Rousseau’s task in Part 1 is to answer the question: “what is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by the natural law?” He compares and contrasts man and beast. He explains the differences in the laws we live by, focusing on natural law. He defines the two different types of inequalities, natural and moral, and he illustrates the principle of pity to prove that man is not naturally evil. To him, the subject of the discourse is to explain why at certain moments right takes the place of violence, or the strong serve the weak (16-17). In order to do so, Rousseau ignores historical facts, is not speaking for a specific audience or time, but man in general.
He begins by defining natural inequality and moral inequality (16). Natural inequality is determined by nature and includes age, health, and the quality of mind. Moral inequality is determined by men; it includes wealth and power. A major difference between the two is that moral inequality is privileges enjoyed at the expense of others. Rousseau establishes the types of inequalities in order to distinguish between the two later as having different origins.
Next, Rousseau explains the main differences between men and animals. The first is the way they make decisions. Animals choose or reject by instinct; men decide by an act of freedom (25). The example he uses to illustrate this difference is that an animal will not go against its nature even if it could save its own life, while men live to excess and kill themselves in the process. Rousseau explains that for men, the freedom of choice can be more powerful than their instincts: “The will speaks when nature is silent” (25). The second difference is the idea of self-perfection. Animals do not change over time and do not acquire or lose any knowledge during their lives. Men, on the other hand, have to deal with growing old and losing the perfection that had been developed.
Finally, Rousseau attempts to disprove Hobbes’ theory that man is naturally evil because he does not know goodness. Rousseau does so by utilizing the principle of pity. Pity is the disposition given to man to curb his desires of selfishness. It is universal, useful, precedes reflection and is natural (36). Even animals show pity. Rousseau illustrates that pity is the reason for benevolence, friendship and commiseration (37). “Nature, in giving men tears, bears witness that she gave the human race the softest hearts” (37).
Friday, November 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This part was ver interesting to read. It is agreed that, animals do not act beyond their instinct and don't change, as human beings have freedom to choose and the ability to change. With this, can we say that natural human beings were considered animals? Since animals stay at their purest form, we generally would have been in the same posistion if we remained the same as our natural states. If we take away our freedom and ability to make ourselves modernized, can we conclude that we can slowly go back to being natural human beings and then perhaps understand what it's like to be a natural human being?
The question of weather or not we can consider natural man as an animal is interesting. Similar to animals natural man simply searched for food, sex, and rest. These three concerns consumed the life of natural man. Therefore, in that aspect natural man is very close to animals. After the aquisition of aspects of self awareness and reason man begins to veer away from what natural man was. After this, man begins to become less free and more reliant on artificial things such as companionship. So, Can man go back to his natural state as natural man? If we rid ourselves of Laws, Property, and every aquired trait that we have obtained then yes. But this is far fetched.
Although it is interesting to contemplate, one must consider whether or not reverting bac to existence in a state of nature is even possible. The fact is that even though we once resembled animals in all respects other than in the distinction of having perfectibility and freedom, human nature has changed radically, as already proposed by Rousseau. Even if man were somehow able to revert back to an earlier state of human nature, he would be unable to deal with with nature. As an analogy, domesticated animals are often unsure of how to respond when introduced back into nature and thus, many become easy prey for predators. Would the same happen to humans who have come to rely entirely upon their reason, a trait of humanity not found in the state of nature?
Post a Comment