A Reverence for the State of Nature - Essay Example

HUMAN Looking into human nature and humanity has been a philosophical goal for millennia. Locke and Rousseau lived in different circumstances, but they both brought a lot to questions of human nature in terms of why people gathered together in societies. Both thinkers saw people as coming from a state of nature to a state of conflict over possessions, leading to a state of the social contract being formed. The basic assumption of the current report is that Rousseau and Locke had many similar philosophies, informed by a basic respect for human nature being a positive force that resulted in a social contract with the rest of humanity; however, they also had differences, because Rousseau was more positive about the state of nature out of which social contracts were formed, and Locke was more negative. The current investigation seeks to display that Rousseau’s philosophy was based on a reverence for the state of nature. This led to the formation of a social contract out of this nature, so that the social contract became valorized in Rousseau’s work. The social contract states that nature is something which humanity overcomes for the benefit of its fellow humanity. The report then demonstrates how Locke had a similar idea of the social contract rising up from a state of nature. Both thinkers shared similar valorization of nature, but there were definitely differences as well, in terms of the extent to which this nature was valorized. Rousseau did not believe that humanity was motivated solely due to fear and the abhorrence of the state of nature. Rousseau thought of the original period of nature as being basically peaceful and not an altogether bad place to be in terms of freedom. According to Rousseau, people moved from this state of nature to social contracts when they wanted self-defense and defense for their possessions, and could agree on a state of commonality to protect individuals. He also defined this contract as giving people both freedom within a community and commonality with other individuals within a community. Rousseau also saw social contracts as a way of legitimizing politics and people’s rights to equality in society, which were seen to replace natural liberty with the instigation of the social contract. Therefore humanity goes from having all rights to having limited rights as they go from the state of nature to the state of civilization through the social contract. This concept is important for an understanding of Rousseau’s political philosophy. “In Rousseaus explanation of freedom, there is a division between two types of freedom. They are personal freedom and social freedom. Personal freedom comes from humans basic instincts and natural selfishness. An individual acts only if he benefits. Rousseau also called this freedom a state of nature” (Amezquita, 2010). This philosophy posits the state or civilization as being a mass confirmation of this social contract in which some natural freedoms are given up for the common good, which is highly valued by Rousseau in his philosophy. The morality inherent in this system presupposes this common good in terms of moral conduct which befits a social contract in which relationships are integrated and expanded as a way of the society spreading itself equally. Rousseau looks back to ancient traditions of republicanism to organize a political philosophy that has its tenets in a time of past perceived glory and reason. The search for truth and knowledge by humanity was seen as a noble and basic concept by Rousseau that was to be celebrated for its adherence to ethical and moral absolutes that determined conduct in nature and civilization. While others thought of nature as an inherently debased state, Rousseau advanced its virtues by concentrating on basic human morality and rights that were transferred to the formation of political societies rather than mandated by them. His observations were attenuated to a universal sort of positive assessment of humanity that was nevertheless held in some strictures by the codes of the ancient societies emulated by Rousseau. The current report argues against the social contract in part because of this emulation, which looked backwards instead of forwards for answers in ancient societies such as the Greeks, with whom Rousseau and many other supporters of the social contract theory were predisposed to view favorably. It is the argument of this report, however, that looking back to an idealized past of republicanism is not the most effective way of making a working phiosophy based on the present. From this perspective of early modern political theory advocating the social contract perspective, the social contract stems from humanity’s abhorrence with the state of nature, for in this state, and in any other state under philosophical authority, individuals are ultimately self-serving and are at constant war with one another. Forming a social contract represents a step up from this war in terms of forming civilized rules that are based on the individual’s giving up some of his/her power to ensure his/her safety within the society. Although the basic premise of this argument is positive, it is the intention of the current report to view the contract in more light of its shortcomings, as will be discussed summarily. In an overview of its basic workings, however, the basic contract states “that a person be willing, when others are so too (as far-forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary), to lay down this right to all things; nd be contented with so much liberty against other people, as he would allow other people against himself” (qtd. in Social, 2001). The underlying morality of this contract is that individuals should do unto others as they would expect others to do unto them. This also explored the logical and reasonable bounds of social contracts as they were determined by individuals seeking a basic underlying motive. “For example, contracts made in the state of nature are not generally binding, for, if I fear that you will violate your part of the bargain, then no true agreement can be reached. No contracts can be made with animals since animals cannot understand an agreement. Most significantly, I cannot contract to give up my right to self-defense since self-defense (or self-preservation) is my sole motive for entering into any contract” (Social, 2001). Therefore this shows social contracts as being limited to individuals’ own self-interests, which were seen to be as powerful in the context of social contracts as they were in basic nature. Individuals were seen to make contracts that limited their liberty, but not their right to self-preservation as cogent individuals. Rousseau was similar in his embrace of the social contract to Locke. Locke saw the natural state of human beings being a free state. He believed that society was social and cooperative, whereas other thinkers of the time like Hobbes believed that society was individualist and competitive. Locke saw war as being introduced into this basically peaceful nature and then continuing and adding to itself until it moved people to create civilization and social contracts, rather than seeing it as a natural state. In this state of civilization, people were more willing to give up personal authority, but still remained independent and free by nature. This theory has also had a lasting impact on society, even though it was more negative than Rousseau in terms of philosophy, because it stresses the importance of individual freedoms. It also offers a positive way of looking at society in terms of social contract theories, and this is another reason that this theory still has application value in the present. “Both Locke and Rousseau agree that the only way for a social contract to insure the rights of the General Will is for complete involvement. Rousseau insists those who do not join the pact are ignorant to the advantages of a social contract” (Amezquita, 2010). Rousseau was somewhat romantic in his conception of what a natural state was. Locke saw war as being introduced into this basically peaceful nature and then continuing and adding to itself until it moved people to create civilization and social contracts, rather than seeing it as a natural state. In this state of civilization, people were more willing to give up personal liberty, but still remained independent and free by nature. Locke saw the progress of civilization as being part of a natural progression of humanity. People wanted to make social contracts to protect their liberty and ownership, and could not do so in a state of nature in which there was no respected or law uniting the people into a bigger picture. “But though this is a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence, though man in that state have an uncountrollable liberty to dispose of his person, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself or so much any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it” (Locke 244). More like Locke, Rousseau thought of the original period of nature as being basically peaceful and not an altogether bad place to be in terms of freedom. According to Rousseau, people moved from this state of nature to social contracts when they wanted self-defense and defense for their possessions, and could agree on a state of commonality. “For Rousseau who was more of a moralist and political thinker than a metaphysician, man is corrupted by society. Science art and the like have thus harmed rather than assisted mankind” (Amezquita, 2010). REFERENCE Amezquita, A (2010). The General Will. http://philosophy.eserver.org/rousseau-and-locke.txt4 Locke, J (2010). Second Treatise. Rousseau, J (2010). Discourse on the origin of inequality. Social Contract (2001). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/hobbes.htm. Read More