Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau
The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.
Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr...
... middle of paper ...
... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (??)the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government. Both Rousseau and Locke formulated new and innovative ideas for government that would change the way people thought of how sovereignty should be addressed forever.
John Locke is considered one of the best political minds of his time. The modern conception of western democracy and government can be attributed to his writing the Second Treatise of Government. John Locke championed many political notions that both liberals and conservatives hold close to their ideologies. He argues that political power should not be concentrated to one specific branch, and that there should be multiple branches in government. In addition to, the need for the government to run by the majority of the population through choosing leaders, at a time where the popular thing was to be under the rule of a monarch. But despite all of his political idea, one thing was extremely evident in his writing. This was that he preferred limited
There are many different ways in which the Enlightenment affected the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. One way was the by the idea of a Social Contract; an 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 believed that governments were formed to protect the natural rights of men, and that overthrowing a government that did not protect these rights was not only a right, but also an obligation. His thoughts influenced many revolutionary pamphlets and documents, including the Virginia Constitution of 1776, and the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights was created as a listing of the rights granted to citizens, the Bill of Rights serves to protect the people from a too powerful government. These civil rights granted to U.S. Citizens are included in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Locke’s ideas about checks and balances and the division of church and state were later embodied in the U.S. Constitution as well. The Constitution replaced a more weakly organized system of government as outlined under the Articles of Confederation.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Whenever I look at John Locke’s political view, it surprises me that he was able view government the way he did because he grew up in the renaissance. During the renaissance period, people were not interested in protecting property; their focus was on their position on the hierarchical social ladder. So the fact that his political views so closely resemble a premature form of democracy amazes me. John Locke understood that in a government there needs to be sovereign authority but he realized that sovereign authority should not have absolute power. With that in mind, John Locke constructed a blueprint for a government that provides for the pursuit and securing of life, liberty, and property.
Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been continually adopted by democracies. Marx on the other hand took an unconventional route of concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics. Despite their different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization. While both theories operate on reason and seem to be sound, they remain unproven due to their contingency on various factors of time and place, but mainly on their prerequisite of incorruptibility. Now, while both theories may very well have the odds dramatically stacked against their favor, I believe they must be thoroughly dissected for their content before attempting to condemn them to utopianism.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Locke used the arguments that a government is nothing if it is not supported by the power of its citizens. He argued that the citizens of the government were not well represented in the government so it was justified to be overthrown. This is what he thought about the overthrowing of King James of England in 1688. Locke argued that if the people in a country were to dissolve then the government in that country will also dissolve. He saw a country as a big group of people with similar views. He talks about how society decides to act as a whole group. When they split apart is when society becomes different groups and the government then falls. Many colonists were from England and witnessed or knew about the Glorious revolution and felt like they were mistreated the same way the people of England did at that time. Locke’s ideas played a major role in influencing the colonists to realize they were not being treated fairly and they had a right to fight for freedom to create their own
Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
...believed it kept many in bonds or slavery. While Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that freedom was attained by entering into a social contract with limits established by good will and community participation. Both theories would put restraints on personal property and capital creating ownership relinquished to the state. He believed that laws to protect citizens could not keep up with the changing economic environment. One could conclude that Marx and Rousseau’s theories were relatively close in the role that it plays between citizens and personal property ownership.
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live
John Locke and Socrates both have two distinctive and compelling arguments about what the social contract is. While government’s today extract ideas from both theories of the social contract, it’s is hard to determine which is the just and appropriate. While there is little comparison between the two theories other than fact that there must be a relationship between the government and the people for a society to exist, there are several opposing ideas in these arguments. First, the Socrates idea of an implicit social contract versus Locke’s explicit social contract. Secondly, Socrates believes laws make the society and in contrast, Locke believes society makes the law. Finally, Socrates believes the very few educated persons or minority