laws are given at the point of human creation, Rousseau believes morality is only given once a legitimate authority is established. They do, however, both believe that the government must have a limit to preserve humanities freedom. Even though, their works bring similar themes Rousseau’s argument over morality excels when compared to Locke. Reviewing Locke’s ideas show that a god creates a set of morals which humans naturally follow based on instinct. This idea fails since the natural state of humans is known to be more barbaric; if the population were to follow the set of morals than the society would be ideal. This is not the case. An establish government is needed to regulate human behavior. Thus Rousseau suggests a civil government would set rules and laws that will stop citizens from acting on impulse: “alone make man truly the master of himself for to be driven by appetite alone is slavery and obedience to the law one has prescribed to oneself is liberty…” (Rousseau 151). The liberty Rousseau refers to is similar to the American Bill of Rights. According to the First Amendment citizens have the freedom of religion, speech, the right to assemble, and other freedoms. The Bill of Rights also acknowledge the many more basic human rights by creating an amendment which