Locke rousseau comparison
By comparing and contrasting the role of property, the state of nature, and technology within the philosophies of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, this essay will argue the opinions of these two theorists. Each theorist has a different foundation of the conception of private properties. The state of nature is looked at deeply within how society perceives mankind and what is right and wrong. As technology changes, both philosophers speak about the developments of these great powerful sources. There are several advantages and disadvantages that both Locke and Rousseau discuss.
Regarding property both Locke and Rousseau have different approaches on this issue of matter. Locke speaks greatly on how property is natural and gives natural benefits to mankind. Locke responds with:
“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person; this no body has any right to but himself,” (Locke, 12).
Locke takes an idealist approach on the matter. He argues that human rights are reinforced by private property, and he even goes into saying how property is a human right in itself. Locke believes in private property and Rousseau does not. In Locke’s theories on private property, he firmly says that one could use nothing that is common to all men if he cannot make it his own. This being said, even in today’s society we still think of the big picture of this so-called “American Dream”, and that consists of ownership of property. Society still thinks back to Locke’s theories on private property by wanting it to be within our natural state. The idealistic vision of ownership includes private property being ours. Locke goes into more greater details on how we were born free, which means we have natural freedom.
Rousseau believes that private property could only be established, as the law was established to protect this idea. Rousseau does not perceive the same idea has Locke on private property, by saying that
Regarding property both Locke and Rousseau have different approaches on this issue of matter. Locke speaks greatly on how property is natural and gives natural benefits to mankind. Locke responds with:
“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person; this no body has any right to but himself,” (Locke, 12).
Locke takes an idealist approach on the matter. He argues that human rights are reinforced by private property, and he even goes into saying how property is a human right in itself. Locke believes in private property and Rousseau does not. In Locke’s theories on private property, he firmly says that one could use nothing that is common to all men if he cannot make it his own. This being said, even in today’s society we still think of the big picture of this so-called “American Dream”, and that consists of ownership of property. Society still thinks back to Locke’s theories on private property by wanting it to be within our natural state. The idealistic vision of ownership includes private property being ours. Locke goes into more greater details on how we were born free, which means we have natural freedom.
Rousseau believes that private property could only be established, as the law was established to protect this idea. Rousseau does not perceive the same idea has Locke on private property, by saying that