In examining Locke and Rousseau's views, they share a common desire for a civil society and have similar needs, however, the two differ in their reasoning behind their ideal societies. Ultimately, they both define their political views to protect their particular society as a whole, including people's personal rights such as property and individual protection. They vary through their views of equality and its role as a necessity in a functioning society. As demonstrated through the philosophies of Locke and Rousseau, our conception of the nature of man shapes the way we understand society, and the extent to which it, thus, affects the various forms of the state of nature. As a result of their varying core values of human nature, Locke and Rousseau's
…show more content…
Locke's government specifically directed itself towards protecting and maintaining a man's property. It goes to show that Locke favors the idea of protecting a person's property over their life and liberty. Revealing in the Second Treatise of Government it shows that protecting one's property was the reason people in the state of nature allowed themselves to consent to governing. Locke still had similar ideas to Rousseau about equality, but Locke lacked the fact that to run a civil society, one must grant equality upon everybody considering it is a need that will show as functioning properly. Locke introduced separate ideas to what can happen with an individual's equal rights. Locke believed that everybody is equal among everyone without "subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty" (Locke 1). Throughout the Second Treatise of Government, Locke comes across as wanting to reason with a monarch …show more content…
To an understanding in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality that "the law had to be evaded in a thousand ways; inconveniences and disorders had to multiply continually in order to make them finally give some thought to confiding to private people the dangerous trust of public authority" (Rousseau 59). Although Rousseau's idea of a civil society took some developing, it still landed in the right outcome where equality among the people was the safest way to go, and not letting public authority rule their way of life. If this happened who knows how equality shows; it probably comes across as pure chaos. Ultimately, it goes to show that "unruly men [would] rush headlong into slavery" (Rousseau 59). There would be no protection to their being, they would simply be following Locke's idea of uncertainty where equality is presenting itself as an option. Locke proves to show that yes, his people do have equality of their life, liberty, and property, but, also, the right to "judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it" (Locke 46). Locke insists on proving the right to protecting one's property to be a part of the natural law as if owning
Locke's government specifically directed itself towards protecting and maintaining a man's property. It goes to show that Locke favors the idea of protecting a person's property over their life and liberty. Revealing in the Second Treatise of Government it shows that protecting one's property was the reason people in the state of nature allowed themselves to consent to governing. Locke still had similar ideas to Rousseau about equality, but Locke lacked the fact that to run a civil society, one must grant equality upon everybody considering it is a need that will show as functioning properly. Locke introduced separate ideas to what can happen with an individual's equal rights. Locke believed that everybody is equal among everyone without "subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty" (Locke 1). Throughout the Second Treatise of Government, Locke comes across as wanting to reason with a monarch …show more content…
To an understanding in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality that "the law had to be evaded in a thousand ways; inconveniences and disorders had to multiply continually in order to make them finally give some thought to confiding to private people the dangerous trust of public authority" (Rousseau 59). Although Rousseau's idea of a civil society took some developing, it still landed in the right outcome where equality among the people was the safest way to go, and not letting public authority rule their way of life. If this happened who knows how equality shows; it probably comes across as pure chaos. Ultimately, it goes to show that "unruly men [would] rush headlong into slavery" (Rousseau 59). There would be no protection to their being, they would simply be following Locke's idea of uncertainty where equality is presenting itself as an option. Locke proves to show that yes, his people do have equality of their life, liberty, and property, but, also, the right to "judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it" (Locke 46). Locke insists on proving the right to protecting one's property to be a part of the natural law as if owning