Locke & Rousseau Paper - Grade: B+ PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay on Locke and Rousseau...

Description

David Hodges GVPT 241 Glass – Augustson 4/18/16 Human Nature, Equality & Property There has been a long standing debate about the fundamentalist ideas of capitalism versus socialism. Is equality good? Should everyone be equal? Should others be allowed to be “more equal”? What does equality or lack thereof lead to? John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s writings “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on The Origin of in equality” are pieces of literature which tackle the ideas of Human Nature, Equality, and Private property, and more specifically how they relate to the way states should be governed. Locke focuses on human nature, and advocates for the right of men to own private property, and have their property rights protected, because of the innate human desire to be happy, a feeling which comes from acquiring more. Rousseau contrastingly argues for the common good of all people, and dismisses private property, because of the inequality that is produced because of it. In this Essay we will examine the pros and cons of both philosophers’ views and come to find that Locke’s view on Human Nature is the most and Property are the most sensible, compared to Rousseau’s, while Rousseau has a better take on equality.

Locke makes a lot of sense when discussing Human nature, and how it relates to inherent desires to gain as individuals, resulting in the world we know today. Locke believes, God created human’s as beings that will do whatever is necessary to avoid discomfort while doing what’s necessary to achieve happiness. As it relates to human nature, what Locke says makes sense because once our basic needs (food, water, shelter etc.) are fulfilled, us humans do tend to seek

out entities that will improve the overall quality of our lives and satisfy desires, and as long as our pursuit of happiness isn’t negatively impacting someone else, than it is acceptable. This idea is supported by this quote “That being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” (Locke, 117). In addition to that, the idea that Humans have a desire for acquisition this is even supported by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which states that after satisfying basic necessities, our desires shift to things such as property and wealth. Rousseau’s illustrates the idea that in nature the only things human need are the basic essentials of survival, implying that anything more is a luxury and not needed in society. Rousseau says “Every man has naturally a right to everything he needs; but the positive act that excludes him from everything else”(Rousseau, 214). This basically reiterates Rousseau’s point that the only thing men are entitled to are things for survival and that is what the governing body of the state should ensure for all. This is flawed for a number of reasons. For one, when the resources available for survival are limited, who gets to lay claim to those resources since every man is entitled? As a result of this wouldn’t a conflict ensue and there be a fight for that gets what? This is one aspect of human nature that is not accounted for. Secondly, Rousseau references how Arabs were conquered by Barbarians over an idealistic difference. Again, wouldn’t this show that is human nature to want to conquer? These type of desires cannot be this be suppressed just because the basic needs are satisfied. In Rousseau’s argument, he fails to realistically account for the how impactful human’s needs outside survival are, which is a reason why Locke’s ideas trump his In terms of human nature, it just seemed Rousseau was a little lazy in his theory which is why I side with Locke.

Locke makes a strong point when he draws on the idea that, the state needs to punish anyone who commits a transgression against someone. In essence, Locke understands Human Nature and the state of nature, and sees no issue with man pursuing happiness as long as he doesn’t violate anyone else natural rights; which then if he does it is the State’s job for punishment as even in nature should be allowed liberty. He details that sentiment with this quote

“Every man upon this score by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general may restrain where its necessary, destroy things noxious to them and so may bring such evil to anyone, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like Mischief” (Locke, 118). This idea that man has the right to pursue happiness, and be punished if that pursuit harms someone else for the good of mankind, is expressed, and is a rational solution for Human Nature. Locke accounts for, the different factors in human nature, meanwhile Rousseau expects people to be content with just conditions needed for existence, which isn’t realistic.

Private Property, an a topic Rousseau engages in a negative discourse about, condemning the whole idea of it. When it comes to private property, Rousseau is adamant that all things of the land should be communal and no man should stake claim to anything other than what he needs. In essence, Rousseau is against private ownership because, he believes people begin serving personal interests and care less about the common good. Rousseau’s main belief is that when private property comes a common thing, it is the duty of the state to redistribute wealth, and

property to the people. It is said “Become property in the hands of the sovereign; but as forces of the city are incomparably greater than those of the individual, public possession is also in fact stronger and more irrevocable” (213, Rousseau). Rousseau’s belief is that society will function best with a communist like state and this where I object. “Every Man naturally, has a right to everything he needs; but the positive act which makes him proprietor of one thing excludes him from everything else” (214, Rousseau). He states, basically saying in society no man should own anything. But, without ownership where is the motivation for innovation? There isn’t any. Where are the creations of jobs? There aren’t any. How does a society advance economically, and technology wise? They don’t. And for these reasons, I disagree with Rousseau, because without ownership of anything, or there is little incentive in life and people are basically living to survive and inevitably die. Rousseau advocates socialism, and socialism does not work for an extended periods of time. China is a great example. When China started becoming more capitalist, and allowing private ownership, their economy boomed, as their GDP grew 10% every year since the 70’s. In addition to that, China became a world leader in goods production, as a result their influence has expanded and they have become one of the top two dominating nations in the country. Prior to this, china was a generally isolated nation who was poor, with citizens facing starvation.

I agree a lot more with Locke’s stance on Private Property, because he offers insight into why it is good for progression. Locke, like me, understood that with money came incentive and growth, whereas Rousseau thought money becoming the source of wealth was one of the worst things that could happen. Locke understands some of the benefits of having property, and the economic

opportunities that can arise for many because of property ownership. Locke expresses how money allows for the exchange of goods flawlessly with this quote. “Thus came the use of Money, some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but perishable supports of life’’(Locke, 138). Locke also makes reference to how America came about, and the role trade and money played in the formation of America. Without money private property and ownership, there would be no America as we know it. Although I favored Locke’s positions on Property and Human Nature, Rousseau’s stance on inequality is a lot more rational and agreeable to me. Rousseau argues that after private property is established, there will be jealously, which leads to competition, which eventually leads to inequality, and he is correct. History supports his thesis, especially when it relates to early 20th century Europe’s “scramble for Africa”. All of these countries were eager to extort Africa of its resources so they could obtain the most wealth, and as a result genocide, abuse, and oppression of the lower class occurred. Although there are economic benefits to private property, there are ramifications which do in fact lead to inequality, and violates the said natural rights of man. Rousseau states “I conceive two species of inequality among men….moral or political inequality because it depends on a kind of a convention and is established, or at least authorized by the common consent of mankind” (22). This type of inequality Rousseau discusses is the type that is allowed by the people, and orchestrated by the government. He is speaking on the nature of capitalism, in which the pursuit of wealth, does in fact lead to the disenfranchisement of other

groups, and this type of inequality is bad. Locke argues that the type of opportunity allowed in a capitalist society is good for everybody because it allows social mobility, but the fact remains that those at the bottom have a far more difficult time progressing, and this is because of the greed and exclusion by those at the top of the hierarchy. Rousseau argued that if everyone were on the same level, with no ownership or opportunity to advance socio-economically, this inequality would be non-existent. That idea is exemplified in this quote. “The simplicity and uniformity that prevails in the animal and savage life, where all the individuals make use of the same alignments, live in the same manner, and do exactly the same things, we shall easily conceive how much the difference between man and man in the state of nature must be less than in the state of society, and how much every inequality of institution must increase the natural inequalities of the human species” (Rousseau, 496). Although, unlike Rousseau I wouldn’t necessarily support taking all public property and redistributing it, I would support some type of reform that prevents man from stepping on man in the name of personal gain. Both Rousseau and Locke made valid arguments as it relates to human nature, private property, and inequality. Based on the aforementioned texts, it is clear that I have come to agree with Locke when it relates to human nature, and private property and Rousseau as it relates to inequality. All in all, Private property and ownership can be good, and it is in humans to naturally

want more, but when that desire and ownership leads to inequality, and specifically oppressed classes, that is where the problem arisies, and it is necessary for reform.

Works Cited Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government. London: Printed for R. Butler, etc., 1821; Bartleby.com, 2010. www.bartleby.com/169/. [Date of Printout].

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Social Contract & Discourses. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1913 (KINDLE VERSION) Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Christopher Kelly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Discourse on the Origins of Inequality (second Discourse) ; Polemics ; And, Political Economy. Hanover, NH: (KINDLE VERSION)...