The concept of liberty was reestablished around the 17th century in the line of Modern Philosophy with John Locke as the father of such thinking. With “Natural Law” and the “Social Contract” as the foundation that expound individual rights, the extent of power and purpose of the government, the rule of law and the separation of powers, etc., he establishes the basis for early classical theory on liberty thinking. In the history of Western philosophy, some thinkers are just as crucial as Locke. Rousseau and Kant are two of the most outstanding figures: one being a forerunner during the French Revolution, and one being the pioneer of classical German philosophy; they both were celebrated for their keen thoughts, sagacious insights, and profound analysis. Through thorough study on their ideologies, it is not difficult to find …show more content…
At the beginning of the Social Contract, Rousseau states that, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau, 1762). This sentence perhaps shows the perplexed state of Rousseau’s subject under discussion: men supposedly are born to have certain right, but men cannot leave the natural state, and at the same time they are in some particular social relations.
At this point, Rousseau carries forward some of Locke’s ideologies in that Locke argued the natural law is an innate and inadvisable right of men. However, Rousseau does not remain at the same level of thought, instead, he tries to go beyond Locke’s idea of the natural right. According to Rousseau, in order for men to have social relations, they have to give up certain freedom, which logically means, underlying beneath Rousseau’s ideas, there are possibilities that men’s freedom could be strangled. Through establishing his own reasoning of the social contract, Rousseau tries to eliminate this
that ‘because you can force me to obey you, is it right that I should
...eing mandated for protection. Rousseau’s conception of liberty is more dynamic. Starting from all humans being free, Rousseau conceives of the transition to civil society as the thorough enslavement of humans, with society acting as a corrupting force on Rousseau’s strong and independent natural man. Subsequently, Rousseau tries to reacquaint the individual with its lost freedom. The trajectory of Rousseau’s freedom is more compelling in that it challenges the static notion of freedom as a fixed concept. It perceives that inadvertently freedom can be transformed from perfectly available to largely unnoticeably deprived, and as something that changes and requires active attention to preserve. In this, Rousseau’s conception of liberty emerges as more compelling and interesting than Locke’s despite the Lockean interpretation dominating contemporary civil society.
In a state of nature, each man, as the possessor of reason and free will, is cognitively independent and equal, and so, by implication, politically independent and equal (Braman 07). Locke knew that men were there own learning tools within themselves. Not only did they learn from there mistakes, which was known for centuries, but, they also grew from one another and took what they needed for there own well mental development (Braman 09) Just like mankind has been doing for as long as anyone can remember, they have been working there owns ways of life out for themselves and to learn from one another and not from someone or something telling you how you should be living.
Consequently, since all human beings have certain moral rights to health, liberty, and possessions; they also have the right to enforce the protection of those rights by way of punishing violators. And it is in this maintaining of ones own rights that it is necessary for man to initially come together and form a social contract. By forming a social contract they are agreeing to sustain from living purely in a state of nature. According to Locke, living in such a state of nature is ‘inconvienent’, for there is no common ground by which to appropriately judge an individual who infringes upon another person natural rights (Christman 43). Therefore, one can not ‘effectively enjoy’ their own rights until they join under a ‘common political authority’ (44).
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
First, I outlined my arguments about why being forced to be free is necessary. My arguments supporting Rousseau’s ideas included; generally accepted ideas, government responsibility, and responsibility to the government. Second, I entertained the strongest possible counterargument against forced freedom, which is the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Lastly, I rebutted the counterargument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. In this paper I argued in agreement Rousseau that we can force people to be
The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In his Social Contract, Rousseau describes the transition from a state of of nature, where men are naturally free, to a state where they have to relinquish their naturalistic freedom. In this state, and by giving up their natural rights, individuals communise their rights to a state or body politic. Rousseau thinks by entering this social contract, where individuals unite their power and freedom, they can then gain civic freedom which enables them to remain free as the were before. In this essay, I will endeavour to provide arguments and examples to conclude if Rousseau provides a viable solution to what he calls the 'fundamental problem' posed in the essay title.
The Founding Fathers of the United States relied heavily on many of the principles taught by John Locke. Many of the principles of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government may easily be discovered in the Declaration of Independence with some minor differences in wording and order. Many of the ideas of the proper role of government, as found in the Constitution of the United States, may be discovered in the study of Locke. In order to understand the foundation of the United States, it is vital that one studies Locke. A few ideas from Hume may be found but the real influence was from Locke. Rousseau, on the other hand, had none.
In his essay, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau attempts to explain the relationship between the formation of political and social institutions and the state of human nature. Before going into depth regarding the state of human nature, Rousseau starts by first demonstrating the first crucial steps in human evolution and the effects these steps had on the development of inequality. Rousseau believes that the combination of these concepts are important to understanding where we came from, who we are now as a society and what our society will resemble in the future.
Several people have attempted to answer the above questions among them Rousseau, the writers of French Revolutionary documents, the authors of the United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and Hume in the context of morality. All persons seem to agree that man is born with some semblance of "natural rights" though they disagree on exactly what these rights are and their relevance. They also see the need for society and social contracts, yet they argue the point on exactly what should be included in such contracts and their conditions. ...
To understand the Rousseau stance on claims to why the free republic is doomed we must understand the fundamentals of Rousseau and the Social Contract. Like Locke and Hobbes, the first order of Rousseau’s principles is for the right to an individual’s owns preservation. He does however believe that some are born into slavery. His most famous quote of the book is “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau pg 5). Some men are born as slaves, and others will be put into chains because of the political structures they will establish. He will later develop a method of individuals living free, while giving up some of their rights to...
Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born
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
...gainst the state and the general will. Rousseau contends that, “every offender who attacks the social right becomes through his crimes a rebel and traitor to his homeland” (Rousseau 65). Once this offense has been undertaken, the criminal is longer a member of society and is now viewed as an enemy. The state’s preservation is at odds with the preservation of the offender and therefore the offender must be put to death. Also, Rousseau feels that the danger of members trying to enjoy the benefits of civil society without performing their required duties is a serious threat to civil society. Such actions must be constrained by all other citizens and offenders to this agreement must be “forced to be free” (Rousseau 55). This is a rather paradoxical argument as the idea of forcing someone to be free hardly works in most people’s definition of freedom. What is essential to remember here is that Rousseau believes that the true form of freedom can only come about once an individual enters civil society and accept the terms of the social contract. Therefore by forcing someone to adhere to society’s order, you are really granting them with civil freedom, the most important freedom of all.
Rousseau like Hobbes and lock distinguished between what is natural and what is constructed by society. He argues that other philosophers do not go back far enough in describing the state of nature, Hobbes and Locke describe civilized, competitive men corrupted by civilization, rather than describing true natural state of humans. Even though Rousseau acknowledges that the state of nature is a hypothetical idea he believes that one must explain how life was before society in order to really understand and know how to construct a fair and equal society.