Rousseau argues excellently for amour-propre’s role in establishing an unjust society and overall inequality. Rousseau explains in depth how amour-propre effects human behavior and how it ultimately leads to the establishment of inequality in civilized society.
Rousseau begins his theory by introducing the two sentiments that humans are subjected to, amour-de-soi and amour-propre. Amour-de-soi is an unfettered, personally derived, love of one’s self. A love that is derived from one’s own idea of what it means to be human and to be alive, a feeling of self-preservation. On the contrary, amour-propre is a self-love derived from what others think of you. This type of self-love is formed by the opinions of others and is entirely destructive to
…show more content…
Being that a human wants to be held in a higher esteem than another human in the same society, he also wants to be valued more, thus establishing inequality. At this point amour-de-soi is not entirely out of the picture but almost entirely obsolete. The place where humans went wrong, in terms of solidifying their own demise, is when they began to rely on each other, rather than rely on themselves for sustenance, the introduction of metallurgy and agriculture accentuates this. Once metallurgy and agriculture arise the small physical inequalities that were not a problem before are taken advantage of. A stronger person is able to plow and harvest the fields and therefore are more able to exponentially abuse their advantage over time. Now that humans are able to harvest land deduction leads humans to claim the lands as their own, thus the need for laws and justice. Progress and technology put some ahead of others and also creates divisions within a particular society. Harmful artificial inequalities follow from benign natural inequalities. Amour-propre’s role in founding inequality is solidified in the last part of Rousseau’s theory with the foundation of society. Because the rich have an illicit incentive to harm others, but have the most to lose from constant war, they are able to seduce the
Second Treatise of Government by John Locke and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau are books written to try and explain the origin of society. Both try to explain the evils and inequalities of society, and to a certain degree to discuss whether man in his natural state is better than man in society. These political science based theories do not appear, at first, to have anything in common with J. Hector St. John De Crèvecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer, which are letters written by Crèvecoeur during the settling of America and the beginning of the American Revolution, however with examination we can see reflection of both Locke’s and Rousseau’s ideas about things such as human nature, government, and inequality.
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.
...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 his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
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.
In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the poor.
Rousseau and Aristotle both believe that some people are naturally superior to others and together they create a well-rounded understanding of how superiority complexes are justified. While Aristotle believes that this implies that men are better than woman and the horribly disfigured (or slaves), Rousseau feels humans have evolved so much over their history that “civil” humans are naturally
If scholarship is done right, it is that which is done impartially. The topic of this paper, the perfect woman, written by a man, may give those with prejudgments a ready answer to it; without the due analysis required by it. Reading both authors now, it is easy to bash Rousseau with sexism and stamp Wollstonecraft with feminism. But such was not my task, rather I examined both with an unprejudiced eye to the best of my ability. Thus, I hope the same is reciprocated by my reader, and take my interpretations and criticisms with the same impartial mind. To begin, then, my argument, I assert that although Rousseau and Wollstonecraft effect disparate views on the best education for women, the supposed disagreement of their model of the perfect woman is specious; their concept of the human species and its purpose is truly in contention.
While Rousseau praises the purity and freedom of humans in the state of nature, he favors civilization’s stage of development into the “hut society” stage and views contemporary society as a corruption of human virtue. Hut society significant inequality as people remained independent without the division of labor. Rousseau describes hut society as “A golden mean between the indolence of the primitive state and the petulant activity of our vanity” (150-151). He sees hut society as having the best of both worlds; limited in its vanity, but also enough so that people enjoy the company of others and are at least somewhat productive.
From his figurative window, Rousseau sees a Europe ravaged by conflicts resulting from supposedly peaceable and civilized institutions (111). He posits that the essentially problematic flaw, the cause of conflict, is a contradiction in modes of relating: while individuals live within a framework of enforced norms ("l...
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
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...
The socioeconomic condition and status of a person greatly impacts whether or not love will be reciprocated. That is evidenced by the story of “Désirée’s Baby”, by Kate Chopin and the poems “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love”, by Christopher Marlowe and “The Nymph’s Reply to the Shepherd”, by Sir Walter Raleigh. All these literary works relate love with socioeconomic status and how love is subordinated to society’s norms.
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
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx both had the similar notion that property was the root of inequality, even though they both lived in different eras. Rousseau, who lived during the 18th century, was a staunch proponent of the idea that property gave rise to inequality, due to its unequal distribution. Similarly, Marx, who lived during the 19th century, contended that property gave rise to inequality because it created a class conflict between that of the upper class bourgeoisie, and the working class proletariat. However, for Rousseau, there was an underlying force that gave rise to property and that was amour propre. In simplest terms, amour propre is the vanity and self-love that leads one to seek personal gain, even if it may be at the expense of others (Rousseau 63). Rousseau argued that amour propre and private property were the sources of inequality because they drove man away from his natural state where he was equal amongst others.