However, Rousseau did not believe that it would not last and we would move on to a more civilized era because unlike brutes (other animals), he believed humans have two different characteristics: free will and the capacity for self-improvement. As societies develop language for the first time injury can be felt as an affront or a sign of contempt rather than simply physical injury. This leads to the injured seeking revenge. Further to this, an increase in population will lead to scarcity, which as Hobbes’ and Locke’s agree, will lead to competition and therefore cause a state of war. However, Rousseau argues that innovation is the primary response to scarcity such using tools. Due to this innovation, the creation of luxury goods will be created which man becomes attached to and dependent on. This leads to the rise of pride, shame, jealousy, inequality and slavery of the poor. Rousseau described the inequality that resulted from the creation of private property: ‘the destruction of equality was attended by the most terrible disorders’. 14 From the idyllic state of nature developed ‘a horrible state of war’ 15 i and therefore he deemed that the development of government was necessary. Rousseau envisaged a government that would take into account this need to protect against war and disorder caused by language and private property. He believed that the role of government was to protect everyone’s lives, liberty and property while they all remained free. However, he maintained his opinion that ‘man is born free and that everywhere he is in chains’ 16ii believing that the current system of government was created by the greedy rich to enhance their own financial ends. He described the solution as creating a social contract in which man would give up his rights, not to a king but to the ‘whole community’, even describing the people as the sovereign as opposed to Hobbes’ king. This meant that the people could exercise what he called the ‘general will’ – the will of society as manifested through its political institutions, as opposed to the ‘will of all’, which is the preference of members on this or than occasion. 17 He believed in a direct democracy on a small scale and felt that all people should to express the general will rather than relying on elected representatives. People should not vote for personal gain but for common good. He believed that anyone who disobeyed the general will would ‘forced to be free’. 18 In conclusion, we can see that each philosopher’s opinions about their state of nature directly influence their views on government. Hobbes and Locke both offer a pessimistic view on human nature, with the state of nature consisting of conflict and war. Consequently, government is needed to assure peace. Whereas, Rousseau has a more optimistic view of human nature and believed that the role of government was to return man to some aspects of the idyllic aspects of the state of nature, before language and money corrupted him. He felt that man’s innate compassion would enable him to act as part of a direct democracy and make decisions on behalf of the greater good. A problem with this form of government, as acknowledged by Rousseau is that it only functions when all people within the state opt into it. His essentially optimistic view on the nature of man leads him to believe that man will opt into this social contract. In contrast to this is Hobbes’ view that man is selfish and power hungry. He therefore viewed that an absolute monarch is required to enforce peace, punishing anyone who breaks these rules. Locke’s view is essentially the same. The key difference, however, is the theological aspect that is lacking in Hobbes’ philosophy. As Locke believed that man was created as a servant of God, he does not argue for an absolute ruler. God himself is the supreme sovereign in Locke’s theory with man being created equal on earth. This is why he promoted a limited government with a separation of powers. It is therefore clear that the state of nature each philosopher described fundamentally shapes the government that they envisaged. The engagement of the common man, where power lies and how laws are maintained are all based on their views on the state of nature
14 Ibid, 97. 15 Ibid, 97.
16 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract. Cambridge University press, 1997. 17 Nigel Warburton, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University press, 2008. 18 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract. Cambridge University press, 1997.
97
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker