The central points of Rousseau's
First and Second Discourses appear fairly straightforward. Firstly, that
there are two types of inequalities among men: natural and moral inequality.
Natural inequality is that which “is established by nature and consists of the
difference of ages, bodily strengths, and qualities of mind of soul” (101).
Natural inequality results from the undeniable physical differences that humans
are predisposed to through genetics. Moral inequality derives from human
culture and customs. As a result of
human society, moral inequality develops through the acquisition of private
property and human laws.
Nothing seems particularly
problematic with these two observations. Rousseau seems, however, to be
extremely critical of moral inequality. He points out a myriad of problems that
come from the development of the “arts” and from the “renewal” of the sciences.
Yet man is not like beasts because of self-perfection and free agency. What
Rousseau envisions or desires out of this critique is not particularly clear. He
states that “man deviates from [instinct] often to his detriment” (113), which
is unlike beasts who cannot act outside of natural instinct. Rousseau seems
critical of nearly all human institutions. Yet he actually struggles to conceive
of a time when his state of nature existed. He discusses how from the beginning
God directed Adam on good and evil, so the state of nature was destroyed from
the beginning. Rousseau wants to imagine the development of mankind removed
from the Creation in order to better understand man.
Once he has explained all this,
what does he want us to think about it? What is the solution to his critique?
Is there one? What is his point then? It seems that Rousseau would simply
prefer for men to be like beasts. Is this not the only way to do away with
moral inequality?
No comments:
Post a Comment