Jean-Jacques Rousseau And His Philosophy Regarding Human Nature

Throughout history, society has been attempting to explain several key questions: what are morals? What is considered moral? And where do/did morals come from? One of the theories and philosophies that has been proposed to answer these essential questions is the Natural Law Theory (NLT). According to Natural Law Theory, morals are based on human nature. If an action is natural, it is therefore good or moral. If an action is unnatural, it is therefore bad or immoral. People are considered good to the extent that they fill their nature. This theory raises the question as to what is considered natural for human beings? There are three concepts that are implemented in hopes of explaining and defining what human nature is comprised of. The first is the conception of human nature as animal nature. This concept focuses on that humans are indeed animals and therefore that our nature is to behave as other animals behave. The second conception is that human nature is what all humans share in common. This concept relies on the belief that the universal human features are the essence of human nature and humanity as a whole. The third conception is that human nature is what is innate (ie inborn as opposed to acquired). This concept is centered around the fact that what is considered natural for humans (for Natural Law Theory) is what we are born with. This sounds completely reasonable, however it raises the question as to what is it that us humans are born with? What instincts are natural for us? Are these instincts moral based on today’s standards? There are two main schools of thought that try to answer the dilemma of what is it that humans are exactly born with. These two schools of thought are products of the ethicists Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes. These two schools of thought focus on the ever-relative battle of good versus evil. This paper will focus on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his philosophies regarding human nature. In this paper I will demonstrate that ethicist, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, proposed a definition of human nature, the social contract, and the effects that society has on the individual. This paper will analyze Rousseau through an objective lens as well as a base conception of Natural Law Theory overall.

Rousseau believed that human nature was centered around as to what was innate for humans, or in other words what we were born with. Today his views can be thought of as being relatively optimistic: Rousseau’s philosophy is that humans are born innately good. Humans are born good, free, innocent and with the ability to be compassionate. Humans are innately satisfied without difficulty and occasionally congregate together in cooperativeness. This philosophy is almost the exact opposite of that of Thomas Hobbes. While Rousseau believes that humans are innately good and that is what should be considered human nature, Hobbes believes that humans are innately bad. These diverse philosophies have lead to the conduction of studies utilizing infants in hopes of uncovering the real truth behind human nature. Rousseau wrote The Social Contract in 1762. The book was introduced with the powerful phrase, “Men are born free, yet everywhere they are in chains”. According to Rousseau, before the construction of a social contract, society was chaotic. While everyone was born innately good, the unorganized interactions with others created obstacles and issues for the free man, hence chaining him wherever he may be. These interactions restrained man’s natural right to independence and quashed the equality and liberty that was guaranteed to man. While Rousseau believed that humans were innately good he also believed that they would only occasionally congregate together in cooperativeness. This cooperativeness was often something performed for the good of all.

Rousseau proposed the social contract as a way to organize and govern these men so that they can all remain the free and good selves that they were prior to becoming exposed to the chaos of frequent social interactions. The social contract states that the only political authority is that that is consented to by all of the individuals within this community, all of whom consented to enter such a social contract merely for the sake of the mutual preservation. The social contract was fabricated to act as a solution to the problems and altercations that society had manifested for the individual. The social contract was constructed to solve the problems that society had created for the human individual. Rousseau advocated that yes humans were born innately good, however they have the potential to be corrupted by society. The innate goodness, “. . can be maintained only in man’s solitary state that is characteristic of the natural man’s lifestyle. As soon as the ‘disturbance’ of social relations is introduced, man’s ingenious machine fuels prey to malfunction”. According to Rousseau the social civilization lead to the corruption of the morality of man and was therefore wrong. When man remained mostly solitary, he remained good. When man is chained by civilization, he becomes corrupt and evil. Rousseau stated that, “when all of these ugly accretions are stripped away, we find a simple, contented, peaceful creature leading a more or less solitary existence”. In other words, Rousseau believes that man’s goodness is only possible while he lives in solitude. Thus the social contract was established in hopes of organizing and governing society so that, at the individual level, may remain free and good.

Rousseau attempted to define human nature for the natural law theory. He described human nature as being what we are instinctively born with. He more specifically elucidated this innate nature as having good overtones. Human nature, through the eyes of Rousseau, was good, content, and peaceful, but remained only so in solitary contexts. The goodness has the potential of corruption by social civilization. This corruption was believed to be amended through the utilization of a social contract to organize and govern the civilization. While we currently do not know the truth behind human nature, whether Rousseau or Hobbes was correct or even both incorrect, we do know that the theory of natural law can remain applicable to humans.

References

1. Garrard, G. “Rousseau, Happiness and Human Nature. ” Political Studies, vol. 62, 2014, pp. 70–82.
2. Griswold, C L. “Liberty and compulsory civil religion in Rousseau's Social Contract. ” The Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 53, Apr. 2015, eds. b. ebscohost. com/eds/detail/detail?vid=4sid=38510b5d-030a-4a57-8e60-a3bb34c09071%40sessionmgr103bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN=edsgcl. 415844947db=edsggo.
3. Shaapera, S A. “Evaluating the social contract theoretical ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau: An analytical perspective on the state and relevance to contemporary society. ” African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, vol. 9, Feb. 2015, pp. 36–41. , www. academicjournals. org/journal/AJPSIR/article-full-text-pdf/99A103649804.
4. Stanila, A M. “Nature and society with Th. Hobbes and J. J. Rousseau. The evolution of man from the natural state to the social state and the social contract. ” The Scientißc Journal of Humanistic Studies, 1 Oct. 2012, pp. 60–65. , eds. a. ebscohost. com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=b5dfc0b9-25a6-42bf-a872-2c09f4044aed%40sessionmgr4009.
5. Stuchebrukhov, O. “‘‘Ridiculous’’ dream versus social contract: Dostoevskij, Rousseau, and the problem of ideal society. ” Studies in East European Thought, vol. 59, June 2007, pp. 101–117. , content. ebscohost. com/ContentServer. asp?T=P&P=ANK=26210941&S=RD=a9h&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSep644xNvgOLCmr1Cep65Ssq64S7CWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGutlC1rrVKuePfgeyx43zx.