Rousseau's Natural State Analysis

493 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: On the Social Contract rousseau

In political theory we have covered readings of many authors that all have their own opinions on how a government should be run and what the purpose of having a government is. Most of the political theorists we have read about inform us of a person’s natural state or how they act while not among a civil society. In the natural state that each political theorist creates, he is able to create his hypothesis of how a government should be setup in the transition from a natural state to a civil society. Whether to preserve the natural state of man or to place laws against man’s natural state is the main question for the political theorist. I believe that Rousseau does the best job of answering this question because of his creation of the social
When a man attempts to gain everything he desires, he enslaves himself under his own natural rights. Rousseau states that “Men are not naturally enemies, if only for the reason that, living in their primitive independence, they have no mutual relations sufficiently durable to constitute a state of peace or a state of war.” (pg. 160) Rousseau believes that in nature man also has no personal relations amongst people and they live to simply fulfill his desire to what he wants. For example, if a man was in possession of the last apple that another man wanted, the one man would attempt to steal the apple. The attempt to steal the apple is not in an act of competition but to obtain what he wants. A person in nature does not have the right to property so he is unable to become more powerful with the possession of an object. Once a person moves from their natural state to a civil society he is placed under Rousseau’s social contract. Rousseau states that “man is born free, everywhere he is in chains.” (pg. 156) A free man who swears into the social contract is now restricted under the “chains” created by the general will of the people. The general will is the rational idea of how a persons behavior should be guided. A man no longer acts upon what his natural urges and instead makes his decisions in the favor of the general

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

  • Hobbes Vs Rousseau Social Contract Essay

    572 Words  | 2 Pages

    Social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau

    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

  • 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

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

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.

    Read More

  • Comparing Rousseau And Mill On Liberty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not delve as far back as Rousseau does and he begins his mission of finding a way to preserve people’s liberty in an organized society by looking to order of the ancient societies of Greece, Rome and England (Mill 5). These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizen’s were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mill’s conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will.

    Read More

  • Analysis: We Can Force People To Be Free

    2204 Words  | 5 Pages

    In the Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the idea of forced freedom. “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the entire body; which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free” (Rousseau, SC, Bk 1. Ch. 7). This forced freedom is necessary for a government that is run by the people and not a small group of few to one sovereign(s). For forced freedom allows a difference of opinions but the outcome is the idea with the greatest acceptance. Because political rule requires the consent of the ruled, the citizens of the state are required to take action within their community.

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    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

  • Rousseau Holds More Persuasive Than Roseau's

    1361 Words  | 3 Pages

    One particular aspect of Rousseau’s theory that the prompt criticizes is Rousseau’s naivety in regards to how human beings act when push comes to shove in reality, rather than in the abstract world of theory. Rousseau’s proposal that man is naturally good and yearns to live in a state of harmony fails to properly acknowledge that by doing so, man is putting himself in a position of uncertainty. This uncertainty lies in regards to whether his peers will act in a same manner or use his inaction to capitalize for their own personal gain. In his text, Rousseau describes the fall of his perceived natural utopian state of mankind as occurring when “The first person enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine” (Rousseau,44). The particular situation that Rousseau describes can be analogized as a prisoner’s dilemma situation. In this situation, all of mankind could default on taking any action for personal gain and all live in harmony; however, the first person who decides to reach out and go against the norm, for personal gain, stands to profit more than those who choose to remain idle. Rousseau’s theory acknowledges this occurrence as a singular event that altered the course of human nature, whereas Locke acknowledges that this uncertainty is persistent amongst human beings in every aspect of their

    Read More

  • Duties to Self and Society: A Rousseauian Perspective

    551 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rousseau: The Origins of Civil Society discusses the conventions of social order. In discussing the conventions of social order, Rousseau begins to describe the duties man owes to society and himself. These two duties often conflict with one another and can cause an individual to struggle with the choice of which comes first. Every single individual person has a duty to his/her self and society, from the minute you are born till after you die, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" (pr. 3, 59. -. My duty to myself and society differ vastly, my duty to society can be broken down into three groups: personal, local, and national.

    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 Rousseau's Natural State Analysis

Open Document