Rousseau’s Second Discourse contains several ideas that can be used to argue against Locke’s theory of property. What is the strongest argument against Locke’s theory that can be found (or reconstructed from what Rousseau says) in the Discourse? Explain the argument in detail, and assess how damaging it is for Locke’s theory. Does Locke have a convincing reply? What conclusions should we draw about the nature of property rights from the exchange?
Two Notes:
1. You don’t have to take Rousseau’s side to answer this question. You might think that Rousseau’s view gives rise to an important objection to Locke, but that Locke ultimately has a convincing reply.
2. The best Rousseauian argument against Locke isn’t necessarily presented as such by Rousseau (that is, it doesn’t necessarily come from a passage in which Rousseau seems to have Locke’s theory in mind). The question is, which of the various things that Rousseau says in the Discourse can be used to construct the strongest objection to Locke’s view?
No more than 5 pages. (double-spaced, standard 12-pt font). Make sure to identify all quotations and paraphrases; all sentences that are not explicitly cited must be entirely your own.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|