John Locke And Jean-Jacques Rousseau
A person cannot talk about John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau first defining what each contract theorist means when he talks about the state of nature. For Locke, his state of nature involves “ungoverned humans pursuing their individual interests with respect for one another’s rights and even cooperate with one another with their interests overlap” (Portis, p. 103). These ungoverned humans are rational, resources are unconditional, and there is no threat from any external source. In Rousseau’s state of nature, not only is there no government, there is no social structure. That is, Rousseau takes the concept down to the bare bones. He creates an image where “human beings would not be distinguishable in any significant was from other mammals”
…show more content…
He believed people had a natural right to the fruits of their labor. Property was acquired through just acquisition, earned through the use of self and of labor. However, Locke does not address his thoughts on what would happen if resources were to become scarce. For Locke believed that the state of nature, where men exist to do as they wish, was not good or bad, just chaotic. This is why Locke believed there was government, to protect the peoples’ life, liberty, and property. The ultimate purpose of government, according to Locke, is to protect the moral state of human beings and their natural rights (their property and liberty). He said that government was justified by the consent of the people within that state. People agree through a social contract to obey the laws handed down from the state. He also rejected the divine right of a monarchy, “Locke said that societies form governments by mutual (and, in later generations, tacit) agreement. Thus, when a king loses the consent of the governed, a society may remove him” (John Locke, …show more content…
Ultimately they both agree that the power of community provides protection to the people and that there is no freedom where there is no law. I think a combination of their ideas may be the best for an ideal government. One of the most important concepts that came out of Locke and Rousseau is the idea of personal freedom and liberties, which many democracies operate on
He believed people had a natural right to the fruits of their labor. Property was acquired through just acquisition, earned through the use of self and of labor. However, Locke does not address his thoughts on what would happen if resources were to become scarce. For Locke believed that the state of nature, where men exist to do as they wish, was not good or bad, just chaotic. This is why Locke believed there was government, to protect the peoples’ life, liberty, and property. The ultimate purpose of government, according to Locke, is to protect the moral state of human beings and their natural rights (their property and liberty). He said that government was justified by the consent of the people within that state. People agree through a social contract to obey the laws handed down from the state. He also rejected the divine right of a monarchy, “Locke said that societies form governments by mutual (and, in later generations, tacit) agreement. Thus, when a king loses the consent of the governed, a society may remove him” (John Locke, …show more content…
Ultimately they both agree that the power of community provides protection to the people and that there is no freedom where there is no law. I think a combination of their ideas may be the best for an ideal government. One of the most important concepts that came out of Locke and Rousseau is the idea of personal freedom and liberties, which many democracies operate on