Rousseau's State Of Nature And Freedom

Improved Essays
Jean-Jacques Roussseau who was born in Geneva in 1712 is seen as the philosopher of liberty both spiritual and ethical. He saw the human world as a product of human intelligence. He generally believed that human beings were born good but the evils in society quickly corrupted them. Evils such as power politics, insecurity and immorality were all human creations and could simply be overcome by human will. Despite all the negativity created by humans, Rousseau still strongly believed that any evil could be redeemed through the reconstitution of the state on ethical principles (Boucher& Kelly, 2009). Rousseau attempts to explore what it entails to live a good life. Through his findings, he asserts that freedom is central to being human (Levine, 2002). Rousseau believes that “ the state of nature is neither a social nor a moral condition since nature gives us no …show more content…
This section focuses on Rousseau’s ideas of the state of nature and freedom.

Rousseau argued that human beings are ‘born free’ meaning that they are morally autonomous agents. In regimes of private property, they became un-free as the imperatives of rational accumulation increasingly governed what they did (Levine, 2002). He began his exploration into the human condition with the isolated individual in the state of nature. However, he believed that they could be a difficulty in using the idea of a state of nature because those who employ it project characteristics found only in society upon men in their original condition. As a result of this, the state of nature was simply a hypothesis to him. He went ahead to dismiss Hobbes idea that men were self-seeking and competitive by nature and in the absence of goodness in the state of nature men are naturally evil. Rousseau notes that one of the main problems humans face is that although they want to be free, they also want the advantages of living in society because it is only as a citizen that man can fulfil

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    With this famous expression, Rousseau asserts that modern states repress the physical freedom that is our birthright and do very little to secure our civil freedom. It should be stated that there’s a difference between natural and civil liberty: natural liberty is the freedom to pursue one’s own desires whereas civil liberty is the freedom to pursue the general will. In Rousseau’s Social Contract, the general will is an important concept and it is defined as the will of the people as a whole. It cannot be transmitted and it is always right. To put the general will in context, human beings would act according to the general will if we were not depraved by society.…

    • 1793 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He was of the opinion that people are born with rights, which they then resign to the sovereign in return of protections, this was known as a social contract. He thought that men were selfish and cruel and only acted in their own self-interests. He did not think that men could be trusted to rule themselves and that an absolute ruler was necessary to maintain civil societal order; the purpose of government was to uphold justice, law, and order. For Locke, he was more in favor of a democratic form of government. Locke believed that individuals were born with certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the right to property).…

    • 1322 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Lockes’ view is more accurate because humans do have the flaws of Hobbes and the aspirations of Rousseau. The governmental structure that Locke developed from his concept of the state of nature balances Rousseau’s complete freedom with Hobbes’s potentially oppressive…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    His guidelines to morality allow for a paradoxical course where a seemingly immoral act such as a suicide bomber can completely coincide with ethical principles within the guidelines he has set. The person evil in a case such as this would be a complex evil centered within the self but not realized with the self. The consequences do not matter to Kant. The ability to choose whether or not a person will act on what they know to be morally right and posit that into a universal maxim is the true meaning of freedom according to Kant. And this ability to choose which makes us free also makes us responsible.…

    • 1002 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rousseau believes that men are inherently good while Locke believes men are neutral, they start off blank and can be manipulated through experiences into being good or bad. People find comfort in believing what Rousseau believes, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau §1). Rousseau blames government for the corruption of men, convinced that without/before government humans were free and would do good by one another. Frey, who wrote a critical analysis of Rousseau’s work, agrees that “society breeds inequality and selfishness because society involves the acquisition of power and private property” (Frey). Locke thinks that humans are neither good nor bad, they determine how they want to live.…

    • 1331 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    His reasoning for this is that he feels the “natural state” of man is to live without government, so there should only be government to alleviate the problems of man. If a government fails in this task, it is blameworthy. And in this is where he finds his foundation for rebellion. Tying in with this is another recurring theme of “natural state.” Many parts of Common Sense detail imagined “natural states” in…

    • 1328 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The description of the state of nature is only a prelude to political theories concerning the ideal political system for humans to live in. On one hand, Rousseau depicted natural man as solitary and peaceful as he illustrated how man is tainted as he becomes societal via the process of moving into society. To him, society is the corrupting force that transforms ‘natural man’ into the self-obsessed beast that Hobbes declares he is. He does not deny Hobbes’ concept of state of nature but declares it incorrect and gives it his own significant meaning. For Rousseau, reverting back to the state of nature is much more than the removal of government or authority.…

    • 1051 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In my opinion Hobbes hits the nail right on the head that people, in general, are inherently selfish. In Dan Carnegie’s novel How to win friends and influence people he states, “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.” He, like Hobbes, believes that people are motivated by a longing to feel important. Even when people do charity work or any form of philanthropy it is motivated by individuals wanting to feel appreciated. This is a form of vanity that we as normal human beings cannot avoid. Just like any other animal, whether we realize it or not, are driven by our own self interests.…

    • 1374 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    According The Love of Wisdom existentialism is “a school of philosophy that rose to prominence in the mid- twentieth century, which denies that there is a fixed human nature. This implies that humans are radically free and must define life’s meaning in light of their own goals and desires. “(Cowan and Spiegel, 2009) Existentialism is the belief that our pure existence of being is free and only we can determine how our intentions develop. The main point of existentialism is freedom to be anything we as humans want to be. Free will is a huge part of existentialism just based on the definition alone we know that people require free will in order to determine who we would like to be.…

    • 2011 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Rousseau places a great deal of importance on the common good and therefore somewhat rejects personal freedoms. He believes that in order to be a part of the Social Contract, in which he believes man is free, personal freedom must be ignored. In the state of nature, man is free to indulge in their personal needs and freedoms and therefore must be disregarded in order to unsure the common good. If an individual disagrees with the majority, they are inherently wrong and should be forced to obey the general will. Rousseau states, “whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire community” (Rousseau, 150).…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays