Locke and Rousseau on the Nature of Government
Two philosophers who have contributed a great deal to an understanding of the relationship between citizens and government are Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast Rousseau's and Locke's theories regarding the ways in which the governed and the government must and should interact in order to ensure the continuation of a society that is stable, orderly, and conducive to prosperity, equality, and justice for its members. To that end, ideas advanced by each theorist will be discussed and compared. The topic is of significance in that many of the fundamental views reflected in the normative documents of democratic nation-states derive, at least in part, from principles and constructs advanced by Locke and/or Rousseau.
Specific texts such as Locke's The Second Treatise on Civil Government and Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Discourse on the Political Economy, and On the Social Contract will be employed in the report. Additionally, reference to materials discussed in the class will be made. The critical difference between the two theorists to be explicated herein is that Rousseau argued for a far more active role for citizens than did Locke (Rousseau, 1987, p. 176).
During the February 20, 2004 Friday Lecture, Locke's belief that we know through the exercise of the faculty of reason rather than faith was discussed, leading to the conclusion that reason is in the center of Locke's philosophy. Locke (1986, p. 8) defined political power as "a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property." Locke (1986, p. 8) also saw the use of political power to be solely "in the defense of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the political good."
Consequently, he saw liberty as requiring man in nature to be f...