Essay II

Property and Injustice

Society is founded on a hierarchy; certain groups of people are valued above other groups of people as exemplified by the distribution of private property. This injustice damages the quality of life for many people because they experience discrimination based on other’s negativity. More and Rousseau are both fascinated with how this inequality emerged. They are also both interested in finding a lifestyle that might avoid this injustice and create happiness for the most people. More and Rousseau argue that property is the cause of inequality in the world, but Rousseau believes that the only way to quell this has already passed meanwhile More is hopeful that he can create a solution. More’s analysis of happiness is more structured and specific than Rousseau’s because he generates a blueprint for a happy society rather than depending on an ideal image from the past.

Both More and Rousseau agree that property is the origin of conflict. More argues that private property is problematic because goods are never dispersed equally and that creates an immediate social hierarchy. He explains that “everything is shared among very few” people which leaves the majority of people struggling to survive (More 46).  Then unfortunately, only people who have been given certain advantages can live comfortably. Rousseau agrees that private property is the immediate cause of injustice in the world. He argues that the first person who created the concept of property introduced inequality and all of its evils to the world. He explains that as soon as man could possess something “many quarrels and fights were born” over these possessions (Rousseau 112). Rousseau sees that these possessions not only trigger the emergence of a social order but cause other terrible, cascading results. Property also brings out a plethora of negative traits in man like jealousy, greed, and materialism. More and Rousseau both recognize the issue of private property but their ideas diverge in how they react to this social issue.

More looks within himself to figure out how to create a happy society. He uses his existing knowledge to formulate a prototype for a functioning society that will generate the most happiness for the most people. He looks at how societies have functioned in the past and how they have failed and he sees that things began to crumble when private property was created. In More’s Utopia he describes the societies he has explored in search of a happy place as exemplified by the travels of Raphael Hythloday. Hythloday is a character that has traveled the world and lived in various countries and analyzed their government structures and values. He is disappointed in all of the places he visits and is only pleased when he reaches a place called Utopus which is More’s hand-crafted society. More notes that the “one and only path to the welfare of the public is the equal allocation of goods” (More 47). He resolves that if this change in private property can be enacted, then people will be treated fairly and receive equal opportunities. More argues that people will only be happy when they are in a new place where a different social structure can be implemented.

More is optimistic that he can create a harmonious society by alleviating the challenges created by inequality. More believes that the way to combat this problem is to restructure society and eliminate private property altogether. He proposes creating a place where everyone lives off of communal resources. In everyday life private property is never distributed equally and thus only a very small percentage of people have the chance to experience stability and happiness. Meanwhile if people could live in a way where there was always shelter and enough food and resources then there could be the most happiness for the most people. More lays out a detailed plan that explains job assignments and housing situations that could allow the community to be sustainable and harmonious. More even accounts for why people would not be greedy because “there is plenty of everything [so] no one need fear that no one would want to ask for more than he needs?” (More 68). He explains simply that when people live in a place where their work provides for the whole community, more people have the potential to be happy. This plan eliminates private property so people share goods which helps to do away with the bad traits man developed. It would also maintain equality and keep people generally happy.

Rousseau also examines history to look for a point in time where people were happy. His unique approach looks to man from his earliest state and all the way through evolution. In his search for the happiest point in time he is looking to see where inequality emerged which in turn created discontent. In his process he examines natural man who lived purely to survive because he did not have the capacity for thoughts or memory. He then looks further into the development of man as he acquires thought, language and skills and is able to pinpoint an exact moment where inequality emerged. He comes to the conclusion that “the first man who, having enclosed a piece of land” and claimed it as his own, created property, establishing inequality (Rousseau109). From this first instance of inequality Rousseau then proceeds to describe the development of man in terms of justice, government, and society. From that point on all of man’s developments are dark because they are tainted with the evils that inequality generated. From these observations of the history of man Rousseau challenges himself to figure out when man could have been the most content.

Rousseau argues that the moment in time when most people felt the most fulfilled was between their natural state and their developed state. After analyzing the development of man Rousseau does not see a future for happiness, instead he looks to the past and says man has already prospered. Rousseau notes how before natural man possessed property, he was happiest because he had no cruel intentions nor any thoughts at all besides a will to survive. In this empty state he caused no major problems. However, while natural man was uncomplicated Rousseau understands that without comprehension man could not be truly happy either. He believes that man during the “period of development of human faculties, the golden mean between the indolence of the primitive state and the petulant activity of our own pride, must have been the happiest epoch and the most lasting” for the human race (Rousseau 115). Rousseau envisions during this time period a nuclear family living in a simple shelter as they communicate, perform tasks, form memories, and continue to learn new skills. Man was developing mentally and he was learning but man still had few possessions so he was neither greedy nor evil because he did not yet know enough act malevolently. In this moment, man was advanced enough to have a concept of his happiness and store it as a memory yet he was still not exposed to evil. For these reasons this must have been his happiest period because he was living a stable life yet he was still uncorrupted by the possession of excessive property.

While neither of these moments in time are particularly realistic, More’s blueprint for creating a happy society is meticulous meanwhile Rousseau’s concept only exists as a memory from the past. Rousseau’s argument that man peaked at an earlier time is a valid argument, however it is completely beyond our reach because he has found a happier place in the past. He does not think in terms of the using ideas from that happy time in the past to create a prosperous society in the future and instead continues to commemorate what has passed. Meanwhile More’s plan while extremely idealistic is thoughtful and detailed. It gives an exact plan for how to form a harmonious society simply by establishing a lifestyle based on communal resources. More’s thoughts about society are both creative and scrupulous while Rousseau’s happy society is nothing more than a vision from the past.

Many may argue that Rousseau’s vision of happiness is more realistic than More’s vision, because it is more simplistic but neither vision is practical. More’s ideas are well-calculated however he never illustrates a method of implementing  a Utopian society. He even uses a metaphor in Utopia and explains that Hythloday cannot even locate the island of Utopia and only arrives there by accident. The society of Utopia is clever but inaccessible just like the theory of creating a harmonious society. He is creative in structuring an island without private property but he never elaborates on how to achieve that type of lifestyle. Rousseau’s elementary vision of happiness exists within a small family before there were many diverse ideas or possessions. The idea of living with so little and being happy is intelligent but it is also incredibly theoretical and exists only as a thought. While Rousseau’s thoughts are less complicated they are still not sensible. Neither Rousseau nor More generate realistic ideas about society.

More and Rousseau disagree on when man is in a state of contentment. More provides an alternative to the corruption found in everyday society meanwhile Rousseau says man is doomed to experience corruption because he has already experienced the highest level of happiness. They agree that private property is toxic and to remedy that one must phase it out. Private property creates large socio-economic disparities that are pernicious for the population. If people could all live life on an even playing field then much of the world’s evil would be eradicated.

Word Count: 1645

Works Cited

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on Inequality (London: Penguin, 1984)

 

Thomas More, Utopia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001)

 

 

 

 

I pledge that I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

 

Jessica Nadel