Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality

Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality

• Rousseau (1712-1778) was a figure of the Enlightenment.
• He believed reason could bring scientific development, moral progress, and happiness.
• He compiled knowledge in the Encyclopédie.
• He held a revolutionary view on the state, but argued progress in science and technology corrupted morals.
• Voltaire criticized Rousseau's work, saying "Never was such cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid."
• Rousseau wrote The Social Contract in 1762.
• A famous quote is "Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains."

First Discourse (on the Sciences and the Arts)

• Written in 1750, it was a contest by the Académie of Dijon.
• The question posed was: Has the development of sciences and arts purified morals?
• Rousseau's perspective was a counter-Enlightenment stance.
• He argued that ancient Greece, preceding Plato, thrived by focusing on heroic virtues.
• In contrast, the decline of Greece corresponded with the rise of arts and sciences, which fostered luxury and weakened virtue.

First Discourse (continued)

• Rousseau argued that sciences originated from vices, with physics stemming from vain curiosity and astronomy from superstition.
• Moral philosophy was also criticized because of its focus on pride.
• Promoting luxury and pleasure over virtue wasn't morally beneficial.
• Emphasizing special talents over virtuous character drew attention to people without virtue.
• The overall message questioned societal progress.

Second Discourse on Inequality

• Published in 1755, this discourse addressed the origin of inequality among men.
• It questioned if this inequality was justified by natural law.
• Rousseau separated natural and artificial inequalities.
• He questioned if natural differences could justify social stratification.
• Rousseau questioned if social and political inequalities stemmed from natural or man made factors.
• He argued that no one had a natural right to command another human.

Human Nature

• It's difficult to define human nature accurately.
• Scientific knowledge isolates us from our true nature.
• Rousseau contrasted the historical account of humanity (presented as fiction) with the need for empirical evidence.
• He proposed humanity existed differently during a period before social development and civilization.
• He criticized Hobbes' view of human nature as inherently selfish, suggesting Hobbes wrongly interpreted humanity.
• Individuals are needy, dependent, and weak, but it doesn't justify the assumption they are fundamentally, naturally, so.

The State of Nature

• Rousseau described the state of nature as one where humans were similar to animals in some ways.
• Humans were weaker physically, with greater mental capabilities.
• Humans were strong, agile, adaptable, and readily dealt with illnesses.
• Their wants and needs were simple, involving basic necessities: food, shelter, sex.
• There was no complex thought, language, abstract ideas, or concept of time.

The State of Nature (continued)

• There was no fear of death or an attachment to beauty or morality.
• Humans in the state of nature weren't socially dependent on others.
• Hence, enslavement wasn't possible.
• This was a crucial detail in distinguishing his concept of the natural man from Hobbes' perspective, who posited that human life in the state of nature is a constant state of war.

Natural Passions

• Hobbes related natural passions to self-preservation and fear of death.
• Rousseau's self-love (amour de soi) was a natural drive for survival.
• Amour propre, however, arises when humans compare themselves to others
• This comparison creates vanity, pride, and conflict.
• Pity (or compassion) provides some form of inherent goodness.
• It naturally limits self-love to prevent harm.
• Animals exhibit this natural goodness through their pain-perception abilities.

"Savage" Man Analysis

• Rousseau viewed the "savage" man not as lowly, but as different in perspective from civilized man.
• The savage man's happiness stemmed from the absence of ambition and societal pressures.
• Civilized people desired extravagant lifestyles and immortality, driven by competition and striving for wealth and power.
• This contrast was crucial to Rousseau's critique of modern society's emphasis on ambition and competitiveness.

Hobbes vs Rousseau

• Rousseau disagreed with Hobbes' view that humans are naturally selfish and inherently aggressive.
• Hobbes believed humans needed a strong sovereign to control their destructive nature.
• However, Rousseau argued for self-governance and that societies should encourage compassion.

How Did We End Up Here?

• The initial state of nature existed in perfect equilibrium, though its precise characteristics are unclear.
• The development of human beings was contingent on factors like freedom, perfectibility, and reason.
• Initially, basic needs and passions drove human behavior.
• Natural passions then developed into new needs and more complex emotions, gradually leading to complications in human relations.
• External catastrophes likely prompted the development of human thought, communication, and social structures.
• The shift from small communities to societies was driven by the need for protecting property and establishing social order.

The Social Contract

• Recognizing that the state of nature can't be recovered, Rousseau proposed a new social contract.
• Society should be governed by the "General Will," which embodies the collective good of all citizens.
• Each individual should surrender their individual rights in favor of the community.
• In doing so, individuals actually gain the freedom from the whims of the individual.
• By adhering to the General Will, individuals become sovereign and simultaneously subject to themselves collectively.

General Will

• A central concept in Rousseau’s social contract theory.
• It represents what is best for the collective good.
• Private wills of individuals ought to be surrendered to the General Will
• The general will balances out and reconciles individual wills.
• It's important to balance individual desires with the collective good.
• The individual will, balanced out with the collective will, results in the common good.
• It establishes a system where one is subject and sovereign at once in an intricate way.

Two Questions to Explore

• Is it possible for a body politic to operate effectively under an effective General Will?
• Can a General Will form to work in a way that diminishes societal ego-centrism while simultaneously promoting compassion?