John Lock´s Theories of Human Nature vs. Jean-Jacques Rousseau´s Theories

1256 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Examine jean jacques rousseau's social contract theory uk essays

My Superior Theory

Every day I come across other individuals who believe their opinions are superior to mine. It is petty to see the minds of hundreds of individuals trying to prove me wrong, when all they do is misrepresent the current facts of nature. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes his theories on human nature and social contract are superior to mine, however through years of analyzing human nature I can conclude my theories are superior. First of all, let it be known that my theories are based upon years of witnessing and investigating the true nature of humans and the social contract, so it is unthinkable to believe Rousseau’s unjust theories. Most of my logic behind human nature can be found in my writings, The Two Treatises of Government, where I discuss the roles of citizens and the sovereign in my political philosophies. Let us begin by comparing our opinions on that State of Nature, because to understand political power, we must first understand the state that men are naturally in and their origin (Locke, 262).

The State of Nature is a state of complete freedom for an individual to go about his or her life as they see fit. Yet, they don't have absolute freedom, they cannot do anything at all that they please. In my book I said, “"to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature” (Locke, 262). Humans have no government or rulers of any sort to dictate the individual’s needs and desires. One cannot be punished for doing as he pleases, because the individual only obeys himself and the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature is similar to your morals, humans resist from harming others and only take what they need. This is why, in the State of Nature, ...

... middle of paper ...

...orrupted by its sovereign and society, the civilization of fall apart by itself and then reenter the state of nature or war it was once in, until a more just and fit means of government is formed.

Although Rousseau uses just reasoning to shape his theories, he accounts for way too many assumptions. Even in a State of Nature, humans are willing to harm other individuals when the laws of nature are broken. When people are ready to create a just and civil government, they are more willing to give up their personal liberties when offered the incentive of protection. When creating a government, it is more productive to make use of representatives and avoid a direct democracy in order to prevent chaos and be as productive as possible. Using years of experience analyzing human nature I can conclude that my approach to the realities and means of government are superior.

Show More
Related

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Napoleon

    1289 Words  | 3 Pages

    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)

    Read More

  • Rousseau Influence On American Government

    1225 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau states “ Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” and “A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.” Rousseau’s impacts on American government include his position that people are what make a nation. Buildings and seats do not decide whether or not one votes, that is the role of people. What Rousseau means by bring the people into chaos is that the people must think for themselves and not just let those who are deemed more educated decide for them. As America is a Democratic Republic, the root word democracy is used, which means that the majority of the country’s wishes must be thought of and respected. He also believes that while an individual 's ideas must be recognized, they must stand down to ensure the majority 's vote is respected. This is shown in the way we vote, and the way that congress passes bills. Americans have a voice, but when the majority speaks, it is done. While the representation of the people is appreciated, the appointed representative must make sure that his ideas are in alignment with those whom he represents. When one who is placed in a position of authority over a select group of people does not respect their will, he loses his title of representative and just becomes one and of

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Marx (The Communist Manifesto) and Rousseau

    2059 Words  | 5 Pages

    The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.

    Read More

  • Marx And Rousseau Essay

    1102 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau, Jean Jacques. 1761. Of the Social Contract, Or, Principles of Political Right. Edited By NK Singh. Global Vision Publishing.

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    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”.

    Read More

  • Analysis: We Can Force People To Be Free

    2204 Words  | 5 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Rousseau's Theory Of Alienation

    1222 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    The second law of nature is derived directly from the first. It insists that man lay down his right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men liberty against himself,” (Leviathan 1, 14). Essentially, in the state of nature, a man has a right to all things. By following this second law of nature, a man gives up certain rights in hopes that other men do the same in pursuit of peace with one another.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract Theory

    891 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rousseau argues that the citizens should be the ones who create the law when living in that particular society. He says “Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association. The people, being subject to the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it.” Since the law is aimed at the citizens and punishments would oblige if not obeying to the law, it would simply be more accurate if the citizens themselves would create the law to make obedience simpler.

    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 John Lock´s Theories of Human Nature vs. Jean-Jacques Rousseau´s Theories

Open Document