PSC 341 Rousseau on Slavery

Slavery, a function of society that denies all liberties and freedoms, is discussed in the writings of Locke, minimally, and Rousseau, passionately. Locke states that men do not govern themselves, or have free will, and therefore cannot put oneself under absolute control of another. Locke viewed slavery as a rational conclusion after a state of war with POW's and only by some act that deserves death is one given up into slavery. On 429, Rousseau states that a man who is in slavery does not give himself, but sells himself. He states that " a man that give himself gratuitously is to say something absurd. . . he who commits it does not have his wits about him". Rousseau does not have such a basic view on slavery as Locke. And feels that peoples who want freedom will do what is necessary to secure it, and those that are bound by slavery have allowed it to happen as such.

As a nation state/principality/tyrannical leader violates the boundaries of another and enters a State of War, an assumption of power is derived. The power of holding the right to life is that of which I speak. According to Grotius (430) war derives an alleged right of slavery and a right to kill the vanquished, the latter repurchasing their lives through their liberty. Rousseau believes that the right to enslave is not a derivative of killing, so logic cannot be cyclical. Once an enemy lays down his arms he is no longer a combatant (431) To Locke the State of War grants rights through the State of Nature in self preservation and this like Rousseau ends once the state of war has concluded.

Rousseau does not seem as if he is trying to argue Locke's point, it seems as if it is a rational development in thought that expounds on Locke's thinking and expands his ideals. Rousseau has a logical conclusion to the functions of society. Slavery is unjust and he is refuting it as a good function with his conclusion of slavery and right are contradictory, which they are whereas Locke skirts the point.