The Origin Of Civil Society

770 Words4 Pages
“The Origin of Civil Society” In “The Origin of Civil Society,” Rousseau makes numerous points regarding the benefits of a civil state rather than a state of nature. Rousseau states that humans living in a state of nature are only a short term solution for society and would not survive in the long run. Society living in a civil state of social contracts is a more secure and safe way of life in which the people have security and more importantly happiness. Although some people disagreed with his idea ultimately, I believe that in the end, the civil state is the only way society can function in a productive way because of slavery, families, and social contracts that go into making a civil state, along with the problems of a state of nature. Many people disregarded his beliefs and ideas presented in his essay because of the assumptions he makes with no evidence to further back them up. They thought that there are ample other ways a society would be able to function properly. For example, Rousseau fails to look at other possibilities of human nature and a family bond in a state of nature. In addition, he leaves out his reference to the family analogy when dealing in the state of nature. Rousseau makes the assumption that humans by nature are driven by self interest with no evidence or explanation. This may be argued that humans by nature are loving caring beings and not these “stupid animals” of which Rousseau refers to. Rousseau fails to mention the role of the family in a state of nature, where parents would instinctively protect their children from outside dangers. The parents would not only look out for their self-interest, but also in the interest of its children. Many people disregarded his belief that the state of nature will not work out and the civil state is a superior alternative. Despite those who thought otherwise, a civil state is superior
Open Document