Kyle Sheehan
FYS 100 – Section 50 Social Utopia
Dr. Watts
November 5, 2015
Property: Compare how Rousseau and More present the problem of property and their solutions to this problem. Consider the problem of property as Rousseau and More define it in their works. Be sure to include private property and communal property in your essay.
Rousseau vs More on the matter of Private Property
In a world as concentrated on consumer culture as our own, the notion of owning or
distribution property becomes a major concern. Property is defined as something or things that
belong to an individual or collective group. This idea of ownership becomes an even bigger
concern when considering how to create a utopia or happier society which is exactly what
More’s Utopia and Rousseau A Discourse on Inequality attempt to do. After analyzing both
texts, the similarities and differences between the two’s views become apparent. The
similarities can be found in their firm belief in the negative effects of private property however,
they differ in their means of solving said effects. Both More and Rousseau agree with the idea
that property, specifically private property, poses as a major obstacle in achieving greater
happiness among the public (More p47, Rousseau p119). Rousseau presents private property as
the cause of a large number of social ills as well as a main role in the “progress” known as
civilization. Rousseau ironically considers this “progress” a digression of happiness. He also
points out the consequences that come along with the questionable claiming of land and right
to property. More bashes private property as the cause of poverty and general unhappiness
among the population. He claims that the only permanent and real solution to the problem of
private property is the abolition of said private property (More p47). Rousseau on the other
hand believes that the ills caused by private property can be solved or lessened by the
institution of rules (Rousseau p121). However, being that Rousseau believes the institution of
rules (civilization) to directly correlate to the a less happy state, this solution is actually a
digression. Rousseau believes that an individual is happier and better off in his natural, savage
state rather than his civilized state (Rousseau p81). Therefor, Rousseau argues the only the way
to achieve greatest happiness lies in the abolition of civilization and regression to man’s natural
state.
Rousseau’s problem with private property lies in the social ills that come with it. He
argues that private property creates a “devouring ambition, the burning passion to enlarge
one’s relative fortune, not so much from real need as to put oneself ahead of another”
(Rousseau p119). The idea of owning land or having a right to property creates bitter
competition and rivalry that divides the population. This competition and rivalry leads people to
take advantage of one another at the others expense (Rousseau p119 line29). Once all the land
has been claimed and the estates expand to the point of bordering one another, the greed for
more still lingers. At this point there is no conceivable way to expand one’s estate without
taking claimed land from a neighboring estate (Rousseau p119 line37). The weak are taken
advantage then taken advantage of and become “poor without having lost anything” (Rousseau
p120). Their chance at happiness was essentially stolen from them without even having been
given to them in the first place. Now that they have been stripped of their land, the weak are
forced to adapt. Being that they have no alternative to receive subsistence, they must steal
from the rich. This rift between the rich and poor creates a variety of social ills such as
dominion, servitude, violence, and robbery (Rousseau p120 line5). Rousseau argues that the
“right of property, the elimination of equality, was followed by the most terrible disorder”
(Rousseau p20). By saying this he expresses his belief that property is a main cause of the
progression towards civilization. However, Rousseau argues that the progression towards
civilization coincides with a digression of happiness and thus, happiness can and will digress due
to private property.
Rousseau also finds a major problem with the idea of claiming property as one’s own.
Fault can be found with any man’s “right” to land. He offers the example that if an individual
were to build a wall on property and claim the land due to the labor he put into the property,
he would be met with reasonable dispute. One counter to the claim Rousseau presents is the
question of why the individual should claim payment for labor he was never asked to endure
but rather did in his own best interest (Rousseau p121 line5-8). He argues these faulty claims
leave only force to decide the true right to land which leads to only turmoil and disorder.
More presents, through the dialogue of Hythloday and More, the major problems
created with the allocation of private property. Hythloday begins by explaining to More his true
beliefs with regards to property. He starts off initially showing a decent amount of reproach
pointing out that “where everything is measured in terms of money, it is hardly ever possible
for the common good to be served with justice” (More p46). He even argues that even the few
that share everything are not really happy. The others are left to waft in complete misery. More
believes that no one can actually be happy while private property is still instituted (More p46
line21). More, like Rousseau, points out that private property can only lead to division amongst
the population. He writes that “where everyone tries to get clear title to whatever he can
scrape together, then however abundant things are, a few men divide up everything among
themselves, leaving everyone else in poverty” (More p47). Just as Rousseau pointed out, More
argues that a minority assert their prominence or superiority over the majority. This creates a
rift between the rich Hythloday describes the rich “lot” as rapacious, wicked, and worthless and
are not happy. The poor are obviously at a disadvantage and, as More describes, live in misery
(More p46). If both the minority and the majority are living in misery or at best discontent, are
the people, by any sense, happy? Reason provides the answer and it is a resounding no. The rift
that originally divided the two can be attributed to the creation of private property. Therefor,
More argues that the creation of private property directly opposes the creation of greater
happiness.
More and Rousseau, although both opposed to the idea of private property have
different solutions to the problem. Rousseau’s approach to solving the problem utilizes rules to
suppress the ills brought on by the unequal distribution of property. He believes that it is only
natural that the chaos and disorder created by the allocation of goods will be followed by the
creation of laws. He says “Let us unite to protect the weak from oppression, to restrain the
ambitious and ensure for each the possession of what belongs to him; let us institute rules of
justice and peace to which all shall be obliged to conform” (Rousseau p121). Once the weaker
majority realize that they are in fact the majority, it becomes apparent that they must unite in
order to protect themselves. This protection comes in the form of laws and rules. These laws
and rules lead to the creation of a structured government and society. With regards to the
creation of government he says “all man ran toward their chains believing they were securing
their liberty; for although the they had reason enough to discern the advantages of a civil order,
they did not have experience enough to foresee the dangers”(Rousseau p122). Rousseau
argues that this progression towards civilization only leads to more unhappiness. His only true
idea of a solution is the regression of man back to its natural happier state. More on the other
hand is much more aggressive in his assertion. He claims that there is absolutely no way for
happiness to be achieved without the abolition of private property (More p47). Rousseau
considers the rules and laws as a permanent digression. He, unlike Rousseau, believes that any
other form of “remedy” for the problem, such as rules or laws, would only be able to act as
temporary solutions. More compares the creation of such laws to “applying continual poultices
to relieve the symptoms of sick bodies that are beyond healing” (More p48). Due to the fact
that all other solutions are futile and would only work to temporarily alleviate the issue, More
remains set that complete abolition of property is the only path to be take. In order to
strengthen his argument, he offers up a counter-argument. In Utopia, the character More
expresses his belief that the abolition of ownership and property will create an unmotivated,
apathetic society (More p48). He fends off this counter argument by pointing out that there is
no basis for this belief. Hythloday claims that if More were with him in Utopia, he too would
understand why and how it would work (More p48). He even makes the claim to More that the
Utopian’s institution is “better than ours” (More p50). Therefor, More concludes that abolition
of property is in fact necessary to achieve greater happiness.
Both More and Rousseau agree that private property creates a barrier that must be
destroyed in order to achieve happiness. They both point out the various consequences and
social ills that are associated with ownership and the allocating of goods. Although they differ
on some of their views regarding solving the problem, they can both agree that it is in fact a
problem. They also are able to agree that the main necessity whilst attempting to solve the
problem of private property is the abolition of said property. This complete annihilation of
ownership and allocating of goods allows for a greater general happiness.
Works Cited
More, Thomas, and Edward Surtz. Utopia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Maurice Cranston. A Discourse on Inequality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1984.