Rousseau+study+questions

(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
 * **What are Rousseau's objections to Hobbes' description of the state of nature?**

First off, it seems that Hobbes justifies tyranny while Rousseau opposes it **Yes, but this is not one of Rousseau's objections to Hobbes' argument 1221504154**. Both beginning with equality, Rousseau argues all humans to be equal **In what respect? So does HObbes 1221504154**. Whether physically or socially, Rousseau, unlike Hobbes, believes that equality results from independence **Hobbes also thinks of humans as equal in the SoN because they are independent of one another - he interprets this fact differently, though 1221504154**. Our society creates interdependence with one another. A benefit to this loss of independence is the progression of our rationality. Rousseau believes that rationality is traded for independence. Unlike Hobbes who believes that man is best when they are all dependent on one person (Sovereign), Rousseau believes that our original state of nature, that of self-sufficiency and independence, is a good thing. He sees man declining from a state of independence to one where we depend too much on others. Hobbes believes that we must work from our original state of independence to a better state of interdependence with the Sovereign guiding and commanding us. **This paragraph does not really provide Rousseau's arguments against Hobbes 1221504154**

Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes’ notion of humans in the state of nature as being “naturally wicked”. He writes in the First Part of his //Discourse on Inequality:// “Above all, let us not conclude, with Hobbes, that because man has no idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious because he does not know virtue…"

Rousseau thinks that men are neither good nor bad, but generally peaceful (other than in Hobbes) because they have “compassion” (“pitié”) and wouldn’t hurt another human as they have “an innate repugnance at seeing a fellow-creature suffer”.

According to Rousseau humans don’t act rationally in the state of nature, which is also different from Hobbes’ perspective. **This is not quite right. It's not that human don't act rationally - that sounds like humans act stupidly. 1221504154**

Rousseau argues that the “people being subject the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it". Here Rousseau states that the people are in fact capable and deserving of self-rule, and argues that man is not naturally adversarial **?1221504154**. Hobbes and Rousseau, while both granting man natural equality, differ completely on what is morally right and to what extent the empowerment of the individual is important in society. Hobbes holds stability to be of the utmost importance at almost any cost, while for Rousseau, mere stability without liberty is tyrannical, immoral and falls short of accrediting man with the type of government which he has the potential to create. Rousseau's objection to Hobbes' stability without liberty is another point of distinction between these two great theorists.
 * Some of Rousseau's key objections to HObbes' arguments are missing form this account. 1221504154**

According to Rousseau, conflict arises with the formation of a civil state **Not quite right - yes, conflict is prevalent with the civil state but it arises a little before 1221504154**. He discusses the development of conflict as a result of unequal distribution of goods in a civil society combined with corruption (caused by culture, as opposed to nature). By introducing the idea of property into the state, man becomes greedy and corrupt.
 * **What are the roots of conflict for Rousseau?**

Rousseau believed that the transition from the State of Nature to the political state stemmed from a shift in humans' behaviour. The rationality develops at the expense of independence **Explain 1221504154**. Rousseau explains that this transition from independence to interdependence causes conflict. When humans seek an advantage (through agriculture or property) it creates inequality. A rise in inequality leads to social competition. To incorporate this social competition into a society humans develop language, economy, power, vanity and respect. This all leads to conflict.**Basically true, but it lacks citations and could be explained better 1221504154**' Rousseau believes that interdependence is the root of inequality, injustice and the usurpation of society by the rich in accordance of their interests; which are considered bad. With the emergence of interdependent societal groups, some people are obliged to work more than others for the same wage - the example of the smith vs the peasant is used 'The farmer had a greater need for iron or the iron-worker for wheat.'
 * **Why does Rousseau think interdependence is bad? Is he right?**

Interdependence also induced //amour propre// as man now compared his inequality relative to others and sought to increase his own status/possessions. The rich/’most miserable’ now set their sights on the ‘goods of others’ a view that led to conflict within and between societies and the formation of laws proposed by the rich. These laws were disguised as protection for the poor against other united societies yet actually enshrined the protection of property, where the rich had more interest in keeping (the poor only liberty). Such laws oppressed the weak and consolidated the strength of the newly powerful. In consequence, the ‘law of property and inequality’ were established as right and ‘natural liberty’ destroyed.

I will begin with distinguishing the normal state and the natural state. The normal state is defined by the current existence of our state. The natural state will be the state in which we begun. Moving away for the natural state, humans live in a state of turmoil and conflict. This conflict is due to our interdependence; society has caused us to unify. Due to this unification, conflict arises. In our natural state, humans would be completely independent and free of conflict. It is a progression to the current state that has produced dependence and conflict. International relationship is just another step in reducing independence. However, Rousseau believes there are benefits to pursuing international relationships. Your relations with surrounding countries lead to trade; trade leads to specialization and more dependence. International relations develop our rationality at the sacrifice of independence; Rousseau believes this dependence leads to further conflict and death. **This is a bit vague and lacking reference to Rousseau's State of War, where he actually explains this. Why is there conflict in international relations? 1221504154**
 * **Are there any good things about interdependence, for Rousseau? Can its bad effects be remedied?**
 * **'The body politic, in so far as it is only a moral being, is merely a thing of reason.' (Brown 422) Explain**
 * **What does Rousseau think is the normal state of international relations? Why?**
 * **What is Rousseau's conception of human nature? How does this conception differ from Hobbes', and how does it figure into his theory of society and war? (Taken from Pols/phil 2005 exam)**

Rousseau's conception of human nature differs in many ways from Hobbes. Though they both tend to agree that human beings value their lives and wish to avoid death, Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes that this value naturally manifests itself in a natural disposition to conflict. According to Rousseau, while they may be reactive in the sense that they will defend against imminent or immediate danger, human beings are not naturally animals of conflict. Most lack the ability to easily kill other men, and as such are unlikely to be the selfish and dangerous, calculative pre-emptors Hobbes portrays in most instances. The exceptions to the rule are just that - exceptions - and not destructive to the theory as a whole:

> "There is in addition another principle, which Hobbes did not notice, and which, having been given to man to soften, in certain circumstances, the ferocity of his self-love [amour propre] or, before the birth of this love, the desire to preserve himself (15), tempers the ardour he has for his well being by an innate repugnance to seeing a creature like himself suffer... I am speaking about pity... By giving tears, nature reveals that she gave the human race the softest hearts."

Rousseau in some ways places the blame for the conflict that has, in reality occurred, on the solution Hobbes has suggested. He argues that society generally is what leads to the ability of man to engage in conflict, for several reasons. First, it encourages men to lose their aversion to killing other men - partially by creating 'us and them' feeling between members of different societies, and training (particularly in army situations?) men to fight for their own society against another. Even if Hobbes were right that a sovereign (in essence, the representative of a society) mitigates internal conflict, it externalises conflict and does nothing to mitigate that.

It further impedes on human beings' natural independence - forcing them to rely on others. Rousseau argues that interdependence generally means dependence due to the structure of society, contrary to people's natural wish for independence. Land ownership in many ways has led to this dependence - creating the boundary between the rich and the poor:

> "The first man who, having enclosed off a piece of land, got the idea of saying "this is mine" and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, what wars, what murders, what miseries and horrors would someone have spared the human race who, pulling out the stakes or filling in the ditch, had cried out to his fellows, "Stop listening to this imposter, You are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to everyone and the earth belongs to no one"

> "Since the state of nature is the one in which care for our own preservation is the least prejudicial to the preservation of others, this state is consequently the most appropriate to peace and the most acceptable for the human race. He says precisely the opposite, because he made the mistake of allowing into savage man’s care for his own preservation the need to satisfy a multitude of passions which are the work of society and which have made laws necessary."

The rich - with the most to lose - have structured society in their own interests to protect these rights. Rousseau argues that the status quo in many places is therefore unequal and unjust, because it is biased in favour of the rich, and the inequalities that exist within society - (e.g. rich/poor) lead to dependence - as the poor depend on the rich to survive, and in many way the rich also depend on the poor to uphold their way of life. Because it is imperfect, it may mitigate conflict in the short term, but eventually tends to degenerate.

In situations where a 'sovereign' (representation of the people) is corrupt/founded on justice/allows injustice, this independence is further compromised - and humans naturally react against oppression of freedoms. Unlike Hobbes, thus, who believes that any sovereign is better than none at all, Rousseau draws the impression that any sovereign is far from sufficient - and where inequality and injustice arises, this may lead to a greater capacity within human beings for violence.

Rousseau's arguments about human nature and society flow into his theory about the best solution. While Rousseau does argue against the influence of society generally, he realises that a return to the state of nature is not a very viable option. Therefore, because imperfect society is so harmful, Rousseau, unlike Hobbes, argues that a perfect society should be striven for, rather than just accepting the status quo as the preferred option over the state of nature. Other writers, interpreting Rousseau, therefore have argued that he, unlike Hobbes, might agree - or at least, following his line of logic - that revolution is acceptable in the interests of finding a just society. Like Aristotle, Rousseau believes that some regimes are better than others, and that the closer to perfection, the better - though perfection is very difficult to obtain - if not utopian. He uses Geneva as the example of a regime that is well placed to get close to the ideal - a republic, naturally well defended, with little need to expand.


 * What are the forces that would more perfectly socialise ourselves and end conflict and inequality etc.? and why would we care?**