Equality is one of the most prevalent themes among the theories developed by intellectuals in society. Even though different theories present various types of discourses regarding the varying degrees of fairness and equality, the political thought during the time of Rousseau and John Locke critically analyzed the concept of equality and inequality in society and emphasized the importance of the individual in thinking. They considered the disposition of humans through the lens of individualism rather than examining the group as a whole. The result was these intellectuals were able to spot a certain extent of secularization in the contemporary train of thought that was much removed from the notion of divine selection inherent within the people. As equality became a widespread concept, most people were put on an equal level at least in the State of Nature as forwarded by Locke.
John Locke published his famous “Second treatise of Government” in the year 1690 which contained the idea of the State of Nature. Locke considered the State of Nature to be the exact opposite of the ideal of civilization. Without the existence of a proper societal framework, there is only the state of nature . This theory of existence is used to a certain extent to review the present state of society by political philosophers. Even though some support the State of Nature, it has met with resistance from other quarters especially since it focuses on the chaotic state of society rather than the expected nature of order. The theory focuses on the fact that society has been primarily responsible for molding our behaviors, personalities and actions since we left our original state of nature. The State of Nature is sometimes believed to be the starting point of humanity but according to some philosophers such as Hobbes, we can regress to that state in an instant under the right circumstances and the proper impetus. Therefore, not all philosophers are unanimous regarding the continued effects that society has on equality and inequality and Rousseau was one of the main personalities in the field whose theories, even though sharing some core concepts with Locke’s, had a vastly different premise.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau published the “Discourse on the Origins and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men” in 1754. Rousseau begins by stating the origin of civil society when the first man marked a specific piece of ground and said, “This is mine” . Hence, not only does society have an effect on the ideals of the people but vice versa. Rousseau believes that there would have been no inequality if he had been stopped from carrying this out, but this was not possible since man had already made a bit of progress before the time and was focused solely on self-preservation.
Rousseau and Locke seem to both agree that the State of Nature was the origin of humankind. However, as they became more settled and built a proper society, the concepts of preference and merit came into being and jealousy and discord made their presence known. This is the origin of vice and inequality in society and with the expansion and development of society, inequality has grown rapidly too. Rousseau states that natural man is gentle and kind but Locke states that the natural man is fuelled by self-preservation instead of being influenced by society .
According to Rousseau, the development in society has a direct relation to the spread of inequality. If the use of resources and talents in society had remained the same there would have been no trouble. Natural inequality cropped up slowly with unequal associations. The differences between men became more glaring and began to influence different events in society. The vices originated from the differences between to be and to appear. Domination eventually made its appearance, and the ploys of the rich and the powerful eventually led to the growth of society. Therefore, our sense of natural fairness is weakened by the framework of society since modern society itself will be unable to exist without the presence of inequality within it. This is, however, an expansion of the view forwarded by Rousseau .
Locke, however, thinks that no one has power over the other. The State of Nature promotes instincts of self-preservation but every man in society tends to have them. From the perspective of Locke, all men are equal since they were all created by God. As all of us are the creations of God, no man can exercise control or power over the other, and all are free to do as they please. Still, this condition of liberty must not be confused with a “state of license” under any circumstances. Men are not provided with the right to abuse each other and must exercise caution when possible to preserve the current state of mankind through his self-preservation actions. Even in Nature, Locke believes, there is law along with the ideals of justice and morality. As men tend to act only for their self-preservation, the stakes of every interaction happen to be somewhat lower .
The importance of self-preservation is highly stressed by Locke, who actively promotes the right to defend of a person against any threats. He stresses how some men are often forced to leave the state of nature owing to the conflicts that crop up but they usually do it only when they have a social contract that permits them to be a part of society featuring a highly developed system of politics . In contrast, Rousseau suggests that the present society must be modified into an egalitarian and socialist society that possesses extremely close ties with the state of nature. Unlike other philosophers, he holds the opinion that man has progressed to such a condition that he is unable to regress to his natural state and therefore he is bound to become a victim of inequality and corruption. He tends to overlook how some legitimate societies live according to the tenets of mankind in his natural state, and therefore, tend to have incredible respect for the ideals of liberty and life. Rousseau, therefore, highlights how different societies can be. In some societies, there are still traces of equality and justice but modern societies are increasingly becoming more unequal .
The development of corruption as per the words of Rousseau began in society. The development of morality, according to him, preceded corruption and inequality. Therefore, the simple presence of morality suggests the existence of the concept of inequality. Therefore, the failure of modern society is indicated through the fact that it promotes inequality and injustice instead of giving impetus to the rise of a sense of fairness among the people or ideals of justice and truth. Rousseau suggests that humankind would have been better off if they were still present in their natural state, like the savages which came to the new world and lived together in harmony. Rousseau’s strong feelings about society and its impact on corruption and inequality is reflected in his words, “But from the moment on man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and the vast forests became smiling fields” .
However, Rousseau’s theory on inequality in society has its share of flaws. His arguments regarding the superior physicality of the naturalized man happen to be fundamentally incorrect since they ignore the crucial detail regarding the percentage of humans that perish at childhood or birth. Rousseau’s explanations on how dependency and possession lead to conflict can be considered off-base since the same conflicts are witnessed among animals also. Moreover, his thoughts on the role played by technology in inequality are disproved through the existence of free states that are derived from technological advancement.
Locke’s theory on rights also suffers from a few problems, the primary one being the rejection of his theory of property nights in spite of a similar idea on natural rights. The argument forwarded by Locke for natural rights bestowed by god can be understood better in terms of the Enlightenment tradition of rights as based inherently in human rationality and reason. In fact, Locke’s references to the deity happen to be more distracting rather than informative. He tends to equate property rights with natural rights when in fact, they bear great dissimilarities.
It becomes evident from the ideas of Locke that the presence of inequality and unfairness in society helped develop an understanding of justice and morality among the people. Man slowly came to understand the condition of the less fortunate and the poverty stricken, and it was up to him to take the final decision whether to help him or not. In Locke’s State of Nature, however, this choice was not present since everyone happened to be equal, and man had the capacity and presence of mind to leave each other alone unless it was for the purpose of self-preservation. Therefore, Rousseau believes that the state of equality would have continued if the talents of every person been equal. This comes in direct opposition to the words of Locke, who stressed on the fact that humans were all alike since they were the creation of God . No one had the ability to judge or control one another yet in Rousseau’s words; society functioned properly only when the strongest did the largest share of the work and the smartest people came up with numerous ways to earn money. Hence, the basic difference between the two philosophers and their ideal of society becomes evident.
Works Cited
Locke, John. Two Treatise of Government. 1996. 26 January 2014 <http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html>.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin and the Foundation of Inequality Among men. 2004. 26 January 2014 <https://www.oneeyedman.net/school-archive/classes/fulltext/www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/rousseau/seconddiscourse.htm>.
