Who Said 'Man Is Born Free, And Everywhere He Is In Chains'?


4 Answers

E Jacobson Profile
E Jacobson answered
This is a qiute, directly taken from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's book 'The Social Contract' published in 1792. Rousseau 1712-1778 was a French philosopher and writer.
He challenged the orthodox view that Society was the way that it was, with a King, Church, rich people and people living in grinding poverty, because this was the way that God had made things this way.
Instead he argued, God had created all men (sic) equal. Men were all naturally good and God had not made Society, but men had, therefore it could be un-made.
He argued for a social contract between members of Society. This contract would in fact be an exchange of rights and freedoms, so that all could live happily in Society. Any self interest which came into conflict with the common good which would be the aim of this Society, would be viewed as immoral and therefore not permissible. But apart from this, each indivdual would be happy and living a good life.
This concept may sound rather naive, but in fact it founded some philosophical discussion which is the basis of many western democracies.
thanked the writer.
theertha vani
theertha vani commented
Yes, it is correct man had not born free he had born with a crying so his life had started with sad only
Anonymous Profile
Anonymous answered
Only one that is natural, is the family: And even so    the children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him    for their preservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is    dissolved. The children, released from the obedience they owed to the    father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children,    return equally to independence. If they remain united, they continue so no    longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then    maintained only by convention.        This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is to    provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes    to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole    judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes    his own master.        The family then may be called the first model of political societies:    The ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and    all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own    advantage. The whole difference is that, in the family, the love of the    father for his children repays him for the care he takes of them, while,    in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of the love which    the chief cannot have for the peoples under him.        Grotius denies that all human power is established in favour of the    governed, and quotes slavery as an example. His usual method of reasoning    is constantly to establish right by fact.1    It would be possible to employ a more logical method, but none could be    more favourable to tyrants.        It is then, according to Grotius, doubtful whether the human race    belongs to a hundred men, or that hundred men to the human race: And,    throughout his book, he seems to incline to the former alternative, which    is also the view of Hobbes. On this showing, the human species is divided    into so many herds of cattle, each with its ruler, who keeps guard over    them for the purpose of devouring them.        As a shepherd is of a nature superior to that of his flock, the    shepherds of men, i.e., their rulers, are of a nature superior to that of    the peoples under them. Thus, Philo tells us, the Emperor Caligula    reasoned, concluding equally well either that kings were gods, or that men    were beasts.        The reasoning of Caligula agrees with that of Hobbes and Grotius.    Aristotle, before any of them, had said that men are by no means equal    naturally, but that some are born for slavery, and others for dominion.        Aristotle was right; but he took the effect for the cause. Nothing can    be more certain than that every man born in slavery is born for slavery.    Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from    them: They love their servitude, as the comrades of Ulysses loved their    brutish condition.2 If then there    are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves against nature.    Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuated the    condition.        I have said nothing of King Adam, or Emperor Noah, father of the three    great monarchs who shared out the universe, like the children of Saturn,    whom some scholars have recognised in them. I trust to getting due thanks    for my moderation; for, being a direct descendant of one of these princes,    perhaps of the eldest branch, how do I know that a verification of titles    might not leave me the legitimate king of the human race? In any case,    there can be no doubt that Adam was sovereign of the world, as Robinson    Crusoe was of his island, as long as he was its only inhabitant; and this    empire had the advantage that the monarch, safe on his throne, had no    rebellions, wars, or conspirators to fear.
Anonymous Profile
Anonymous answered
Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the book "Du contrat social (ou Principes du droit politique)" (1762)

Answer Question