A Clear Distinction Between Sovereignty and Governments - Essay Example

What according to Rousseau are human beings like in the of nature? What is the significance of this for his political thought? Task: Date: What according to Rousseau are human beings like in the state of nature? What is the significance of this for his political thought? Jean-Jacques Rousseau remains one of the prominent Geneva philosophers as well as a composer of romanticism in the educational, sociological and political arena. The state of human nature remains one area of research where Rousseau made adamant research. A natural way of studying the state is asking what would have happened without it. This is a question that Rousseau makes use of to conduct diverse research on the existence of the state. When the first man fenced his piece of land, people did not believe him and found it difficult to understand what he was doing. With time people engaged in the same process with each person trying to secure his piece. It, therefore, is hard to assume non-existence of states. A state of nature as Rousseau calls it is a status without political powers and segregation of personal property. Notably, philosophers tend to deviate from the topic of nature due to the complexity (Gourevitch 1997, pp 167). According to Rousseau, it takes a longer for a country to pass from state of nature to civil society. Consequently, he believes it would be blasphemous for people to believe societies came from the same process. From this perspective, naturally existing humans lived in a society without a state and perchance to lower forms of animals. Therefore, if the state of nature is true, the previous existence proves to be redundant and impossible. The state of nature, therefore, is an amusing bit of research, which at the time proves to be challenging (Bryce 2001, pp 341). This forms the reason why only few philosophers like Rousseau who had adamant knowledge succeeded in the field. In political philosophy, the state of nature is a social contract theory, which attempts to explain the origin of the current society. The theory describes some of the hypothetical conditions that preceded the current governments engrossed by various activities. Some of the activities evident in the current governments, which remained a dream in the past, include corruption and assassinations (Rommen 1998, pp 67). The momentous question many people as well as philosophers as is how perfect governments could erupt from such governments. Consequently, people tend to wonder the exact point where things went wrong. This is because instead of people going on with the normal state of nature changes got realized and with new governments coming into phase. Governments that limit freedoms and make people suffer by working for their survival. This is so because in the state of nature; there are no rights and obligations (Mills 1997, pp 56). This is because no single person gets entitled with a right of property in the state of nature. This is contrary to the current governments, which curtail enjoyment of resources introducing Legislations that must be followed. In as much as the time before establishment remain termed as the modern era, various questions arise. This is because many people believe in the current world as the modern era while others concur with the pint of view. This has called for research across diverse fields, to establish speculations (Angela 2000, pp. 87). Some of the fields which enormous research has been conducted include archaeology, Paleolithic history, social anthropology, cultural anthropology not forgetting ethnology. According to Rousseau state of nature, have people who are well aware of their neighbors at the same time exhibiting normal values. In the state of nature, existence of facilities like industries as well as cultures does not find root. There is no navigation and movement, which incorporate transfer of goods as well as services. Consequently, importation of gods proves to be an impossible activity in the state of nature (Hack 2001, pp 56). The state of nature, therefore, is a complicated fraternity where many activities happen with no instrumentation. Removing of things in the state of nature remains a strenuous activity as much force, as well as resistance, gets evidenced. Most residents in the state of nature are liable for their surrounding while at the same time it is believed that they have no knowledge of their surroundings (Hampton 2006, pp. 57). This is an assumption that proves to be an impossibility since one can live in a place where he does not conform to the existence of surrounding. This forms one of the key factors why studying involving state of nature proves difficult. The impossibilities make it difficult for the philosophers to understand and comprehend various phenomena while making various assumptions. It is noted that, in the state of nature, time remains a non-determinant factor (Rawls 2003, pp 193). This pegs a question among various philosophers who argue on the aspect which people living in the perfect state manage their activities. Time according to Rousseau is an essential day-to-day facet. Managing activities without time always lead to failure. This further raises questions as to the existence of nature states. For one to imagine a place without time in the current world, he must be pressed to the wall and has no option remains available. In the state of nature, people lack arts (Bryce 2001, pp 343). Nature itself is a form of art; therefore, for one to imagine that the state of nature has no art, it is an impossibility. No means of communication exist in the state of nature. This includes absence of letters or other forms of communication evident in the current world. For people to exist without t exhibiting any form of communication, one must wonder the time of environment (Rousseau 2007, pp 91). This is because communication forms the basis of life and non-existence of communication is like having a society of deaf and dumb people. Notably even the deaf and dumb people always find it necessary to communicate through sign language. This to some extent portrays state of nature as an imaginary state, which cannot be realized easily. Apart from the worst part of state of nature, which assumes non-existence of means of communication, the state of nature also assumes no society. The society plays a crucial role in uniting people as well as maintaining peace (Gauthier 2000, pp 57). It is the obligation of the state to set rules and regulations, as well as arbitrates on various issues revolving in the society. Society, therefore, is essential in any set of people to the extent that imagining its non-existence proves to be an assumption. This to some extent makes state of nature non-achievable and nightmares, which apply general principles beyond realization. As opposed to other philosophers, Rousseau attempts to provide a normative guide towards the hypothetical state of nature. According to him the state of nature in as much as had natural contents as well as interactions remained characterized by various phenomena. He further criticized another philosopher Hobbes for giving an incorrect inference to the state of nature. For instance, according to him, for Hobbes to refer to the state of nature as having no conscience as well as goodness, he was wicked (Korkman 2001, pp 124). Consequently, he refers to Hobbes as vicious as he had no virtue to attach to the state of nature. It is vital to note that in as much as various philosophers give varied definitions of the state of nature; Rousseau asserts the existence of uncorrupted morals. According to him, the state of nature; therefore, is a segment having good recognition of values and knows the relationship that exists among them. For example, Rousseau praises the Caribbean society for the admirable control of sexual urge (Bryce 2001, pp 345). This is contrary to the fact that they live in a hot weather, which has high instigation for sexual passions. Consequently, he divides stages of human development into various development arenas called savages. This was after conducting enormous research on the state of nature where he concluded that comparing people to animals proved to be an insane activity (Hack 2001, pp 76). This is because optimal human developments from the past, allow people to escape the brute animal characteristics, a factor that draws a line between the two calibers of life. This further makes state of nature a fascinating area of study with the varying theories of development. In as much as Rousseau gives conflicting interpretations regarding state of nature, he also astonishes many people when he gives varied assumptions (Hampton 2006, pp. 83). For instance, he claims man remains gentle in a primitive state a factor that leaves people asking where the moral values he advocates to be in position (Rousseau 2007, pp 23). The gentleness of man according to Rousseau gets only achieved when man is put in a state of equidistant stupidity. The stupidity of fatal and brutes enlightenment incorporates a balanced environment resulting into the state of nature. The savages, therefore, are stages that allow for alteration of human nature into indolence primitive state. Consequently, Rousseau brings into knowledge the fact of egocentrism, which allow people during the period of development to develop and undergo significant changes. The petulant activities engrossed in human activities create a durable epoch, which allow people to occupy the happiest segment of life. In as much as the upheavals may prove too difficult to achieve, the best man also proves to a nightmare within varied populations (Haila & Dyke 2006, pp 156). The savages found in this state limits existence of people further bringing confusion as to the availability of nature states. It is pertinent to note that Rousseau segments development in different generations into savages. As opposed to other philosophers like Hobbes who claim to savage occurred in the first stage of development, Rousseau claims it was a third stage of development. Rousseau in as much as advocates for existence of values in the state of nature, he also provides an allowance for reaction exhibited by people (Williams 2001, pp. 156). For instance, he associates negative development in human to self-love pride and self-preservation. Consequently, the human power of reason finds use in Rousseau explanation of a state of nature relating it to an artificial man who tries to compare himself with other people. Because of the comparison, many people get themselves in a scenario of fear as well as idleness within people that undermine the possibility of achieving the state of nature (Gauthier 2000, pp 51). This factor has made nay governments powerful preventing the ability to replace hatred, fear and jealousy engrossing the current world. These factors do not appear state of nature. According to Rousseau the remarkable change in man is inimical towards the well being of man. Consequently, the passage introduces a remarkable in man a factor that lads to the abolishment of state of nature into a civil state. The present state remains characterized by strange feature such as justice systems to incorrect injustices (Korkman 2001, pp 134). This suggests a race full of people with insufficient virtues as opposed to Rousseau who promotes the existence of virtues. In addition, Rousseau insists only cultivation of civic morality can save the society from the negative things at to some extent take back the society into the state of nature. The society remains characterized with contamination of people thoughts as well as ideas. Therefore, according to Rousseau, the society played a significant role in making changes to normal living conditions. From this point of view, it is necessary to note that Rousseau relates and traces the origin of man to the perfect state of nature (Sandel 2002, pp 138). However, his main concern remains the fact that people acquired new characteristics in the process leading to development of new people. The new population had recognition for hatred, love and jealousy a factor that further divided the society into social groups. The flawed social Contract as brought out by Hobbes as well as Rousseau promoted powerful and rich people. In addition, this led to transformation of people to drop their liberties and follow the new approaches towards life (Siep 2000, pp. 111). From this point of view, Rousseau explanation to the state of nature interprets to be a fraudulent association arising from the influence of other factor. The integrity and authenticity of people in the current world, therefore, are a subject of transformation (Rousseau 2007, pp 23). Depending on the direction of influence, people can take different shapes. The character and behaviors marked by hierarchy and independent exploitation of nature promotes cultivation of non-societal values. This, therefore, makes Rousseau a philosopher who attempts to concentrate more on virtues developed because of cultural transformation from the state of nature. Consequently, he attempts to associate various developments in the society to cultural influence (Kavka 2006, pp. 146). This is despite the fact that he asserts the existence of state of nature and regards them as the best part of the society having moral values. The classical republicanism exhibited by Rousseau in the political arena is exceptionally vital for varied political thoughts. The legitimate political order in the state of nature denoted a social contract mainly evident in the western traditions. For instance, the state of nature provides a baseline for various political activities (Marks 2005, pp. 141). According to Rousseau, man is born free; however, instead of enjoying his freedom he is always in chains and bondage from various societal constraints. The political thoughts take advantage of these opportunities to express their interests confusing people to expect relief from the imaginary bandages. Consequently, according to Rousseau some people think they are superior to others; however, the same people remain unbridled in slavery (Haila & Dyke 2006, pp 156). These, therefore, provide importance of the state of nature denoting it as a central and ground brake towards achieving current political stances. He further proposes that development of current states should not conform with the current state because it had no laws and regulations to guide people. From this perspective, the state of nature assists in shaping up the current society introducing values indispensable for human survival. Consequently, sustainability of the political environment finds a point of reference, a factor that leads to development of mature societies far from the primitive state of nature. Notably, Rousseau gives a clear distinction between sovereignty and governments a factor that has helped the political arena to arrive at diverse decisions (Korkman 2001, pp 144). For instance, he picture the government as composed of magistrates and law implementers. On the other hand, he denoted sovereign states as having direct democracy and does not have influence from any other party. This assists in enforcing the magnificent will of the people hence realizing to some extent state of nature. Some people view governments as commentators of tyranny regulating what people should do and when to do the same things (Hampton 2006, pp. 89). However according to Rousseau general will as well as cultivation of virtues, remains a key point towards achieving a rational government. This is because of its lack of virtues that cause development of selfish interests leading to things like corruption and tribal conflicts. Consequently, Rousseau emphasizes the importance of introducing general will as exhibited by the state of nature, to be a protective medium from exploitation (Rousseau 2007, pp 23). Loyalty, therefore, is a virtue earned through correct governance and not tyrannical commitment to everyone. It is essential to note that an increased population with the aim of increasing power often lead to competition, which often lead to war. This is extremely influential in the process of providing good leadership qualities hence making natural equality the only option towards proficient leadership (Lanson 2006, pp. 87). While concluding a close look at the state of nature reveals many assumptions, which in real sense prove in formidable. However, for future protection several values of the state of nature remain relevant. It remains based on this regards that Rousseau finds application of moral virtues as the only option towards realizing the dream. From his perspective, people underwent enormous changes from the state of nature achieving negative and irrational characteristics. This, therefore, proves that a human can be subjected to transformations in order to realize the state of nature desirable traits. This is despite the extreme scarcity of Rousseau motivation and moral assumptions. References Angela S 2000, The Confessions, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Baier, A 1994, Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Bryce, J 2001, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Oxford: Clarendon Press, Vol. 1. pp. 340-41, 352. Gauthier, D 2000, Moral Dealing: Contract, Ethics, and Reason. Cornell University Press, Cornell. Gourevitch , V 1997, The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gourevitch, V 1997, The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hack, S 2001, Evidence and enquiry towards reconstruction in epistemology, Blackwell publishers, oxford. Haila, Y & Dyke, C 2006, what to say about nature’s speech, how nature speaks, the dynamics of human ecological condtition. Duke university Press, Durham. Hampton, J 2006, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kavka, G 2006. Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Korkman, P 2001, Berbeyrac and Natural Law, Abo Akademi University, Helsinki. Lanson, G 2006, Jeane-Jacques Rousseau volume I: paradoxes and interpretations, Routledge, London. Marks, J 2005, Perfection and Disharmony in the thought of Jean- Jacques Rousseau. Cambridge University Press, New York. Mills, C 1997, The Racial Contract, Cornell University Press, New York. Rawls, J 2003. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press, Columbia. Rommen, H 1998, A. the natural law, a study in legal and social History and philosophy. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis. Rousseau, J 2007, The Basic Political Writings. Hackett Publishing Company, New York. Sandel, M 2002, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Siep, L 2000, ‘Rousseau’s Normative Idea of nature of nature,’ Finnish Yearbook of political Thought. Vol. 4 pp 53-72 Williams, R 2001, ‘Ideas of nature,’ Problems in materialism and culture. Vol. 1 pp. 67-85 Read More