Locke Vs Rousseau

Although both agreed that man began in the state of nature, they had different ideas about what occurred during that time. In Rousseau’s state of nature, man’s problems were external (physical), not internal (moral). There was physical inequality; this was determined by differences in age, health, bodily strength, and mental capabilities. In the state of nature, only those that were well equipped survived the harsh weather and the challenges of the differing seasons. Children followed their parents examples by learning how to defend themselves against animals and obtain the necessary nutrients from food sources. He proceeded to explain the advantages and disadvantages of civil society. The savage man only knew how to use his body to survive …show more content…
Jealousy, envy, greed and other vices soon developed. Conversely, Locke bases the governing principles of the state of nature on biblical values. he believed people were obligated to protect each other’s interests, even when not under the law, because all were created equally by God. This also gave people the right to punish those that violated God’s law by endangering another’s life, liberty, or possessions. Moreover, the two disagree on morality. Rousseau believed that as man evolved from savage to civilized, morality developed. He explained that man restricts his physical freedom (his behavior) for civil freedom, which is the capacity to think rationally. Thinking rationally allows us to control our impulses, which leads to morality. Man is free to be rational and moral in civilized society. Locke, however, believed that people had a moral law in the state of nature; this is what allowed them to form social contracts to create civil societies (and governments). Furthermore, an interesting difference in their discussion of the state of nature is that Locke tied in the state of war, whereas Rousseau brought up war later on in his …show more content…
As mentioned, Rousseau believed that society created inequality; he believes this inequality is illegitimate because it is based on social constructs. Whereas physical inequality can be justified, since there is clear evidence of the differences in strength, health, age, etc. He also believed that the social contract must be obeyed, and it is not, citizens may be punished with death. While Locke mentioned the state of war in the beginning of his discourse, Rousseau explains the state of war in while defining civil society. He said that the origin of wars is civil society; they only began after men divided themselves into societies. The difference between conflict in the state of nature and conflict in civil society is that in the state of nature only the two people (or animals) fighting died, whereas in wars thousands can be wiped out in a day. Moreover, the two keys of Rousseau’s government is the sovereign and the general will. The sovereign is the grouping of all citizens in a given society; it can be thought of as an individual person because it is distinct from the people. The sovereign dictates the general will, which always aims for the common good. The general will are the laws of the society. He went on to explain that different governments formed to meet different needs; the three forms of government are monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. If one

Show More