The State of Nature in Rousseaus Philosophy - Essay Example

? Did Rousseau Correctly argue that Previous Philosophers had Not Gone Back Far Enough in Search of the of Nature? By Candi s FACULTY OF ART, DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY (This page intentionally left blank) Introduction Prior to commencing a discussion on whether or not Rousseau correctly argued that previously philosophers had not gone back far enough in search of the state of nature, it is only proper to ponder on what is meant by the term ‘State of Nature’. Samuel I. Mintz suggests that the concept of state of nature is about the logical extreme of human society without law. 1 State of nature refers to the state all men are naturally in. 2 Men and women living in an environment that is close to the state of nature present their own measure of human nature to present good or evil without fear of any sanction arising out of operation of law. Thus, although the term ‘State of Nature’ refers to a logical construction, it does not necessarily refer to a historical period, although in the early period of human existence when organised societies with laws did not exist, individuals were free to do what they wanted based on their natural desires, psychological makeup, interests and situations, etc. It is possible to argue that humans living in isolation, far removed from the present-day civilisation without any contact with organised societies will illustrate human behaviour in a state of nature without any fabricated laws to impinge on their behaviour. In a state of nature, there were no kings and no government to impose their will on humans. The State of Nature in Rousseau’s Philosophy Rousseau employs the device of state of nature to depict the conditions under which man existed in natural conditions to argue that in the pure state of nature man’s existence would be peaceful and contented. 3 In his work Discourse on the Origin of Inequality among men, Rousseau describes the birth of property with the celebrated statement “The first person, who having fenced off a piece of ground took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society." 4 5 According to Rousseau, men danced in front of their cabins until the concept of the handsomest, the strongest, the most adroit and the most eloquent presented itself to lead towards inequality and vice. Thus, Rousseau presents a belief in the natural goodness of man who had abhorrence for giving consent to others to govern, or for entering society. Rousseau places an emphasis on historical context when thinking about the state of nature rather than considering this notion in terms of a hypothetical context. For Rousseau, the state of nature is a pre-political condition that existed prior to man acceded to the social contract to lose his natural freedom while gaining civil freedom, property and the relative protection of the group. 6 Rousseau suggests that in the state of nature, people did not know each other enough to interfere with each other, but they did present normal moral values, which the social contract for living in a society tarnishes. However, because Rousseau takes a historical rather than a hypothetical view of the state of nature concept, it makes sense to ask whether at any time in history, man has been able to demonstrate the capacity for not succumbing to immoral behaviour in relation to others. Certainly, religious doctrine contained in the old testament of the Bible does not support the views presented by Rousseau about man in the state of nature because ever since the time of Genesis, man has demonstrated moral flaws even in dealings within the same family. Thus, it will appear that Rousseau’s arguments concerning the state of nature present flaws, and it makes sense to examine his views in comparison to other noted political theory philosophers, especially those that lived before him. Rousseau’s concept of an early state of nature presents men and women as solitary animals that come together only to reproduce. 7 8 Although, a mother in the state of nature will have a bond with her child, offspring matured quickly and leave their mother because both men and women are able to look after themselves in the state of nature while remaining healthy and robust. Rousseau goes so far as to suggest that if a mother and child were to run into each other at a later stage when the child has grown, they are unlikely to recognise each other. Thus, perhaps Rousseau reduces humans to the status of small animals who only come together for reproduction and then neglect any blood relationship, although even cats present a respect for their mothers. Rousseau argues that in the state of nature if someone were to try to make another person a slave, it would be easy to hide because of the solitary nature of human existence. However, it is important to understand that inequality in what humans are endowed with coupled with self-interest will make this impossible. The very fact that men and women are not equally in terms of physical endowment will make equality of the sexes impossible in absolute terms. A desire on the part of humans to compare would have led to a realisation that disparities do exist between individuals and a desire for competing will have led to conflict. Thus, Rousseau’s interpretation of the state of nature would approach that of Pascal, except that Pascal was thinking about the Garden of Eden and the events that unfolded in this garden. 9 Rousseau insists that in the state of nature humans lacked instincts, but this is a fallacy because without instincts, it is impossible to survive. 10 Rousseau proceeds further to suggest that men who live in the state of nature resemble savages and lacked reason or language without a capacity for consenting to the social compact, and they did not cohabitate in families. 11 However, this is a fallacy because even if one were to accept the evolution theory presented by Darwin contrary to the Old Testament concepts presented in Genesis, it is apparent that even apes live in communities with families. Apes are able to communicate, and they present a capacity for reasoning. Rousseau’s state of nature philosophy was most critical of the views of Hobbes and Locke because these philosophers preceded him and Rousseau’s death in 1778 would have made it impossible for Rousseau to criticise directly the state of nature views of others, including Paine, Wollstonecraft and Mill. However, it makes sense to examine the state of nature philosophy of noted political theory philosophers to decide about how these compare with the views presented by Rousseau to decide about the validity of Rousseau’s views. Hobbes on the State of Nature Hobbes presents a concept of state of nature that is very different from what Rousseau had envisaged, probably because he lived in England at a time of war that had presented the horrors of destruction that men could unleash against other men. 12 Hobbes suggests that although in the state of nature man existed without government or law, instincts for self-preservation and egoism controlled all actions of men in this state of nature. Thus, Hobbes envisages the state of nature as a state of war in which morality is lacking and everyone lives in constant fear. Hobbes argues that even if men were equal in the state of nature, it is likely that from equality in ability arose equality in desire that leads to quarrel when two men desired the same object. Thus, the state of nature presented war against all because desire presented conflict of interest that led to war. The state of nature as envisaged by Hobbes presents man as a fighting animal exposed to constant fear and a danger of violent death in an environment that presents humans with a solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short life. However, it is possible to argue that although Hobbes takes into consideration the flaws of human nature in his vision for the state of nature, he leans excessively towards the other extreme because man could have escaped the conflict by finding a niche in a wide world that could have afforded protection without a need for indulging in conflict. According to Hobbes, man moved to accept the social contract associated with living in a society because a fear of violent death and destruction that presented a threat to all. Clearly, Hobbes presents views far removed from those of Rousseau, who laments, "Hobbes confuses the man who is deformed by the evolution of society with the natural man." However, recorded history from ancient times presents a different reality. Locke’s Interpretation of the State of Nature Locke presents a more balanced view of the state of nature by asserting that the state of nature presents man with perfect freedom to do as they desire and this is something that is neither good nor bad. 13 Perhaps perfect freedom would have meant deciding about what one could get away with to further one’s desires and interests while trampling on the desires and needs of others. Thus, according to Locke, chaos prevailed in the state of nature with uncertainty and a certain lack of security about the future prevailing to force man to accept the social contract of living in societies for their advantage. Locke does not characterise the state of nature in terms of a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation and the state of nature envisaged by Locke presents a multitude of commonwealths to which members may subscribe. Thus, Locke’s views are contrary to those of Rousseau, who suggests that human characteristics are products of civil society, and these characteristics did not exist in the state of nature. However, Darwin’s evolution theory and the Bible both characterise humans or apes as living in groups or families. Locke suggests that in the state of nature, men lived under national laws, perhaps laws operating in various commonwealths or clans to deliver goodwill, natural assistance and preservation. 14 Locke believed that in the state of nature, no one harmed the life, health, liberty and possessions of another. However, according to Locke, a lack of organisation prevails in the state of nature, and this means that if a man is willing to do justice to others, he may be unsure of his judgement because his judgement may present prejudice. Thus, although values exist in the state of nature envisaged by Locke, there is no organisation to sustain values, impart justice or to deter aggressors against the weak. Locke argues that because man is a social animal, families existed as a group and later a need arose to protect natural rights against injustice that led to the creation of government. Locke takes a natural law view of state of nature in which a judge with authority is lacking to put all persons in a state of nature. However, it is important to note that two persons with a dispute would have found it difficult to appoint a third person to settle disputes between them without leaving the state of nature because the third person had no power to legislate, or to make laws, to decide about the dispute. Thus, it will appear that violence was necessary to subjugate people in the state of nature to force them to conform to laws and to accept authority. However, Locke considered the state of nature concept as a mere thought experiment because there never were any people in the history of the world that confirmed to his state of nature concept. To Locke, state of nature was not a historical context but an abstraction. Thus, Rousseau’s arguments about a happy and carefree existence in a historical state of nature appear as flawed. Paine’s Concerns for Property Paine does not present a great concern with the abstraction of the state of nature in his philosophy, probably his philosophical concerns focused on the philosophical issues of his day arising out of the European settlements in North America and the French Revolution in Europe. 15 However, Paine begged to differ from Locke in accepting that anyone in the state of nature had property rights. Paine presents a more practical and common sense view of the situation in the state of nature to suggest that the rich and the powerful asserted their might in the state of nature to occupy land to declare this as their property. Paine asserts that because man did not make the earth, although he had a right to occupy it, but he had no right to locate his property on any part of it in perpetuity, and neither did the Creator of the Universe open a property office from which He issued the first title deeds. Thus, it is clear that although Paine does not mention this directly, it is possible to envisage that in the state of nature, some violence existed to ensure that the more powerful grabbed land and retained it as their property and that of their offspring or clan with a view towards doing this in perpetuity. Clearly, because human strength and wellbeing diminish with time, it would have been impossible for a physically stronger individual to retain property in perpetuity without entering into some sort of arrangements with the others to benefit all, and this acted as a motivation for establishment of clans, groups, Commonwealth and laws. Because Paine describes violence as necessary to maintain property in the state of nature, his philosophy contradicts that of Rousseau. Although Paine does not suggest that the situation, the state of nature was as bad as what Hobbes depicts, it is clear that conflict and the use of might is evident in the state of nature. 16 Although land was in relative abundance in the state of nature with relatively few claimants compared to the present day and age, assertion of even just rights over others required might or other means of protection. The story of Caine and Able in the Bible amply demonstrates jealousy, desire for women of beauty and covenant with Satan for expanding all what one could retain to present insights into human nature that illustrate the fact that humans are capable of resorting to violence to further their ends and Darwin concurs with this. Unfortunately, all that is available about the ancient history of the world tells us that human nature wants to maintain possession to drive out others and resorts to violence to achieve ends, and this refutes the state of nature philosophy of Rousseau. Paine did cite the Bible in his philosophical work Rights of Men (Part 1 1791) to support his arguments for the equality of men, but he was later to discard the Bible in favour of arguments based on the wondrous organisation of nature in which he believes in a God that speaks the language of Newton and Locke. 17 Thus, Rousseau presents flaws, even if he did not criticise Paine directly, because retention of property would require violence to shatter the carefree existence of men in the state of nature. Wollstonecraft and the Petticoats Mary Wollstonecraft’s philosophy was far more concerned with the rights of women than the conditions that existed in the state of nature. However, being a woman, she was happier supporting views about certain equality in the state of nature than subscribing to the depressing warrior dreams of Hobbes. 18 She was severely critical of the fact that Rousseau considered humans in the state of nature as essentially solitary. 19 Wollstonecraft envisages a state of nature that avoids savaging virtues, and she prefers middle-class notions for the state of nature rather than the existence of disparity because she loathes the false-refinement, immorality, and vanity of the rich and powerful. 20 However, Mary Wollstonecraft agrees that despite the equality that existed between the sexes in the state of nature, the female sex was to later decline in terms of equality with men, probably because the female sex was physically weaker. She advocates the use of education for advancing women to a state of equality with men, just as in the state of nature, and probably she supported the creation of a society in which everyone was happy, as in the state of nature. Thus, Mary Wollstonecraft’s philosophy is more about how best to correct the imbalance between the sexes to propel women to a level of equality with men. However, she is severely critical of the fact that Rousseau considered humans as solitary. Because humans or even their Darwinian ancestors, the apes, are not solitary animals, flaws exist in Rousseau’s views on the state of nature. Mill’s Romanticism and the State of Nature The philosophy of John Stewart Mill is about romantic concepts of individuality and spreading maximum happiness while living in a society without trampling on the rights of others or on restricting others. 21 Rousseau never did criticise Mill because Mill lived at a time after Rousseau’s death. Thus, although philosophers who preceded him influence Mill, including Hobbes, Fichte and Hegel, it is important to remember that he was writing about philosophy after the French Revolution and German Romanticism in which the rights of the individuals and the pursuit of happiness were more important than abstractions of state of nature. Thus, there is nothing about the state of nature in the work of John Stewart Mill. However, after considering the ideas that Mill presents in his works about utilitarianism and happiness, it is probably right to assume that if Mill had presented anything about the state of nature, this could have leant towards the happy abstractions of Rousseau rather than the incessant conflict of Hobbes. After all, conflict is something that Mill wants to avoid in his vision about how individuals ought to live in a society and for Mill personal freedom is of importance. Thus, perhaps if Rousseau had accused Mill of not going back far enough in search of the state of nature, he would have been right. However, it is likely that Mill would have responded that he wanted to think about how best to find happiness today rather than trying to seek happiness in abstractions of a historically distant past that is impossible to duplicate in the present day and age. It is important to note that a reading of Mill’s philosophical works clearly illustrates the fact that Mill explicitly rejects historicism. Conclusion Clearly, the suggestion that emanates from Rousseau’s philosophy about previous philosophers not going back far enough in search of the state of nature presents flaws because even if one considers the theory of evolution presented by Darwin, it is apparent that neither humans nor their predecessors are solitary. Because humans have always lived in groups, families or the clan jealousies, claim to property, desire for women of beauty, etc. leads to conflict to deny Rousseau’s claims of carefree and lonely existence in the state of nature. (This page intentionally left blank) Bibliography/ References Biro, William Andrew Denaturalizing Ecological Politics: ‘Alienation from Nature’ from Rousseau to Marcuse, York University, Ontario, 2000, viewed on April 23, 2012, < http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp02/NQ59121.pdf > Blackman, Josh When Was the State of Nature? A Lockean Response to Rousseau's Critiques, South Texas College of Law; The Harlan Institute, May 13, 2009, viewed on April 26, 2012 < http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1403936 > Chaurasia, R. S History of Western Political Thought, Atlantic Publishers, 2001. Cladis, Mark S Public Vision, Private Lives: Rousseau, Religion, and 21st-Century Democracy, Columbia University Press, 2006. Delaney, James J Starting with Rousseau, Continuum International Publishing, 2009. Douglass, Robin ‘Rousseau’s Debt to Burlamaqui: The Ideal of Nature and the Nature of Things’, Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 72, Number 2 (April 2011), viewed on April 23, 2012, EBSCO. Einspahr, Jenifer ‘The Beginning that Never Was: Mediation and Freedom in Rousseau’s Political Thought’, The Review of Politics, 72 (2010), 437–461, viewed on April 23, 2012, EBSCO. E Notes A Vindication of the Rights of Woman Mary Wollstonecraft, E Notes, 2012, viewed on April 26, 2012, < http://www.enotes.com/vindication-rights-woman-criticism/vindication-rights-woman-mary-wollstonecraft> Fruchtman, Jack Junior The Political Philosophy of Thomas Paine, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Johnson, Claudia L. (Editor) The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft, Cambridge University Press, 2002. Marie Maistre, Joseph., De Maistra, Joseph and Lebrun, Richard A Against Rousseau: "On the State of Nature" and "on the Sovereignty of the People" . McGill Queens University Press, 1996. Mendham, Matthew D ‘Gentle Savages and Fierce Citizens against Civilization: Unraveling Rousseau’s Paradoxes’, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 55, No. 1, January 2011, Pp. 170–187, viewed on April 23, 2012, EBSCO. Morris, Christopher W. (Editor) The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998. Neuhouser, Frederick Rousseau's Theodicy of Self-Love: Evil, Rationality, and the Drive for Recognition, Oxford University Press, USA, 2008. Neuhouser, Frederick ‘Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Origins of Autonomy’, Inquiry, Vol. 54, No. 5, 478–493, October 2011, viewed on April 23, 2012, EBSCO. Plattner, Mark F Rousseau's state of nature: an interpretation of the Discourse on inequality, Northern Illinois University Press, 1979. Rahbari, Mohammadnza Modernity and Morality: A Study on the Moral Foundations of Modem Societies in the Works of Durkheim, Weber, Foucault, Habermas and Kant, York University, Ontario, 2000, viewed on April 23, 2012, < http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp02/NQ56262.pdf > Rau, Zbigniew ‘The State of Enslavement: The East European Substitute for the State of Nature’, Political Studies, Vol. XXXIX, Pp. 253 – 269, viewed on April 23, 2012, EBSCO. Richardson, Janice The Classic Social Contractarians: Critical Perspectives from Contemporary Feminist Philosophy and Law, Ashgate Publishing Company, 2009. Riley, Patrick (Editor) The Cambridge Companion to Rousseau, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Rousseau, Jean-Jacque Discourse on Inequality, Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Smith, G. W. (Editor) John Stuart Mill's Social and Political Thought: Critical Assessments, Routledge, 1998. Spark Notes Jean Jacque Rousseau: Discourse on Inequality, Spark Notes LLC, 2012, viewed on: April 26, 2012, < http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/inequality/terms.html > Warner, John Order, Harmony and General Will: Rousseau and the Politics of Nature, The University of Georgia, 2004, viewed on April 23, 2012, < https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/warner_john_m_200412_ma.pdf > Williams, David Lay Rousseau's Platonic Enlightenment, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007. Wollstonecraft, Mary A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Miriam Brody, ed., New York: Penguin’s Books Ltd, 2004. Yigit, Pervin The Question of Freedom in Political Philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2007, viewed on April 23, 2012, < http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12609013/index.pdf > Read More