Rousseau's Strong Case For Inequality

While Rousseau’s argument makes a strong case for inequality, his reasoning is flawed. It is important to note that Rousseau is mainly concerned with two forms of inequality: natural inequality and moral inequality. While natural inequality is a result of physical differences and mental differences, including strength and intelligence, moral inequality occurs in civil society and includes inequalities in wealth and private property. It is important to note that Rousseau believes moral inequality occurs with people's consent. Furthermore, Rousseau asserts that,
“Moral inequality, authorized by positive right alone, is contrary to natural right whenever it is not exactly proportioned to physical inequality” (Rousseau, Discourse on the …show more content…
He emphasizes the separation of power between the legislative branch and the executive branch to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Locke prioritizes the legislative branch as it has, “A right to direct how the force of the commonwealth shall be employed for presenting the community and its individual members” (Locke, Second
Treatise, Chapter 12, p. 46). However, he also recognizes the importance of the executive branch as it enforces the laws. Both branches of government can only derive their power from the consent of the government. Additionally, Locke declares that, if a government no longer protects people’s private property and natural rights, it has broken its social contract with the people and is no longer legitimate. The people have a duty to rebel against this form of government and gain back their natural rights. Indeed, according to Locke, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins...”
(John Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 18, p. 66). However, it is important to note that the threat of revolution is profound and carries tremendous implications for the government. Thus, tyranny and rebellion will become