Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau Essay

Comparing magic trick Locke, fundament Stuart milling machinery, and Jean-Jacques RousseauJohn Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Lockes The Second Treatise of Government, Mills On Liberty, and Rousseaus Discourse On The Origins of Inequality are influential and compelling literary works which slice outlining the conceptual framework of each nouss ideal kingdom present divergent visions of the really nature of soldiery and his freedom. The three spend a penny somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to generate in political society because they have different views regarding mans basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosophers perspective. Joh n Locke distinguishs his belief that all men exist in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has except the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to consume and profit from property as necessary for being free. John Stuart Mill defines liberty in relation to three sph... ...Mill does not implicitly depose or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly intimidate freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited hinderance into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are state to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one fix perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. BibliographyWorks CitedCress, Donald A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau The Basic Political Writings. capital of IndianaHackett, 1987.Ebenstein, William. Great Political Thinkers From Plato to Present. New York Rinehart & Co, 1951.