{"id":48,"date":"2015-12-15T21:46:23","date_gmt":"2015-12-16T02:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/?page_id=48"},"modified":"2015-12-15T21:46:23","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T02:46:23","slug":"essay-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/essay-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Essay 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kyle Sheehan<\/span><\/p>\n

FYS 100 \u2013 Section 50 Social Utopia<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr. Watts<\/span><\/p>\n

November 5, 2015<\/span><\/p>\n

Property: Compare how Rousseau and More present the problem of property and their solutions to this problem. \u00a0Consider 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rousseau vs More on the matter of Private Property<\/span><\/p>\n

In a world as concentrated on consumer culture as our own, the notion of owning or <\/span><\/p>\n

distribution property becomes a major concern. Property is defined as something or things that <\/span><\/p>\n

belong to an individual or collective group. This idea of ownership becomes an even bigger <\/span><\/p>\n

concern when considering how to create a utopia or happier society which is exactly what <\/span><\/p>\n

More\u2019s <\/span>Utopia<\/span><\/i> and Rousseau <\/span>A Discourse on Inequality <\/span><\/i>attempt to do. After analyzing both <\/span><\/p>\n

texts, the similarities and differences between the two\u2019s views become apparent.<\/span> The <\/span><\/p>\n

similarities can be found in their firm belief in the negative effects of private property however, <\/span><\/p>\n

they differ in their means of solving said effects. Both More and Rousseau agree with the idea <\/span><\/p>\n

that property, specifically private property, poses as a major obstacle in achieving greater <\/span><\/p>\n

happiness among the public (More p47, Rousseau p119). Rousseau presents private property as <\/span><\/p>\n

the cause of a large number of social ills as well as a main role in the \u201cprogress\u201d known as <\/span><\/p>\n

civilization. Rousseau ironically considers this \u201cprogress\u201d a digression of happiness. He also <\/span><\/p>\n

points out the consequences that come along with the questionable claiming of land and right <\/span><\/p>\n

to property. More bashes private property as the cause of poverty and general unhappiness <\/span><\/p>\n

among the population. He claims that the only permanent and real solution to the problem of <\/span><\/p>\n

private property is the abolition of said private property (More p47). Rousseau on the other <\/span><\/p>\n

hand believes that the ills caused by private property can be solved or lessened by the <\/span><\/p>\n

institution of rules (Rousseau p121). However, being that Rousseau believes the institution of <\/span><\/p>\n

rules (civilization) to directly correlate to the a less happy state, this solution is actually a <\/span><\/p>\n

digression. Rousseau believes that an individual is happier and better off in his natural, savage <\/span><\/p>\n

state rather than his civilized state (Rousseau p81). Therefor, Rousseau argues the only the way <\/span><\/p>\n

to achieve greatest happiness lies in the abolition of civilization and regression to man\u2019s natural <\/span><\/p>\n

state.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rousseau\u2019s problem with private property lies in the social ills that come with it. He <\/span><\/p>\n

argues that private property creates a \u201cdevouring ambition, the burning passion to enlarge <\/span><\/p>\n

one\u2019s relative fortune, not so much from real need as to put oneself ahead of another\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

(Rousseau p119). The idea of owning land or having a right to property creates bitter <\/span><\/p>\n

competition and rivalry that divides the population. This competition and rivalry leads people to <\/span><\/p>\n

take advantage of one another at the others expense (Rousseau p119 line29). Once all the land <\/span><\/p>\n

has been claimed and the estates expand to the point of bordering one another, the greed for <\/span><\/p>\n

more still lingers. At this point there is no conceivable way to expand one\u2019s estate without <\/span><\/p>\n

taking claimed land from a neighboring estate (Rousseau p119 line37). The weak are taken <\/span><\/p>\n

advantage then taken advantage of and become \u201cpoor without having lost anything\u201d (Rousseau <\/span><\/p>\n

p120). Their chance at happiness was essentially stolen from them without even having been <\/span><\/p>\n

given to them in the first place. Now that they have been stripped of their land, the weak are <\/span><\/p>\n

forced to adapt. Being that they have no alternative to receive subsistence, they must steal <\/span><\/p>\n

from the rich. This rift between the rich and poor creates a variety of social ills such as <\/span><\/p>\n

dominion, servitude, violence, and robbery (Rousseau p120 line5). Rousseau argues that the <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cright of property, the elimination of equality, was followed by the most terrible disorder\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

(Rousseau p20). By saying this he expresses his belief that property is a main cause of the <\/span><\/p>\n

progression towards civilization. However, Rousseau argues that the progression towards <\/span><\/p>\n

civilization coincides with a digression of happiness and thus, happiness can and will digress due <\/span><\/p>\n

to private property.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rousseau also finds a major problem with the idea of claiming property as one\u2019s own. <\/span><\/p>\n

Fault can be found with any man\u2019s \u201cright\u201d to land. He offers the example that if an individual <\/span><\/p>\n

were to build a wall on property and claim the land due to the labor he put into the property, <\/span><\/p>\n

he would be met with reasonable dispute. One counter to the claim Rousseau presents is the <\/span><\/p>\n

question of why the individual should claim payment for labor he was never asked to endure <\/span><\/p>\n

but rather did in his own best interest (Rousseau p121 line5-8). He argues these faulty claims <\/span><\/p>\n

leave only force to decide the true right to land which leads to only turmoil and disorder.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

More presents, through the dialogue of Hythloday and More, the major problems <\/span><\/p>\n

created with the allocation of private property. Hythloday begins by explaining to More his true <\/span><\/p>\n

beliefs with regards to property. He starts off initially showing a decent amount of reproach <\/span><\/p>\n

pointing out that \u201cwhere everything is measured in terms of money, it is hardly ever possible <\/span><\/p>\n

for the common good to be served with justice\u201d (More p46). He even argues that even the few <\/span><\/p>\n

that share everything are not really happy. The others are left to waft in complete misery. More <\/span><\/p>\n

believes that no one can actually be happy while private property is still instituted (More p46 <\/span><\/p>\n

line21). More, like Rousseau, points out that private property can only lead to division amongst <\/span><\/p>\n

the population. He writes that \u201cwhere everyone tries to get clear title to whatever he can <\/span><\/p>\n

scrape together, then however abundant things are, a few men divide up everything among <\/span><\/p>\n

themselves, leaving everyone else in poverty\u201d (More p47). Just as Rousseau pointed out, More <\/span><\/p>\n

argues that a minority assert their prominence or superiority over the majority. This creates a <\/span><\/p>\n

rift between the rich Hythloday describes the rich \u201clot\u201d as rapacious, wicked, and worthless and <\/span><\/p>\n

are not happy. The poor are obviously at a disadvantage and, as More describes, live in misery <\/span><\/p>\n

(More p46). If both the minority and the majority are living in misery or at best discontent, are <\/span><\/p>\n

the people, by any sense, happy? Reason provides the answer and it is a resounding no. The rift <\/span><\/p>\n

that originally divided the two can be attributed to the creation of private property. Therefor, <\/span><\/p>\n

More argues that the creation of private property directly opposes the creation of greater <\/span><\/p>\n

happiness.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

More and Rousseau, although both opposed to the idea of private property have <\/span><\/p>\n

different solutions to the problem. Rousseau\u2019s approach to solving the problem utilizes rules to <\/span><\/p>\n

suppress the ills brought on by the unequal distribution of property. He believes that it is only <\/span><\/p>\n

natural that the chaos and disorder created by the allocation of goods will be followed by the <\/span><\/p>\n

creation of laws. \u00a0He says \u201cLet us unite to protect the weak from oppression, to restrain the <\/span><\/p>\n

ambitious and ensure for each the possession of what belongs to him; let us institute rules of <\/span><\/p>\n

justice and peace to which all shall be obliged to conform\u201d (Rousseau p121). Once the weaker <\/span><\/p>\n

majority realize that they are in fact the majority, it becomes apparent that they must unite in <\/span><\/p>\n

order to protect themselves. This protection comes in the form of laws and rules. These laws <\/span><\/p>\n

and rules lead to the creation of a structured government and society. With regards to the <\/span><\/p>\n

creation of government he says \u201call man ran toward their chains believing they were securing <\/span><\/p>\n

their liberty; for although the they had reason enough to discern the advantages of a civil order, <\/span><\/p>\n

they did not have experience enough to foresee the dangers\u201d(Rousseau p122). Rousseau <\/span><\/p>\n

argues that this progression towards civilization only leads to more unhappiness. His only true <\/span><\/p>\n

idea of a solution is the regression of man back to its natural happier state. More on the other <\/span><\/p>\n

hand is much more aggressive in his assertion. He claims that there is absolutely no way for <\/span><\/p>\n

happiness to be achieved without the abolition of private property (More p47). Rousseau <\/span><\/p>\n

considers the rules and laws as a permanent digression. \u00a0He, unlike Rousseau, believes that any <\/span><\/p>\n

other form of \u201cremedy\u201d for the problem, such as rules or laws, would only be able to act as <\/span><\/p>\n

temporary solutions. More compares the creation of such laws to \u201capplying continual poultices <\/span><\/p>\n

to relieve the symptoms of sick bodies that are beyond healing\u201d (More p48). Due to the fact <\/span><\/p>\n

that all other solutions are futile and would only work to temporarily alleviate the issue, More <\/span><\/p>\n

remains set that complete abolition of property is the only path to be take. In order to <\/span><\/p>\n

strengthen his argument, he offers up a counter-argument. In <\/span>Utopia<\/span><\/i>, the character More <\/span><\/p>\n

expresses his belief that the abolition of ownership and property will create an unmotivated, <\/span><\/p>\n

apathetic society (More p48). He fends off this counter argument by pointing out that there is <\/span><\/p>\n

no basis for this belief. Hythloday claims that if More were with him in Utopia, he too would <\/span><\/p>\n

understand why and how it would work (More p48). He even makes the claim to More that the <\/span><\/p>\n

Utopian\u2019s institution is \u201cbetter than ours\u201d (More p50). Therefor, More concludes that abolition <\/span><\/p>\n

of property is in fact necessary to achieve greater happiness.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Both More and Rousseau agree that private property creates a barrier that must be <\/span><\/p>\n

destroyed in order to achieve happiness. They both point out the various consequences and <\/span><\/p>\n

social ills that are associated with ownership and the allocating of goods. Although they differ <\/span><\/p>\n

on some of their views regarding solving the problem, they can both agree that it is in fact a <\/span><\/p>\n

problem. They also are able to agree that the main necessity whilst attempting to solve the <\/span><\/p>\n

problem of private property is the abolition of said property. This complete annihilation of <\/span><\/p>\n

ownership and allocating of goods allows for a greater general happiness.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/span><\/p>\n

More, Thomas, and Edward Surtz. Utopia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Maurice Cranston. A Discourse on Inequality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1984.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kyle Sheehan FYS 100 \u2013 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. \u00a0Consider the problem of property as Rousseau and More define it in their works. Be sure to include private property and communal property in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2402,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-48","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/48","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2402"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/48\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}