For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORIES.
Term Paper ID:29244
Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Compares theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke.... More...
4 Pages / 900 Words
2 sources, 6 Citations,
MLA Format
$16.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Compares theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Type of society each man wants to create. Premise that equality is rooted in the state of nature and a civil society is needed to be secure. Question of how much freedom an individual should give up.
Paper Introduction:
The main factor that separates the social contract theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke has to do with the society each man wants to create and the obstacles each man wants to avoid. Rousseau was responding to the terrors of the French Revolution when he wrote his social contract theory. Locke wrote in less horrible conditions, but he was concerned with the King having too much power. Locke's social contract theory gives more freedom to the people than Rousseau does. This may be because Rousseau was more concerned with preventing another bloody revolution and less about political rights.
For Locke, equality is rooted in the state of nature. Individuals are equal in the state of nature, but the state of war in nature means that a civil society is necessary for there to be security. To Locke, individuals who move from nature to society willingly give up some of their freedom to the leader of the society. In return, they get back freedom from the war of nature and protection of property.
Up to that point, there is much more similarity than differences between Locke
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
In the state of nature, suchproperty could never be secure. For Rousseau, on the other hand, thereis no such right to revolution, and the argument that he uses to defend theunquestioned power of the sovereign seems absurd. What abouta father who murders his children, or beats his wife? Both agree that humanbeings must give up some of the freedom they had in nature in order to havean orderly society in which to live. He is not a kind of godto Locke, but is like "any other man" if he abuses his power and forces hiswill on the people. Did the people want Nixonto cover-up Watergate, or to secretly spy on citizens? To Locke, total equality was notgood because it included the war of the state of nature. Second Treatise of Government. London:Everyman, 2 . He argues thesovereign id the same as the father in a family. He speaks of men as herds of cattle (183). The leader "may be opposed,as any other man, who by force invades the right of another" (Locke 1 3). To Locke, individualswho move from nature to society willingly give up some of their freedom tothe leader of the society. Rousseau puts even more importance than Locke on private property,and the freedom man gives up to be secure in his property. He did not allow for the overthrowing ofthe leader, as Locke did. He sees theleader as having the power of the father in the family (Rousseau 182),while Locke says that the leader does not have such great power, as afather over a child (Locke 6).Rousseau believed that the rights of the people should be very limited toassure an orderly society, and that the leader should have great power.Much of his writing shows contempt for the people. In return, they get back freedom from the war ofnature and protection of property. This is aridiculous argument based in theory, not reality. Theysimply believes that the act of living in a civil society implied that theperson had agreed to give up some freedom for security and order. Locke argues that"the natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth,and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man" except for"that established, by consent, in the common-wealth" (Locke 17). Locke wrote in less horrible conditions, but he wasconcerned with the King having too much power. They are allowed in Locke's social contractto "oppose" the sovereign if he abuses his power. This may bebecause Rousseau was more concerned with preventing another bloodyrevolution and less about political rights. As stated, Locke believes that the people have the right to overthrowthe leader if he abuses his power. Mostimportant, he writes that property is more important than freedom: "Theright of property is the most sacred of all the rights of citizenship, andeven more important in some respects than liberty itself" (Rousseau 151).While he is associated with the French Revolution and its efforts torestore rights, Rousseau was more concerned with limiting those rights ifthey threatened to interfere with what he saw as an orderly society, andwith securing and protecting the rights of property owners to keep theirproperty in that orderly society. Work CitedLocke, John. Would he say that thefather cannot do anything contrary to the will of the children? For Locke, equality is rooted in the state of nature. Both Locke and Rousseau believe that one of the important reasons forcivil society is to protect private property. Finally, Rousseau believes the people should nothave the power to overthrow the leader, but Locke does believe they shouldhave that power if the leader abuses his power. Rousseau believes that people should have lessfreedom than Locke believes. The question is how strong the leader is to be, and what freedom thepeople are going to keep for themselves. Rousseau writes thatthose born slaves are meant to be slaves and in fact do not even wantfreedom (Rousseau 183). Locke recognizes the reality of politics, and allows that the peopledo not give up all their power. The examples arecountless where leaders' actions defied the popular will. Rousseau believes the leader should be morepowerful than Locke does. Indianapolis: Hackett,198 .Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Theydidn't say that each person signed a piece of paper giving away certainrights or all their rights in exchange for security of property. There are many similarities between the theories of the two men, butthey differ most importantly when Rousseau gives all power to thesovereign, and Locke lets the people keep the essential right to overthrowthe leader. Rousseau wasresponding to the terrors of the French Revolution when he wrote his socialcontract theory. They both believe that the state of nature forhumanity was one of great freedom, but because of the insecurity andconflict it was a freedom that was not worth very much. He is "formed wholly of the individuals who compose it"and therefore cannot "have any interest contrary to theirs." He does notneed to "guarantee" anything to his "subjects, because it is impossible forthe body to wish to hurt all its members" (Rousseau 194). The main factor that separates the social contract theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke has to do with the society each man wantsto create and the obstacles each man wants to avoid. Having security about one's property inexchange for giving up some freedom to the leaders of society is importantto both philosophers. Locke's social contracttheory gives more freedom to the people than Rousseau does. Again, the question is how much freedom is give up,and how powerful the leader will be, and if the people have any legal rightto overthrow the leader. Individuals areequal in the state of nature, but the state of war in nature means that acivil society is necessary for there to be security. It seems that he does notwant to come right out and say that the right to revolution would endangersocial order and property, so it cannot be allowed. Instead of beinghonest, he argues that the sovereign is not capable of doing anything thatis against the people, he cannot abuse his power, because he is the will ofthe people itself. Up to that point, there is much more similarity than differencesbetween Locke and Rousseau. Both men used the idea of consent to set up their civil society. The Social Contract and Discourses. There aredifferences in the amount of freedom that Rousseau and Locke grant to manin nature, but both agree that civil society with laws and a politicalsystem and a leader were necessary to give human beings security to livewithout being at war with one another all the time.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject