John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government

Locke's The Second Treatise of Civil Government: The Significance of Reason

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.

John Locke believed that the state “all men are naturally in ... is a state of perfect freedom” (122), a state in which they live “without ... depending upon the will of any other man” (122). It is called the “the state of nature,” and it is something that is within us at birth. The state of nature is a law made by God, called the Law of Reason. This law gives humankind liberty, freedom, and equality and stresses that no man “ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions” (123). According to Locke, the law of reason is the basis of man as well as society. It restrains men from infringing on the rights of others. In this state, there is no need for a central authority figure to govern the actions of people, for it is the people, themselves, who impose the “peace and preservation of mankind” (124). One can have perfect freedom as long as one does not disturb others in their state of nature; in this

“state of perfect equality ... there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another” (124). Men, thereby, have the power to “preserve the innocent and restrain offenders” (124) and punish those who transgress against them and disturb their “state of nature.” Thus, all men are their own “executioner[s] in the law of nature,” or the Law of Reason.

While all men are in charge of their own will according to the Law of

Reason in which they are born, some men do, in fact, break or reject this law, which causes them to enter into a state of war with the others. People reject the law of nature for many reasons, especially when their ideas and opinions differ. When people reject the law, two things can happen; the first is that one could enter into a state of war with someone else, and the other is that one could choose to enter into a state of society. It is reason that ultimately leads a person into the state of society through a social contrac...

... middle of paper ...

... Rousseau said that it is crucial to know how to live with others and how society, itself, works. It is important for the grown child to learn about the passions of others so he/she can prevent being deceived in the future by others. People must learn not through abstract reasoning, but through concrete reasoning, which allows them to recognize their limits, wills, and desires. Imagination would not be encouraged by Rousseau because it leads to creativity and technology, things which, inevitably, cause change. And in order for society to remain stable, change is simply not possible.

Rousseau saw something wrong with 18th-century society and morals. He suggested that we should stay away from conformity and binding ourselves into societies for as long as possible. But Locke did not feel this way. He thought that society was necessary to preserve the law of reason. To him, entering into the social contract should be done as soon as possible.

Independence and freedom were less important to Locke than they were to

Rousseau. Reason was less important to Rousseau than to Locke. The significance of reason, therefore, would be far more important to John Locke than to Jean-Jacques Rousseau.