Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality PDF

Rousseau Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Rousseau (1712-1778) Enlightenment Belief in the power of reason to bring scientific development, moral progress and happiness. Diderot and D’Alembert, Encyclopédie Compilation of all knowledge Rousseau = ambiguous figure o...

Rousseau Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Rousseau (1712-1778) Enlightenment Belief in the power of reason to bring scientific development, moral progress and happiness. Diderot and D’Alembert, Encyclopédie Compilation of all knowledge Rousseau = ambiguous figure of the Enlightenment Revolutionary about the State But argues that progress in science and technology corrupt our morals Voltaire: “I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours” Wrote the Social Contract in 1762 “Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains” First Discourse (on the Sciences and the Arts) (1750) Contest by the Académie of Dijon Question: Has the restoration and development of sciences and the arts tended to purify morals? Provocative counter-Enlightenment stance Part I: Historical Survey Archaic Greece (before Plato) Powerful b/c based on heroic virtues: courage, honour, etc. Downfall of the Greek world Development of arts and sciences promotes luxury and leisure, makes us less virtuous First Discourse Sciences are born out of vices Physics -> vain curiosity Astronomy -> superstition Moral Philosophy -> pride Take time away from what is truly important Friends and family, country, poor and weak Promote luxury and leisure, makes our lives more pleasurable but not morally better Emphasize special talents rather than virtuous character, so we end up admiring people who do not morally deserve it So? What do we do? Second Discourse (on Inequality) (1755) Question: “What is the origin of inequality among men and is it authorized by natural law?” (836) What do you mean? Separate the natural from the artificial (836) Natural differences (inequalities) (836) Is there a natural characteristics that justifies that some rule and some be ruled? Social & political inequalities based on something natural? Or on something artificial (money, land, etc.)? Need to justify inequalities and authority Revolutionary b/c nobody has a NATURAL right to command anybody. Nobody NATURALLY owes anybody obedience “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.” Human Nature How we are “naturally”? Difficult: the more we know about the world, the less we know about ourselves Sciences disconnect us from our “nature” Look at human beings before any social development, any civilization “Historical” account presented as a fiction (836-837) Empirical evidence? Go further back than Hobbes Hobbes takes a tamed animal and throws it back into nature We are needy, dependent, weak, calculative, vain, etc. but no reason to assume this is natural The State of Nature Human animal (‘natural man’, ‘original man’, ‘savage man’) Like us in some ways except We are weaker, more dependent We have more needs and more developed mental abilities Human animal is: Strong, agile, well-organized Less problems with illness, old age, infirmities, etc. Not fearful because acquainted with his surroundings Basic needs only (food, sleep, sex), no fancy desires sleep much, thinks little No language, no concept of time, no imagination, no abstract ideas, just simple mental operation (like other animals) The State of Nature (cont.) No fear of death No “romantic” attachment, no “moral” love (b/c no idea of beauty, etc.), no obligations No dependency on others (not social because no need of others) Hence there can be no enslavement! Rousseau has taken reason out of the equation For Hobbes, Natural Laws are precepts of reason Rational beings think about what duties they have given their desire for self-preservation For Rousseau, no need for Natural Laws governing natural behaviour of humans Natural Passions Hobbes: Self-preservation or fear of death Rousseau: Self-love (amour de soi) not amour propre: egocentrism, vanity, pride arises when I compare myself with others desire to live and not suffer not necessarily in conflict with others Pity (or compassion) naturally limit self-love, prevent unnecessary harm natural virtue, natural goodness of animals by virtue of their ability to feel pain promote survival of all Is “savage” man “good”? and “happy”? “Savage” Not a derogatory term for Rousseau “Savage man and civilized man differ so much in the depths of their hearts and their inclinations that what constitutes supreme happiness for one would reduce the other to despair. The first man breathes nothing but peace and liberty; he wishes only to live and remain idle…. By contrast, the active citizen sweats, gets agitated, and worries all the time about finding even more labourious occupations. He works himself to death; he even runs to it in order to put himself in a position to live, or he gives up his life to acquire immortality. He courts the great, whom he hates and the wealthy, whom he despises. He spares nothing to obtain the honour of serving them.… What a spectacle these harsh and envied labours of Hobbes Rousseau No government No government No recognized structures of No bonds or obligations power + No conventional laws No civilization No bonds or obligations No development of intellectual = capacities cruel, distrustful No non-natural desires = ‘good’, peaceful, compassionate Shared Assumption Government = European government Science/Knowledge = European science Laws = European laws etc. Civilization = European civilization  European gress Man l pro t i o na i v iliza C How did we end up here? State of nature is a perfect equilibrium What is responsible for the unique development of human beings? Freedom (can vary behaviour, not limited to one instinct) Perfectibility (more adaptable) Development of reason? Basic needs/natural passions → reason → new needs and passions → more reason → etc. Trigger? External Catastrophe Made survival harder, forced us to think, associate, communicate… Part II describes how we went from huts and families, to metallurgy and agriculture, to saying for the sake of property owners that inequalities are right Property owners, the rich, set up a Hobbesian kind of social contract to protect their interests This social contract is a trick, a lie How do the poor become dominated? Why would they sign up for this? How does one enslave? “… citizens allow themselves to be oppressed only insofar as they are driven by blind ambition; and looking more below than above themselves, domination becomes more dear to them than independence, and they consent to wear chains in order to be able to give them in turn to others. It is very difficult to reduce to obedience someone who does not seek to command, and the most adroit politician would not succeed in subjecting men who wanted merely to be free. But inequality spreads easily among ambitious and cowardly souls always ready to run the risks of fortune and, almost indifferently, to dominate or serve, according to whether it becomes favorable or unfavorable to them” Freedom “I know that enslaved peoples do nothing but boast of the peace and tranquillity they enjoy in their chains and that they give the name ‘peace’ to the most miserable slavery. But when I see free peoples sacrificing pleasures, tranquillity, wealth, power, and life itself for the preservation of this sole good which is regarded so disdainfully by those who have lost it; when I see animals born free and abhorring captivity break their heads against the bars of their prison; when I see multitudes of utterly naked savages scorn European pleasures and brave hunger, fire, sword and death simply to preserve their independence, I sense that it is inappropriate for slaves to reason about liberty.” Peace and stability (Hobbes) vs Freedom and self-rule (Rousseau) So what now? Description of the state of society We have peace and security but not freedom ○ The Law of the Strongest The “master” leads to satisfy his own personal interest, the weak agree to this rule because they hope to gain ○ Subjected to the whims of the (Hobbesian) sovereign How do we get freedom for all, freedom from whims of the strongest? ○ Can’t go back to the state of nature The (True) Social Contract Need a new contract with a true Sovereign ○ Society is like a body. What rules the body? Head? Bunch of parts? One unified will for the good of all Principle of the Social Contract (1, VI) ○ “Each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself” ○ We alienate ourselves, give up our individual rights COMPLETELY To each other ○ We form a collective body Will that rules the body politic: General Will General Will Need a new contract with a true Sovereign Principle of the Social Contract (1, VI) We alienate ourselves, give up our individual rights COMPLETELY to each other Society is like a body. What rules the body? General Will What is left when the + and – between various private wills are balanced out (2, III) Individuals Commonwealth Individual or private wills General will what we alienate The body to whom we alienate our individual wills Subjects (to the whole) Citizens (parts of the whole) In the same person → twofold relationship As subject, I submit fully to the sovereign will As citizen, I rule over myself and others Problem: wanting to be sovereign without being subject (1, VII) Two questions Do we have a body politic lead by the General Will? What conditions must be in place? (Book 2, III) Is it possible to build a general will given that society diminishes our compassion (care for others) and increases our egocentrism (amour propre)?