Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The origins of land ownership, property, and the ability to claim something as belonging to a particular individual and not all people is a disputable topic. In The Second Discourse, Rousseau critiques Lockes approach to viewing ownership of land. Lockes view on the property is based on the idea that the first person who claimed the land to be theirs is the initiator of modern civilization. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that this argument is not true since the first person to argue that everything on Earth belongs to all people would eliminate this approach to property ownership. In contrast, the social agreement between people is what regulates ownership rights. Lockes approach to the ownership of property is valid because it is grounded in the natural law theory and the fact that each individual has an indisputable right to control their body.
Rousseaus Criticism
Rousseau did not believe that the achievements of civilization are the result of accidents or actions of one individual. According to Rousseau, among all the nations of the world, the progress of the mind has been precisely proportionate to the needs received by peoples from nature or to those needs to which circumstances have subjected them (46). Hence, peoples achievements such as technology, industry, or even language arise from their need, which can be to produce clothes, have food, or merely name objects around them. Moreover, Rousseau argues that the people of the north have more inclinations to industrialization when compared to those living in the south (46). The reason for this is the need and circumstances that push people to explore and create new things.
Peoples actions are a result of their interests and needs, in Rousseaus view. For example, nations that reside in lands with fertile soils do not necessarily succeed as advanced agricultural societies. On the other hand, countries that have a need to develop agriculture to provide food for themselves can achieve this even on infertile land. However, the peoples achievements and their ability to claim them do not arise naturally, and instead, they are supported through contractual agreements (Rousseau, 47). Although every man can work on the land and receive crops, they cannot claim these crops as their own without having an agreement from others.
Considering the issue of necessity, rights to property arising as a part of the social contract between people. The basis of Rousseaus argument in opposition to Lockes is that people act in accordance with the social contract they agreed to, which justifies property ownership. According to Rousseau, every man by nature has a right to everything he needs; however, the positive act whereby he becomes a proprietor of some goods excludes him from all the rest (152). Hence, the basis of Rousseaus opposition to Locke is that there is nothing natural in ownership. Since everything on Earth belongs to the people, only having an agreement within the society to abide by property rights can allow one to claim something as theirs.
Lockes Response and Evaluation
Lockes potential response to Rousseaus criticism would consist of an exploration of the ownership of ones body and the labor that one puts into achieving things. In The Second Treatise of Government, the author explains his philosophy of natures laws, according to which people appropriate and control things around them (Locke, 288). However, Lockes natural law argument does acknowledge that all people were given an equal right to possess land or other things. The argument is based on ones right to have ownership of one body. In Chapter 5, Locke writes that every Man has a Property in his own Person, which refers to the first ownership element people have since they are born (288). Although in modern society, this right is supported through legal treaties, the history of the civilization shows that ownership of the body has been accepted by people as a moral standard and practice. Due to the fact that this right rises naturally without a social contract that would forbid others from making decisions regarding other peoples bodies, the result of the bodys work results in ownership as well.
Locke believed that labor as a product of ones body extends the persons rights to ownership. The philosopher defines labor as the Work of hands, which allows claiming ownership of the final product (Locke, 288). With this argument, Locke acknowledges the universal ownership of things on Earth for all people but adds the element that allows making distinctions. For example, if a person used their body to mix the soil and look after plants, to grow groups, the combination of their natural right to their body and the work grants them the right to own the land. This is because the actions of a person allow them to change the state in which the objects were created naturally (Locke, 288). Hence, this combination of ones labor with resources that belong to all grants property rights.
Unlike Rousseau, Locke believes that the work that comes into mixing natures common resources with something that inherently belongs to an individual does not require consent from others. According to Locke, assignation or consent of anybody is not necessary when completing actions such as mixing the soli (288). With this approach, Rousseau would argue that actions described by Locke are only valid if other members of society agree that they provide the ownership to the final product. The factor is the ultimate distinction between the views of the two philosophers,
Lockes argument implies that ownership of property is based solely on the inclination of one person to use their body, an object that belongs only to that person without a predefined social agreement to change natures products. Lockes response is adequate since although Rousseau contradicts Lockes approach to property ownership. The main issue between these two philosophers is that they build their arguments using different perspectivessocial contact ad natural rights. Hence, when examining the theories of one another, they see inconsistencies that are derived from using different perspectives. Regardless, Lockes approach is grounded in peoples natural rights, such as their right to control their bodies, which does not originate from a social or legal agreement but exists naturally.
Conclusion
In summary, Rousseau and Locke had different perceptions of property ownership origins. Locke believed that the first person, who claimed a piece of land to their name, established the modern civilization with its policies regarding ownership. Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that human achievements arise naturally from the pursuit of peoples interests and needs. He contradicted Lockes approach by arguing that a mere verbal claim of ownership can be easily counteracted by anyone. The arguments and approaches of the two philosophers differ as one focuses on the civil contract between people and the other on natural rights.
Bibliography
John Locke, Political Writings (2nd. ed., 2003).
Jean-Jacques, Rousseau, Political Writings (2nd. ed., 2003).
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.