Enlightenment thinkers
...Rousseau, Locke had reasons for man to leave the state of nature. He states how the “state of nature” is full of fears, there is no impartial judge, no established law, and no one to enforce. Montesquieu’s theory of man is different than the others. It states nothing about the “state of Nature.” He looks optimistically at man, but does not include God, or knowledge of his fellow man. Man often does not regard religious morals and laws. According to Montesquieu, passions often get in the way of the path of man’s intelligence. As you can see, Rousseau and Locke both talk about the “state of Nature.” Both hint that society was better before rules. Locke talks about the freedom you had in this state, and Rousseau talked about how civilization corrupted this nature. Montesquieu strayed from finding out about this state of nature, and explains how man is unfocused and lets things get in the way of his intelligence. Each philosopher thought that man possessed different natural rights, and defined freedom differently. Liberty and Equality were rights that Rousseau thought all men had. He defined freedom as a duty. You carried out this responsible not for pleasure but because it showed strength and self control. If you didn’t possess freedom you would look irresponsible. “Freedom is to obey a law which we proscribe for ourselves.” John Locke thought man had the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke defined the “perfect freedom” as having independence, equality, virtue, freedom, and peace. However unlike Rousseau, he looked at natural rights as a negative aspect of life. They made man no good, and made him out of control. Another negative outlook was given by Montesquieu. The natural rights he thought man possessed were liberty and Justice. His definition of justice was doing whatever was legal. He is also interested in a very well organized society. From reading this you can conclude that while Rousseau gave a very positive outlook on freedom being a duty, and having it to look responsible, Locke and Montesquieu gave a more negative aspect of it, as Locke said freedom made man out of control, and Montesquieu stated that it was simply following society. While Montesquieu and Rousseau both thougth liberty was a natural right, they both used it differently in defining freedom. Rousseau and Locke both talked about a social contract, while Montesquieu was not concerned with that matter. In Rousseau’s “Social Contract” he wrote how as soon as you entered into a social contract you turned you back on all of your natural rights. You turned Natural Liberty into Civil Liberty, and by gaining rights over others, you loose self rights. Under this contract you become a part of the machine of our society. If you do not enter this contract bad things will happen to you, and you will be cast out of society. Locke’s social contract was more of a civil contract, when you make a Tacit Consent, which is the silent, unwritten, understood consent you give to the society when you continue to live there, you give up all of your rights to act as your own person. You enter into a legal contract, and can no longer be your own individual judge or policeman. The government is a trustee and can only do what its authorized to do. Its your government and its actions are limited. All three philosophers had an ideal government of their own. In Rousseau’s government there would be one central ruler who had power over everything. He would be the Legislator, and would be as Plato put it, a “philosopher-king.” Another type of possible government would be small ...