Social Contract Theory Of Locke And Rousseau

Great Essays
This paper will examine the conflict between freedom and protection in the Social Contract Theory of Locke and Rousseau. It will defend Locke’s position that we leave the state of nature and give up our personal freedom in order to be protected in a society against Rousseau’s position that we give up our freedom only to receive the same freedom back from others amongst the society and therefore we are free and protected at the same time. Locke’s theory is more valid for the reason that when man enters a society, there are laws and regulations that must be followed in order to create that society; when man leaves the state natural freedom, man is no longer able to serve justice as he sees fit if laws are broken, an appointed official is the …show more content…
In a society, man is “denied a liberty to judge of, or defend his right” (L53), meaning that if someone harms him in anyway, an elected (or unelected in some instances) judge serves justice, and that judge is the one who determines the right of the man, not the man himself. Thus, that man is not free because what he thinks is right isn’t always what the judge thinks is right. Additionally, there have been additions to the law of nature added to create a civilized society that protect further people’s well being, such as drug laws. You are not free to do certain types of drugs, even though it is not hurting anyone else but …show more content…
If there were none of these rules, regulations, or standards, no one would be protected and therefore would not be in a society. People would be able to kill, rape, steal, etc. and it would be a dog eat dog world of self-preservation, which clearly is not the answer as Rousseau explains;
“But the self-preservation of each single man derives primarily from his own strength and from his own freedom. How, then, can he limit these without, at the same time, doing himself an injury and neglecting that care which it is his duty to devote to his own concerns” (R180).
There is no question weather we needed to enter a society to survive or not. That being said, Locke makes the more valid point, we must follow these rules, regulations, and standards, we are not free to do whatever we please, we are not free to our life we are charging at police armed, we are not free to our liberty to simply do anything we want, and we are not free to peruse our happiness if that happiness is against the laws that society has made. However, we are protected by the society that surrounds us and from other societies. We must remember that the laws and regulations are in place for a reason, to protect us, and that it is in our best interest to follow them. Man may be free to make choices but man is not free from their

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    On one hand, John Locke believed that the state of nature is unsatisfactory, the government was therefore formed by social contract since people agree to transfer some of their rights to a centralized government in order to secure enjoyment of their properties. (Locke, 1764) Obviously, the formation of the American government is an example to illustrate Locke’s idea. The United States government derives its legitimacy and legal authority from the consent of the majority…

    • 638 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Human behavior is defined as the array of every physical action and observable emotion associated with individuals, as well as the human race as a whole. In other words, our behavior is influenced by our emotions towards the things around us and our own self-interest. The root of our self-interest stems from the set of value society places on possessions. With that said, humans cannot be trusted to be productive in society due to out innate behavior and greed John Locke, an optimist during the Glorious Revolution, anonymously published the Second Treatise of Government in 1698; an essay that defines human rationality. The “state of nature” mentioned in this essay is a fantasy society where there is no government, perfect equality, and freedom.…

    • 679 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Trying to decide whether I am an objectivist or a relativist was a tough decision. Do I think people follow the same set or ethical codes and morals? Or do I believe that people’s morals and ethical codes depend on the individual person. After thinking about the both of those, I have decided that I am a combination of both an objectivist and a relativist, but I lean a little more towards the relativist side. A relativist is someone who has their own morals and ethics based on how they feel.…

    • 1627 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rousseau is wrong in his assertion about censorship and trying to control the court of public opinion, as people need freedom of thought and speech to advance ideas and keep ignorance from prevailing. Rousseau makes his argument in The Social Contract where he says we must not let the public opinion be in the hands of the people because it is the base of citizens’ morality and they will corrupt it. However, you cannot tell people how to think and advance a society on a subject because if you are wrong, then the society is stuck in a state of ignorance. Rousseau’s argument proposes that a ‘censorial tribunal’ be appointed to administer the public’s opinion to the people as though it were law.…

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau). This apparent paradox was the first sentence in The Social Contract, and shares Jean Jacques Rousseau’s thoughts on the balance between freedom and confinement, which we will see as an ongoing theme throughout the book. In other words, Rousseau theorizes about the best way to establish a political community while addressing the flaws of a government that implements natural authority and force. Rousseau’s political views can be best described as the natural goodness of humanity. From reading a few excerpts from The Social Contract, it is clear that Rousseau is trying to establish how freedom can be attained in a civil society.…

    • 1060 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mark Tunick’s ‘John Locke and the right to bear arms’ from the History of Political Thought will be the focus of this article review. The central argument that the article argues against is the frequently recurring view that according to Locke, “individuals have a right to bear arms for self-defence.” Tunick’s main response opposing this view is that the preservation of the society is the priority once the state of nature has been left and the focus is relocated on the collective. Although he concedes that there are instances in which it may seem that Locke allows the right to bear arms, such as where Locke clearly states that man may kill an aggressor when there is a lack of time to resort to the law, like in the state of war. He considers…

    • 805 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s theories, the state of nature is pre-political. It aims to explain the origin of the political order and the legitimacy of human society. Men in Locke’s theory give up their perfect freedom in the state of nature to secure the advantages of civilized society (Locke 495). The role of the government then is to protect the natural rights of all namely man’s property and liberty (Locke 493). According to Rousseau, men in their natural state have equality and liberty but they lose these when they enter the civil society.…

    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The specific thoughts of Rousseau and Mill on freedom, the significance of social contracts, individual versus social freedom, and government’s role…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    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.…

    • 1596 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rousseau, on the other hand, theorized that there were two types of inequality: natural and moral (1:1). Natural inequality is one which can easily be defined by age, health, strength, and the like (1:1). Moral, or political inequality, however, originates from society through the consent of man, and creates privilege or oppression of man based on possessions, money, honor and power; this idea is consistent with Smith’s observation of inequality (8/31). Before man was civilized he was in a primitive state and he was, according to Rousseau, the least social, the happiest, and the freest (8/31).…

    • 1128 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau present themselves as very distinct philosophers. They both use similar terms, such as, the State of Nature, but conceptualize them differently. In my paper, I will argue that Locke’s argument on his proposed state of nature and civil society is more realistic in our working society than Rousseau’s theory. At the core of their theories, Locke and Rousseau both agree that we all begin in a State of Nature in that everyone should be “equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection,” in which we are free with no government or laws to guide one’s behavior.…

    • 1297 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    The idea of freedom in Jean Jacque Rousseau’s The Social Contract (1762) is present throughout the book and Rousseau’s own, personal understanding of freedom underpins his argument for his ideal state. In this essay I will argue that individual citizens aren’t truly free in every sense in Rousseau’s state as the sovereign has complete dominion over public matters and due to the sovereign explicitly being composed of every citizen, this could lead to nearly every problem being deemed within the public realm. Furthermore, one cannot be individually free, in my opinion, when one cannot voice dissent against the prevailing convention of society, as is the case in Rousseau’s state. To argue this thesis effectively I will explore what freedom means…

    • 2188 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In it men have perfect and complete liberty to conduct their life as they best determine, free from the interference of others. However, this doesn’t mean that men are free to do anything they please, or even anything they assume to be on their interest. Although there is no authority or government to punish individuals for disobedience, the State of nature is not a state without morality. Beings are presumed to be equal to one another, and therefore equally capable of discovering and bounding by the Law of Nature provided by God. In Locke’s view, these laws established the basis of all morality and commanded that we respect others especially in regards to their “life, health, liberty, or…

    • 1284 Words
    • 6 Pages
    • 3 Works Cited
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    A reason why people aren’t free is because of fear. There is a saying in Hobbes philosophy which said, “Even the ‘weakest’ could kill the ‘strongest’ men are equal.” Locke believed in state of nature, men exist in complete freedom. Men are free to do whatever they desire. The state of nature…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Comparing Rousseau and Mill on Liberty In this essay, I would like to contrast and compare the concept of liberty in Jean Jacques Rousseau's “the Social Contract Theory”, which was written in 1762 and J.S. Mill's On liberty, which was written in 1859. In a fact, the authors were born different century and also, had different ideas. They were successfully influence the society by sharing their ideas. In the writings, both Rousseau and Mill mainly discourses about the relationship between authority and one's liberty. First, I would like to examine both Rousseau's and Mill's schemas and then compare their thoughts.…

    • 1941 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays