Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality, written for the Academy of Dijon in 1754, is an attempt to answer the question "What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by natural law?" Rousseau had won a previous competition with his 1st Discourse and was not to be so lucky with the 2nd, but this work on inequality remains a fascinating study into differences among men. Rousseau begins his work by turning the question on its head. He asks, "For how shall we know the source of inequality between men, if we do not begin by knowing mankind?" Rousseau then sets out to theorize about the history of mankind, beginning with his condition in a state of nature and working stage by stage through man's development towards civil society. In doing so, Rousseau "lay[s] facts aside, as they do not affect the question." This is to say that Rousseau ignores the biblical account of human history and instead sets out to develop his own understanding of man's origins.

Rousseau discusses two types of inequality, natural or physical and moral or political. Natural inequality involves differences between one man's strength or intelligence and that of another – it is a product of nature. Rousseau is not concerned with this type of inequality and wishes to investigate moral inequality. He argues this inequality is endemic to a civil society and relates and causes differences in power and wealth. This type of inequality is established by convention. Rousseau appears to take a cynical view of civil society, and refers to times before the current state of civil society, when man was closer to his natural state, as happier times for man. To Rousseau, civil society is a trick perpetrated by the powerful on the weak in order to maintain their power or wealth. But this is Rousseau's end product. He begins his discussion with an analysis of a natural man who has not yet acquired language or abstract thought.

Rousseau's natural man is much different from that of Hobbes. In fact, Rousseau explicitly points this out at various points throughout his work. This is because Rousseau does not see Hobbes as having taken his understanding of natural man far enough back in time. For Rousseau seeks a deeper, richer understanding of natural man. To Rousseau, natural man is a savage man, "living dispersed among the animals." Unlike Hobbes's natural man, Rousseau's is not motivated by fear of death because he cannot conceive of that end, thus fear of death already suggests a movement out of the state of nature. To Rousseau, natural man is more or less like any other animal, where "self-preservation being his chief and almost sole concern" and "the only goods he recognizes in the universe are food, a female, and sleep..." This natural man, unlike Hobbes's, is not in constant state of fear and anxiety.

Rousseau's natural man possesses a few qualities that allow him to distinguish himself from the animals over a long period of time. Of extreme importance is man's ability to choose, what Rousseau refers to as the "free-agency" that differentiates him from other animals. Man's ability to refuse instinct pushes him along the path out of his natural state. In addition, Rousseau argues that "another principle which has escaped Hobbes" is man's compassion. This quality of man also motivates him to interact. And finally, man possesses the quality of "perfectability" which allows him to improve his surroundings. Man's contact with other men leads him to develop "amour propre" which is in a sense a "moral me" that creates concern for how others perceive him. Amour proper has four consequences: (1) competition, (2) self-comparison with others, (3) hatred, and (4) urge for power. These all lead to Rousseau's cynical civil society. But amour proper already suggests a significant step out of the state of nature.

External links

• Full text of the Discourse on Inequality (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm)
• Sparknotes on the 2nd discourse (http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/inequality/)