Essay 2

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.