Skip to main content

Comparing and Contrasting Rousseau's and Locke's Theories on the Interaction Between the Governed and Government

Comparing and Contrasting Rousseau's and Locke's Theories on the Interaction Between the Governed and Government

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke are two of the most influential philosophers of the Enlightenment, particularly in the development of political theory regarding the social contract. Though both theorists emphasize the relationship between the governed and the government, they have fundamentally different views on the nature of that relationship, the state of nature, and the role of government in protecting individual rights and promoting the public good. Rousseau's and Locke's theories offer contrasting perspectives on individual freedom, sovereignty, and the limits of government authority.


1. State of Nature and Human Nature

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

  • State of Nature: Rousseau believed that humans in their natural state were inherently good and peaceful, living without the corrupting influence of society. He argued that in this state of nature, humans were free, equal, and self-sufficient. However, Rousseau suggested that as humans formed societies, they became corrupted by social institutions, leading to inequality, competition, and injustice. In his view, civilization and private property were the sources of inequality and the decline of human morality.

  • Human Nature: Rousseau believed that humans in their natural state were guided by basic instincts and a sense of compassion or pity for others. However, the development of private property and social hierarchies introduced a competitive element that warped human nature and led to the development of social inequality.

John Locke:

  • State of Nature: Locke's view of the state of nature was more optimistic than Rousseau's. Locke believed that in the natural state, individuals were free and equal but governed by natural law, which provided them with the right to life, liberty, and property. Unlike Rousseau, Locke did not see the state of nature as inherently corrupting. Instead, Locke viewed it as a peaceful condition where people could coexist according to reason, but where disputes could arise, especially regarding property.

  • Human Nature: Locke's view of human nature is grounded in rationality. Humans are seen as capable of reason and are naturally inclined to preserve themselves and cooperate. Locke believed that humans in the state of nature had the capacity to govern themselves through reason and moral principles, and that they could form a society based on the consent of the governed.

Comparison:

  • Rousseau viewed the state of nature as a time of equality and innocence, with human nature corrupted by the development of society, whereas Locke viewed the state of nature more positively, as a period of peace and equality governed by natural law. Rousseau believed that civilization led to inequality and moral decay, while Locke believed that society could improve individuals’ ability to reason and protect their rights.


2. The Social Contract and the Role of Government

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

  • Social Contract: Rousseau’s concept of the social contract is founded on the idea of the general will. In his work The Social Contract, Rousseau argues that the government should be based on the collective will of the people, which he calls the general will. This will represents the common good, and the government’s role is to enforce it. Rousseau believed that individual l
    Order Now

Comprehensive online writing and editing platform

Ready to elevate your writing? Get expert help now and submit your best work with confidence!