Locke Vs Rousseau

In any case of failure to protect the rights, the people were in their complete right to overthrow the government (Doc 2 & Pg. 630) In agreement, Rousseau believed that the government’s power also comes from the consent of the people, which he included in his book, The Social Contract. (Pg. 632) Rousseau included much more ideas that incorporated political aspects, but he also his thought about

Rousseau’s beliefs coincided with the beliefs of other Enlightenment thinkers. This is shown when he writes, “Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties [the people and the government] to aid each other mutually” (Document 3). In that period of history, it was typical for people to be ruled by a monarch and they had very little say, if any, in the laws and policies that impacted their day to day life. Rousseau felt that the system was outdated and it made citizens feel as if they were living in someone else’s home rather than their own, so he theorized that by fabricating a system in which the government and the people are forced to work together, it creates a sense of unity and equality. This works because “ … an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic.

Rousseau’s beliefs coincided with the beliefs of other Enlightenment thinkers. This is shown when he writes, “Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties [the people and the government] to aid each other mutually” (Document 3). In that period of history, it was typical for people to be ruled by a monarch and they had very little say, if any, in the laws and policies that impacted their day to day life. Rousseau felt that the system was outdated and it made citizens feel as if they were living in someone else’s home rather than their own, so he theorized that by fabricating a system in which the government and the people are forced to work together, it creates a sense of unity and equality. This works because “ … an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic.

In response to the British’s intolerable acts during this time people desired a government based on popular sovereignty or the idea that a government's power ultimately comes from the consent of the people. The political treatise "The Social Contract," written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, explores the idea that the people are sovereign and that the legal power of a state arises from the agreement of the governed in order to build a more stable and just society. In this work, Rousseau makes the case that the common good should serve as any society's guiding concept and that the government should be in charge of advancing

Book One of The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau focuses on the reasons that people give up their natural liberty in order to achieve protection from threats to themselves and their property. This results in the formation of a legitimate sovereign where all members are equal. Rousseau believes that no human has authority over another individual because force cannot be established. He argues that no individual will give up his or her freedom without receiving something in return. I will focus my analysis on how the social contract states that we must give up our individual rights in order to obtain equality and security.

The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. To Locke, persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their life, health, liberty, or possessions. This is because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.

In Book 1, The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the main focus is directed at why people give up their natural liberty in order to achieve protection from threats to themselves and their possessions. This then results in the formation of a legitimate sovereign we’re all members are equal. Rousseau believes that no human has authority over another individual because force cannot be established. He disputes that no one will give up his or her freedom without getting something back. I will focus my analysis on how the social contract states that we must give up our individual rights in order to obtain equality and security.

In his work, “The Social Contract”, Rousseau argues that the government's authority over the individual is derived from the general will of the people. The general will represent the collective interest of the community and takes priority over individual interests. In this context, Rousseau argues that the government has the right to conscript soldiers and house them in citizens' homes if it is necessary for the common good. In The Social Contract, Rousseau writes, “The general will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct. Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see what that is; the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad” (Rousseau, p.11).

A philosopher named John Locke believed that people should be free to do what they want, but if their choices are poor, then they should be ready to face the consequences. In his justification, he asserts that “We must consider what state men are naturally in... a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose

Both John Locke (1632-1734) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) were early modern social theorists who promote reason and freedom as an important component in political community. They shared a lot of thoughts on early childhood education. Both of them believe that children love freedom and power, and that is the most important way to raise children. However, they took different directions on their views. What are the similarities and differences between their thoughts or views on early childhood education (0-8 years of age)?

And it can be attained only by reaching the general will which is expressed by the sovereign that is owned by any particular individual which later will create the form of law. Moreover, he also stated that there is the difference between the general will and the “ will of all ”.The “ will of all ” is only the accumulation of every thing that the individual want. But the the general will aim at the common good which achieve what is best for all which is the way of making the decision that he suggests.

He also claims that in this state, man lived ideally, in an almost animistic life, content and solitary were “his self-preservation was practically his sole concern” (Rousseau, p. 52). At some point however, man began to live in small, tribal, familial communities, with no established government and where everyone was the “sole judge and avenger of the offences he received” (Rousseau. p. 74). Yet, Rousseau believes that this relatively equal society was completely destroyed by the introduction of metallurgy and agriculture which crated inequality (Rousseau. p. 75).

In the opening of Rousseau’s Social Contract - " Man is born free, and yet we see him everywhere in chains." Rousseau apparently gives his social contract is to free man from the illegitimate binds to which existing governments have shackled him. In the event that this is his point, then it takes after that he has to be most concerned with the safeguarding of flexibility in political society, at first so savage man may be baited out of nature and into society in any case, and a while later so that Rousseau's framework for this general public will keep the present oppression from reasserting itself. “Those who believe themselves the masters of others cease not to be even greater slaves than the people they govern. ”[Rousseau,

The sovereign is not merely the addition of all its members, it is a distinct and unified body that exists on its own and can be treated as an individual. Each citizen of this society is bound to the sovereign as is he to the other citizens that form, together with him, the sovereign. Thusly, no one is above anyone else, as each individual has the same rights. The sovereign is not bound in any way, but as it owes its existence to the social contract, it must not harm it in any ways because he would otherwise hurt himself. Its main responsibility is to act in the best interests of the citizens (MacAdam,

Like natural freedom, civil freedom is quite individualistic and low on external restraints (Simpson, p. 48). Here, individuals have the rights and powers to do what they please, as long as the sovereign agrees with their behaviors and does not see them as threatening. Therefore, one can argue that this type of freedom allows individuals to keep their free will to themselves and thereby does not except them to form a collective free will. It becomes clear that all of Rousseau’s freedoms contain a certain amount of order and control; individuals are never fully free. This makes sense as Rousseau’s publication is called On the Social Contract.