On Natural Right: Locke and Rousseau
Jordan Muhsin
Liberty University
GOVT302.D01: Modern Political and Economic Ideas
Professor Jason Ross
March 28th, 2024
John Locke (1588–1679) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) held concepts of the state of nature that remain essential to the field of public policy, and its modern theories; yet differ in the distinction of their meanings and application. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) first implemented the concept of a “state of nature” into politics; as political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899–1973) contended, “[i]f everyone has by nature the right to preserve himself, he necessarily has the right to the means required for his self-preservation,” (Strauss, L., p. 185). Strauss adds that “[a]ccording to Hobbes, however, everyone is by nature the judge of what are the right means to his self-preservation,” (Strauss, L., p. 185).
From Hobbes’ conception of the state of nature came Locke and Rousseau’s theories; while differential, they acknowledged the same essence of externality apart from a worldly government. Locke viewed “[t]he law of nature [as] a declaration of the will of God;” but Rousseau “suggested the return to the state of nature, the return to nature, from a world of artificiality and conventionality, (Strauss, L., pp. 202, 253). As political scientist Alan Bloom (1930–1992) reveals; the concept of “[j]ustice, as it can be seen in nations, consists in maintaining the privileges of those in positions of power. All known states are full of inequalities of birth, wealth, and honor. These inequalities can perhaps be justified in terms of the preservation of the regime, but that does not make them more tolerable for those who do not enjoy them,” (Bloom, A., Strauss, L., 798).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that a state of nature was a state of innocence; writing that “[t]he more we know, the more mistakes we make; therefore ignorance is the only way to escape error. Form no judgments and you will never be mistaken. This is the teaching both of nature and reason… A savage will not turn his head to watch the working of the finest machinery or all the wonders of electricity. ‘What does that matter to me?’ is the common saying of the ignorant; it is the fittest phrase for the wise,” (Rousseau, J., Loc. 6135). Yet Rousseau considered man’s innocent state of nature to be a temporal one; declaring, “[b]ut speaking generally, man is not meant to remain a child. He leaves childhood behind him at the time ordained by nature; and this critical moment, short enough in itself, has far-reaching consequences,” (Rousseau, J., p. 6220). Rousseau elaborated that “[b]y nature men are neither kings, nobles, courtiers, nor millionaires. All men are born poor and naked, all are liable to the sorrows of life, its disappointments, its ills, its needs, its suffering of every kind; and all are condemned at length to die. This is what it really means to be a man, this is what no mortal can escape. Begin then with the study of the essentials of humanity, that which really constitutes mankind,” (Rousseau, J., Loc. 6459).
As Alan Bloom denotes, “Rousseau’s political thought points away from the present in both directions: to man’s happy freedom of the past and to the establishment of a regime in the future which can appeal to the will of those under its authority,” (Bloom, A., Strauss, L., p. 794). It was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who stated that “[n]ot all governments are of the same nature; some are more voracious than others, and their differences are based on another principle, namely, that the further taxes are removed from their source, the more burdensome they are. They should not be measured by the amount of taxes, but by the distance they must cover before returning to the hand that paid there…Monarchy is therefore suited only to rich states, aristocracy to those of moderate wealth and size, and democracy to those that are small and poor,” (Rousseau, J.; Lowell, B., p. 67). Rousseau was described by political theorist Leo Strauss as prudent; writing that “it is of the essence of prudence that one know when to speak and when to be silent,” (Strauss, L., p. 165). Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) asserted that “prudence consists in knowing how to distinguish the character of troubles, and for choice to take the lesser evil;” whilst John Locke wrote of prudence; “to hide from the people the main articles of the christian religion, to disguise the faith of the gospel, to betray christianity itself, is…the cardinal virtue of prudence. May we be delivered then, say I, from a prudential racovian,” (Machiavelli, N., p. 162; Locke, J., p. 2292).
John Locke
John Locke held a different opinion on the origin of nature than Rousseau, finding it to be more complex than any government that could be conceived by man; therefore Locke deferred the sovereignty of man to nature. Locke wrote, “in the species of artificial things, there is generally less confusion and uncertainty than in natural. Because an artificial thing being a production of man, which the artificer designed, and therefore well knows the idea of, the name of it is supposed to stand for no other idea, nor to import any other essence, than what is certainly to be known, and easy enough to be apprehended, (Locke, J., p. 502). Leo Strauss contended that “[t]he state of nature, as Locke conceives of it, is not identical with either the state of innocence or the state after the Fall, (Strauss, L., p. 215). Locke asserted that “morality has a sure standard, that revelation vouches, and reason cannot gainsay, nor question; but both together witness to come from God the great law-maker. And such an one as this, out of the New Testament, I think the world never had, nor can any one say, is any-where else to be found,” Locke, J., p. 2176). John Locke declared the law of nature to be “the highest law,” describing them to be the foundations of the bonds of society, (Locke, J., p. 2177).
John Locke believed in the presupposed equality of man, writing that “God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best Advantage of Life, and Convenience. Alan Bloom denotes that “[i]t is the task of the philosopher to make clear what man’s nature truly is and, on this basis, to define the conditions of a good political order,” (Bloom, A.; Strauss, L., p. 794). Locke wrote that “The Earth, and all that is therein, is given to Men for the Support and Comfort of their Being,” (Locke, J. p. 15). Law, was then guidance rather than merely mandating the actions of man; Locke wrote that; “Law, in its true Notion, is not so much the Limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent Agent to his proper Interest,” adding that for any law to subsist, it must “[prescribe] no farther than is for the general Good of those under that Law: Could they be happier without it, the Law, as an useless thing, would of itself vanish;” Locke concluded “that ill deserves the Name of Confinement which hedges us in only from Bogs and Precipices,” (Locke, J., p. 29).
Similarities & Differences
Both Rousseau and Locke resolved humanity to a state of nature; but differed in their views on virtues, the state of nature, and the concept of equality. On nature, Locke believed that “[s]uch a law of morality Jesus Christ hath given us in the New Testament; but by the latter of these ways, by revelation,” (Locke, J., p. 2176). Locke however asserted man was tasked with building government as “[t]he sovereignty of nature dissolves and men must institute a new form of rule of their own making to take its place,” (Goldwin, R., Strauss, L., p. 704). Locke added that “Men are ‘quickly driven into society’ (§127) for the protection of their property,” (Goldwin, R., Strauss, L., p. 704). Dissimilar to Locke, Rousseau concluded that “[i]t is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty. It is this salutary organ of the will of all which establishes, in civil right, the natural equality between men,” (Rousseau, J., Loc. 2007). Leo Strauss adds that Rousseau understood that “natural law must have its roots in principles which are anterior to reason, i.e., in passions which need not be specifically human,” (Strauss, L., p. 266). In contrast Locke preserved “the distinction between the law of reason, which obliges man as man, and the law revealed in the gospel, which obliges Christians,” (Strauss, L., p. 203).
Whilst Locke believed that equality was given unto man from God, Rousseau believed that modern politics are “based on a partial understanding of man. The modern state, the Leviathan, is directed to its own preservation and, consequently, to that of its subjects. It is, hence, totally negative, taking into account only the condition of happiness, life, while forgetting happiness itself,” (Bloom, A.; Strauss, L., p. 795). Leo Strauss wrote that Rousseau “attacked the sciences and the arts in the name of virtue: the sciences and the arts are incompatible with virtue, and virtue is the only thing which matters. Virtue apparently requires support by faith or theism, although not necessarily by monotheism,” (Strauss, L., p. 255). Rousseau viewed “virtue as the principle of democracy: virtue is inseparable from equality or from the recognition of equality, (Strauss, L., p. 256).
On God
John Locke believed that God created man, calling for legislators to acknowledge his authority over their own depictions of nature; writing that “[h]e that worships God does it with design to please Him and procure His favour. But that cannot be done by him who, upon the command of another, offers unto God that which he knows will be displeasing to Him, because not commanded by Himself. This is not to please God, or appease his wrath, but willingly and knowingly to provoke Him by a manifest contempt, which is a thing absolutely repugnant to the nature and end of worship,” (Locke, J., p. 820). Locke contended that “For God having given Man an Understanding to direct his Actions, has allowed him a freedom of Will, and liberty of Acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that Law he is under, (Locke, J., p. 29).
Locke, on free will contended that “by your own rule, either there was no need of miracles to supply the want of force, after the apostles’ time, or there is need of them still. But your answer, when looked into, has something in it more excellent. I say, a religion that is of God, wants not the assistance of human authority to make it prevail,” (Locke, J., p. 1228). Locke added that “all the truths, of what kind soever, that men uninspired are enlightened with, came into their minds, and are established there. If they say they know it to be true, because it is a revelation from God, the reason is good: but then it will be demanded how they know it to be a revelation from God, (Locke, J., p. 766). Rousseau bore his own evident reverence for God; writing that “[i]n my well-founded self-distrust the only thing that I ask of God, or rather expect from his justice, is to correct my error if I go astray, if that error is dangerous to me. To be honest I need not think myself infallible; my opinions, which seem to me true, may be so many lies; for what man is there who does not cling to his own beliefs; and how many men are agreed in everything? The illusion which deceives me may indeed have its source in myself, but it is God alone who can remove it. I have done all I can to attain to truth; but its source is beyond my reach; is it my fault if my strength fails me and I can go no further; it is for Truth to draw near to me,” (Rousseau, J., Loc. 8098).
Rousseau wrote, of Scripture that; “[t]he reading of the Bible, and especially that of the New Testament, to which I had for several years past applied myself, had given me a sovereign contempt for the base and stupid interpretations given to the words of Jesus Christ by persons the least worthy of understanding his divine doctrine,” (Rousseau, J., Loc. 25070). Jean-Jacques Rousseau precluded the existentialist movement, invoking notions of nihilism in his writing; Rousseau opined that “philosophy, while it attached me to the essential part of religion, had detached me from the trash of the little formularies with which men had rendered it obscure;” yet he recognized the absolutism of natural law, concluding “[j]udging that for a reasonable man there were not two ways of being a Christian, I was also of opinion that in each country everything relative to form and discipline was within the jurisdiction of the laws, (Rousseau, J., Loc. 25070).
Beyond the state of nature is man’s interpretation; yet before he existed there remained a presupposed dominion giveth unto man by his Creator—yet imposes a state of equality among men. As the Apostle Paul scribes, to preserve our natural equality we must “[l]ook at the obvious facts. Those who say they belong to Christ must recognize that we belong to Christ as much as they do” (2 Corinthians 10:7; NLT). Paul reminds us, that we have been given divine sovereignty by God; through His Holy Spirit we can conquer our personal fears, doubts, and biases; concluding “[s]o I will not be ashamed of using my authority,” (2 Corinthians 10:8d; NLT). Allowing Him to dwell within us shapes our perspective on community, thereby preserving the natural right giveth unto man by God.
Conclusion
John Locke presupposed a state of nature to reflect the image of God’s Kingdom, whereby Jean-Locke Rousseau denoted nature as a more obscure metaphysical concept; yet both contended the state of nature to be anterior of government. Locke believed a state of nature essential to create commonwealth, whereas Rousseau believed government to be the corruptor of man’s peaceful state of nature; as government was “not to train him, but to corrupt him; not to teach, but to mislead,” Rousseau, J., Loc. 6459). To Rousseau, commonwealth was built not from fear as with Locke, but by pity as man grew to know the pain and suffering of his fellow men, (Rousseau, J., Loc. 6484). Yet, both political theorists were essential thinkers to the prospect of contemporary government, whereby unity and dissidence are both prerequisites of citizenry. Locke and Rousseau placed the foundation that Constitutional Republic is built upon; whereby the American government acknowledges both the right to individual autonomy, national patriotism, and civic resistance.
Bibliography
Locke, John. (2017). Complete Works of John Locke. (Delphi Series Eight Book 4). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
Locke, John. (2016). Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration (Oxford World’s Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Machiavelli, Niccolò; (2019). The Prince (Original Classic Edition). Translated by Mitch Horowitz. G&D Media. Kindle Edition.
NLT. 2 Corinthians 10:7; 2 Corinthians 10:8d
Rousseau, J. (2017). Collected Works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (Delphi Series Eight Book 18). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
Rousseau, J. (1975). The Essential Rousseau: Translated by Lowell Bair
Strauss, L., et al. (1963, 1972, 1987). History of Political Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Strauss, L. (1950, 1953, 1965). Natural Right and History. (Walgreen Foundation Lectures). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
JMBK.NEWS 