Similarities Between Locke And Rousseau
Julissa Tejeda
Prof. Neely
Contemporary Civilizations - Fall
Final Paper
After explaining how the state of nature evolved into civil society when people began to rely on each other for resources, Rousseau concluded that the social contact that made civil society possible is more important that the individuals who created it. Although civil society created inequality, it also created freedom, morality, and rationality, which make people human. On the other hand, Locke explained that the state of nature evolved into civil society because people wanted to protect their property and liberties. He concluded that civil society exists to benefit the people; if the present government fails to do so it should be overthrown.
Rousseau and Locke had similar methods of argumentations, deductive reasoning, but they had different …show more content…
Rousseau developed a definition for the state of nature by using his knowledge of humans and animals, which he gathered from observations and experiences. He did not base his ideas of the state of nature on religious beliefs. Rather, he worked backwards; he used what he knew about contemporary man to guess how man was in the beginning (i.e. in the state of nature). Locke begins to explore the state of nature on the premise that the savage man had natural rights in the state of nature. Both philosophers followed the same train of thought: the state of nature, the development of property, the need for the social contract, the civil society that was created, and the governments that formed in those societies. They differ in that Rousseau believed that people left the state of nature when they discovered the benefits of relying on each other for resources. The idea of property caused labor to become necessary; this created a need for a social contract, which formed civil society. Since civil society formed on communal values, it should come before the individual. The individual does not sustain the social contract, the group of individuals does. In
Prof. Neely
Contemporary Civilizations - Fall
Final Paper
After explaining how the state of nature evolved into civil society when people began to rely on each other for resources, Rousseau concluded that the social contact that made civil society possible is more important that the individuals who created it. Although civil society created inequality, it also created freedom, morality, and rationality, which make people human. On the other hand, Locke explained that the state of nature evolved into civil society because people wanted to protect their property and liberties. He concluded that civil society exists to benefit the people; if the present government fails to do so it should be overthrown.
Rousseau and Locke had similar methods of argumentations, deductive reasoning, but they had different …show more content…
Rousseau developed a definition for the state of nature by using his knowledge of humans and animals, which he gathered from observations and experiences. He did not base his ideas of the state of nature on religious beliefs. Rather, he worked backwards; he used what he knew about contemporary man to guess how man was in the beginning (i.e. in the state of nature). Locke begins to explore the state of nature on the premise that the savage man had natural rights in the state of nature. Both philosophers followed the same train of thought: the state of nature, the development of property, the need for the social contract, the civil society that was created, and the governments that formed in those societies. They differ in that Rousseau believed that people left the state of nature when they discovered the benefits of relying on each other for resources. The idea of property caused labor to become necessary; this created a need for a social contract, which formed civil society. Since civil society formed on communal values, it should come before the individual. The individual does not sustain the social contract, the group of individuals does. In