Rousseaus Views on Natural Goodness in Man - Term Paper Example

Rousseau’s views on natural goodness in man Introduction: In his work d “A Dis on the origin of inequality” Jean Jacques Rousseau attempts to question the origin of inequalities among men and determine their source, while also analyzing whether such inequalities are naturally occurring or whether they are unnatural and therefore preventable? During the course of his analysis, he is able to distinguish between the “…equality which nature established among men and the inequality which they have instituted among themselves….” (Rousseau, 1984:57). Natural inequalities among men exist in terms of differences in naturally endowed qualities such as intelligence and strength. The other kind of inequality is the moral and political inequality that is a product of society and causes differences in power and wealth among human beings. Rousseau believed that man is born as a natural savage, wherein he is inclined to follow his natural instincts and live just like an animal, however he possess an innate goodness that is gradually eroded as he begins to live in groups with other men and begins to compare himself to others. Rousseau refers to this as amour propre which is the moral part of man that is concerned about how other men might view him. This is the aspect that differentiated man from animals because it allows scope for perfectabiltiy in man which is not possible in animals, through a refining of the moral instinct, so that man seeks to improve his surroundings for himself and others. The negative aspect of this moral sense is that as man begins to compare himself to others, it could also lead to negative aspects such as hatred and the greed for power causes inequalities among men which are not naturally generated. Analysis: The argument offered by Rousseau on the innate goodness of man commences in his natural state, when he is compared to a savage living among animals. This natural man does not experience any fear of death because is largely unaware of what exactly it is. Self preservation and the satisfaction of his immediate needs such as food and sleep are the prime concerns in the life of the savage man. In this state man has only a few needs and does not have a clear concept of what reason is or of the distinction between good and evil. But his few needs make his existence an essentially happy one. He is more or less an isolated being who is shaped by the forces in his environment. However, when environmental disasters occur and man is forced to move from place to place in search of food, he may come into contact with other human beings and begin to live in groups and communities in order to benefit from the advantages inherent within them. This is the beginning of what Rousseau refers to as knowing mankind and this is the basis upon which he begins to analyse how differences develop among men. While some men are naturally endowed with higher levels of intelligence or strength as compared to others, their use of these qualities changes as they live in communities with other men. The development of language as a tool of communication leads to the development of reason and the amour propre which is roughly equivalent to a moral man. Hence he begins to be concerned about how other people view him, which leads to competitiveness and the urge to seek power in order to capitalize on the inequalities existing among men. However, the manner in which man uses his growing awareness of natural inequalities and the spirit of reason leads to a different kind of inequality – moral inequalities. Since man is endowed with the gift of free agency or free will choices, he has the option to use it in a constructive manner. When applied negatively, it is the free choice that impels some men to choose to exploit weaker men in order to gain power and wealth and this exacerbates the inequalities among men. Rousseau v Hobbes: Rousseau offers a contrast with the views of Hobbes, according to whom man in the natural state is a self interested brute who is only interested in war, because he lives in a constant state of fear and anxiety. Rousseau’s natural man is however distinct in that he possesses the ability to choose – free agency – which makes him superior to mere animals. Moreover, one very important aspect in which Rousseau differs from Hobbes is in the attention he accords to man’s natural compassion for other human beings, which is in stark contrast to Hobbes’ war monger. Therefore Hobbes presents man as an essentially evil being while Rousseau focuses on man’s compassion and innate goodness. It is his strong belief in this innate goodness of man that prompts Rousseau to offer recommendations for an improved society. In highlighting the inequalities existing among men, Rousseau therefore clearly identifies the manufactured inequalities, i.e, the inequalities resulting out of strong men exploiting the weak. He suggests that it is man’s moral sense and inner compassion which must be harnessed in order to deal with such inequalities, so that man begins to move in a different direction and ensures that a more just and equitable society is developed by addressing those inequalities that can be prevented. It is the moral inequality that must therefore be addressed and man encouraged to rely upon his natural compassion for other human beings. Democracy and equity: Rousseau’s views were controversial during his day because he conceived of man as a natural savage, i.e, that he is naturally good by nature (Melzer, 1990). This view was sharply in contrast with the prevailing religious doctrine of the day which tended to believe in the concept of man as a sinful creature who had to be redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ. However this dependence was not the focus of Rousseau’s thought, in all his writings he has focused on the intrinsic goodness of man and his independence which are vital to aid in proper development and in the development of a social consciousness. Rousseau’s system of education was therefore set against religious beliefs that man was a sinful creature. Rather it fostered a child’s belief in the natural goodness of man and taught him how to be self sufficient and independent, learning how to survive the approval of anybody else or be dependant upon others (Rousseau, 1762). Rousseau articulated his beliefs on the natural inclinations of man as follows: “We are born capable of sensation and from birth are affected in diverse ways by the objects around us……. but under the pressure of habit they are changed to some extent with our opinions. The inclinations before this change are what I call our nature. In my view everything ought to be in conformity with these original inclinations.” (Emile, 1911, p 7; Boyd 1956, p 13) These original inclinations are those that Rousseau believes to be inherently good, capable of being harnessed either towards helping others and seeking their welfare through the exercise of man’s natural compassion or goodness. The reverse side of this is man exercising his free will choice to exploit others rather than assist them. Therefore, he argues that man must be taught to draw upon his innate goodness and compassion for others. He must be shown how to be a good citizen and this may be achieved by teaching him how to develop his social consciousness. He believed that this could best be achieved in a natural setting like the outdoors since growing up in urban areas and congested cities was anathema to a child’s growth (Rousseau 1765). Man must be taught to revert to his natural state because he was essentially a happier and a more moral human being in that state. Rousseau’s ideas of democracy were all linked to his conception of man as a free individual being, a natural savage endowed with the gift of reason which could be developed at the appropriate stage (Cranston, 1983). Therefore Rousseau visualized democracy as being a system of Government whereby there was no question of one individual or body imposing upon another. Rather Government comprised the development of a uniform set of laws that would be developed by independent thinkers and men who were free and self sufficient, who would formulate rules and regulations on the basis of voluntary participation and a consensual verdict on what was good for the community as a whole (Miller 1984). This was in conflict with established systems of Government whereby power was appropriated into the hands of a few; however Rousseau visualized power as being a consensual holding of power. Conclusions: The most significant aspect of Rousseau’s discussion is therefore his explanation of amour propre and its ramifications, notably its impact upon the natural state of man. This moral sense is what distinguishes man from animals and allows him to develop towards perfectability wherein he can continuously refine and develop moral principles of equity among them rather than fostering and promoting the inequities among men through exploitation. Therefore, Rousseau’s arguments offer the view that man is essentially good although there may be natural inequalities existing among different men in terms of strength and intelligence. However as man begins to live with other men and begins to compare himself to others; when he lives in communities with division of labor resulting in exploitation of the weaker by the stronger, then man’s natural goodness and compassion are compromised and lead to a different kind of inequality – moral inequality, which can be prevented. References: * Boyd, W.  (1956) Émile for Today. The Émile of Jean Jacques Rousseau selected, translated and interpreted by William Boyd, London: Heinemann. * Cranston, M. (1983) Jean-Jacques, (1991) The Noble Savage, (1997) The Solitary Self. Jean-Jacques Rousseau in exile and adversity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press * Melzer, A.M. (1990) The Natural Goodness of Man: On the System of Rousseaus Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. * Miller, J. (1984) Rousseau: Dreamer of Democracy. London: Yale University Press * Rousseau, Jean Jacques. (1762) Émile, London: Dent (1911 edn.) * Rousseau, Jean Jacques. “A Discourse on Inequality” Penguin Classics, Reprint edition 1984. Read More