Comparison Of Jean Jacque Rousseau Theory Of Human Nature

685 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Division of labour adam smith critique

Jean Jacque Rousseau theory of human nature argues that life in modern civilizations compared to the life prior to society is horrible and blames the creation of private property for creating the feelings of animosity for not having what others have. His view of the state in turn is the same as the views of human nature of previous theorists, disastrously low. Rousseau believed the state instilled competition in humans and brought out the savages in them to be equal or even surpass them. Unlike many other theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw the flaws in the state that create chaos and havoc among the people claiming the state of nature was brutish and brought out the bad in people.

Of the many well-known theorists of modern political time Adam Smiths writings in The Wealth of Nations had contributed to the Scottish Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. This phase of European history was the rise of science, orientation of problem solving and the concept of the invisible hand and notion of the pin factor by Adam Smith. Adam Smith (1723-1790) had a similar view of human nature as others did, self-interested beings, but that was not his only view. He believed humans became extensions of machines in his most well known theory of Division of labor. In this work, Smith’s view of the state and economic life shapes his ideas of man.

The ideas of the enlightenment helped to shape the ideas of Adam Smith. Like Rousseau, Adam Smith based his idea of human nature around our sympathetic feelings for others. We base our moral ideas around the thought of what if everyone acted in the same manner we act, good or bad. Smith believed humans are by nature sympathetic but with the establishment of a system of exchange an invisible hand pushi...

... middle of paper ...

... The social contract of life is where freedom is sometimes met with coercion and man is forced into freedom, the essence of being free is the act of having freedom. In the state of individual will the state of affairs objectifies the general will and proves theories of man being selfish by nature to be true.

The ideas of human nature by political theorists of modern times have been shaped by their theory of the state and how they viewed the states relevance and role in society. From the theory of man being selfish and self interested with the use of force from the state to prevent man from his own self, to the idea that the state can bring out the savage in man is how many theorists expressed their thoughts to the public. These theorists spoke about different topics through experience and often were considered the enemy of the state for opposing man and the state.

Show More
Related

  • The Humanistic Tradition By Gloria Fiero's Chapter Summary

    727 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the Humanistic Tradition the author, Gloria Fiero introduces Adam smith as a Scottish moral philosopher, pioneer of political economy, and a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith also known as the Father of Political economy, is best known for one of his two classic works An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations. Fiero looks at Smith’s work because the division of labor is important. One thing Smith thinks is even more important for creating a wealthy nation, is to interact and have open trade with different countries. Fiero states,“It is necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter,

    Read More

  • Lord of the Flies

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Human nature has been debated for centuries, everyone coming up with their own theories, pulling their sources from religious texts, wars, experiments, or daily life. William Golding and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in very different times and countries were very opposite in their views compared to one another. William Golding believed that human nature was immoral and evil, and there has been evidence of this all the way to the beginning of human society. Without laws or moral boundaries, humans would plunder, steal, and murder to their hearts content, delighting in their new found freedom to let go of social philosophies imposed upon them. Rousseau, however, believed that human nature was naturally just and moral, and it was society’s laws that made them immoral. Social norms and laws create limitation and superfluous need, and it is within those boundaries that humans become enslaved to “moral inequality.” Without laws and social norms, humans will revert back to their natural goodness. It is the polar opposite of Golding’s belief. Golding’s philosophy, however, is more in line to my own, as in my opinion, Rousseau’s belief is a rather naïve outlook on life.

    Read More

  • Adam Smith Discourse On The Origin Of Inequality

    1181 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his work Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, gives his opinion on the topic of progression and how it has historically developed man from his natural state into a player in today’s civilized societies, including the economic structure and inequality that is present. Though, Adam Smith, based on his findings which he delineates in his works, Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiments, and Lectures on Jurisprudence, would take issue with Rousseau’s philosophy on several accounts. In the philosophical spectrum of Hobbes to Rousseau in the discussion of man in his natural state, Smith falls in the middle, as he tends to agree and disagree with both philosophers on various aspects of the debate. Following a close reading of the text, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Smith would be very critical of Rousseau and the ideas he expresses.

    Read More

  • Thomas Paine And Thomas Paine's Philosophy Of Justice

    1046 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau was known for his thoughts that humans are basically good and fair in their natural state but were often corrupted by the shared concepts and joint activities like property, agriculture, science, and commerce (Schmalleger, 2012). He felt that the social contract started when civilized people agreed to establish governments and systems of education that would correct the problems and inequalities that were brought on by civilization (Schmalleger, 2012). Rousseau believed in the formation of a social contract where the government system would fight off the corruption that was brought out. He felt that human rights should be applied to laws (Schmalleger,

    Read More

  • Dead Economists Summary

    1150 Words  | 3 Pages

    Let’s get started with Adam Smith and his second coming. Adam smith was one of the greatest economics minds that have ever existed, teaching us that our wealth is not just in gold and silver but in the products that we produce and commerce we engage in! Much like today we can understand the idea of Gross National Product and how we can better adjust our habits and ourselves. Smith unlike most economists of that age understood the value in hard work and social aspect behind our decisions.

    Read More

  • Essay On John Locke And Adam Smith

    616 Words  | 2 Pages

    Andy Smith J. Ward February 17, 2014 History 102 Revolutionary Thinkers Locke versus Smith John Locke and Adam Smith were critically acclaimed to be revolutionary thinkers and their thoughts and reasons have very good reasons backed up with ways to describe the Economy and the Government as inefficient or wrong in their Era of their lifetime. John Locke and Adam Smith are both believers that the government should be active in supporting social and political change in the economy. Both Locke and Smith’s thoughts can be equally said revolutionary in comparison, but in terms of what era they lived in and more history that has happened to see more mistakes to correct what happened and possible future outcomes for a clear revolutionary though I believe Adam Smith’s ideas were more revolutionary and his dominant ideas that have helped what we think is the way we do things in todays economy. Smith's influential work, The Wealth of Nations, was written based on the help with the country’s economy who based it off his book. Smith’s book was mainly written on how inefficient mercantilism was, but it was also written to explain what Smith thought was to be a brilliant yet complicated idea of an economic system based on the population and the social ladder.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different, even opposing, views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role in their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things are far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure.

    Read More

  • Rousseau’s: State of Nature and Social Contract

    1176 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau he describes what he believes is the state of nature and the social contract that humans form in civilizations. This discussion mostly takes place in his book called the “Social Contract”. The first area that will be covered is what Rousseau thinks is the state of nature. This will then be followed by what he believes is the social contract that humans enter to live in normal society or civilization. The last portion will be to critic and summarize his findings.

    Read More

  • Rousseau's View of Humanity

    1102 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.

    Read More

  • Hut Society In Rousseau's Theory Of Hut Society

    1179 Words  | 3 Pages

    He absolutely favors this stage over contemporary society for a multitude of reasons. These include the vanity and materialism promoted by other major enlightenment figures, as well as the rampant inequality in contemporary society. This inequality was the result of division of labor and property that required laws and powerful states to enforce them. Rousseau viewed hut society as a much more permanent state for humans than that of the state of nature, citing the existence of hut societies in his day. For Rousseau hut society, while it had its problems, still maintained much of the freedom and equality present in the state of nature making it the most appealing

    Read More

  • Golding vs. Rousseau

    1085 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher who lived in the Enlightenment. He was a very influential philosopher and “Thinker” he has written many books including The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Rousseau’s theory was in essence that humans were created naturally pure and innocent but over time and new technologies become more evil. He had thought that in the very first light of man he was completely innocent, a being who had no intention to harm anyone else. However as time progressed and the growing capacity for man increased and the

    Read More

  • Adam Smith Division Of Labour Analysis

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    The division of labour described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations is a product of individual self-interest. This is representative of Smith’s methodological, individualist interpretations of human nature. Adam Smith deduces that the division of labour is beneficial to the individual, as it is in one’s own interest to work less whilst still engaging in tasks that are to their own specialities. Highly specialized work is beneficial for nations to grow economically whilst allowing individuals to further pursue their own rational self-interest. To further explain the concepts that Smith proposes, I will first explain what rational self-interest is in regards to human nature and how the division of labour emerges from self-interest.

    Read More

  • Rousseau's Critique on Natural Man vs. Modern Man

    889 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...r than its basic needs. In addition, modern man is characterized by self-love or amour-propre. This love for his self and personal property turns man into an individual who thinks of himself in comparison with others. Arguably, therefore, modern man essentially forgot who he is as a human being. Further, humans have moved from aidez-moi, where we begin to look for man's help or subsistence, to aimez-moi, take me or help. Rousseau explores how because natural man has no moral relationships or obligations or social inequality, natural man's situation is better not only for him but society as compared to modern man. For that reason, we can return to the natural, more content state by simply lowering the bar of society in terms of expectations and morality.

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Hobbes Locke And Rousseau

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of

    Read More

More about Comparison Of Jean Jacque Rousseau Theory Of Human Nature

Open Document