Discussion Starter: An Application for Liberties

3. Rousseau says that that in society one loses natural liberty, but gains civil liberty. What does that mean?

In Hobbes’ Leviathan the underlying psychology of man pertaining to the natural law is exposed. Man is understood as barbaric and only responding to his own wants and needs. The scarcity of natural resources prompts conflict—a side effect of the natural law. Hobbes relies on covenants as solutions for war, protecting man from his greatest fear, death. These covenants become the premises to the formation of polities, providing universal services in exchange for the freedom of the natural law. 

This opportunity cost is also described in Rousseau’s Social Contract. Rousseau states that natural liberty, similar to Hobbes’ natural law and based on impulse and unlimited rights, is exchanged for civil liberty. Civil liberty through sovereignty can be compared to a business transaction in a way. Although one may have to share the profit of one’s labor, one also receives the benefits of other’s. Rousseau extends this situation as to dichotomize the morality of the liberties. Like Hobbes’ perception of man’s natural state, Rousseau explains how an appetitive being lacks developed principles and complex ideas leading to an eternal happiness. Rousseau denies nature as a model for government for the qualification that natural liberty limits man to existing as a “stupid and unimaginative animal” (14). As a result, Rousseau repeats morality and the upliftment of the soul, “[making] him truly master of himself”, is comparatively advantageous over “the mere impulse of appetite”-slavery (15).

In a modern society that typically is ignorant or lacks awareness of individuals not in formal polities, when faced with realistic opportunities to enact political change for these people, legislators are unsurprisingly unresponsive. In the case of establishing an organization to provide homeless shelters, one can employ Rousseau’s philosophy as a justification for the need of these shelters. Logistically these shelters would have to be funded by a prominent philanthropist or taxpayers. By referring to the differences between natural and civil liberties, both the homeless and the taxpayers would recognize the importance of relinquishing a immoral lifestyle for one that promotes values the taxpayers, already part of a governing body, share. Hobbes’ views of this covenant might seem outdated since it discusses a natural state of constant conflict, something that the homeless do not necessarily face. However, a shelter assures protection and basic resources—following under both philosopher’s concerns about equity and equality. Rousseau also describes how like the people of a society dependent on its ruler, children are dependent on their father in order to fulfill their needs. Respectively, the homeless, who according to the first law of the nature of man desire to provide for their own preservation, can use the resources provided by the homeless shelter to survive. Thus, this shelter fulfills their needs as well as converts them into contributing members of society with morals and a new mindset.