In "The Origin of Civil Society," Rousseau makes many debatable points regarding the benefits of a civil state over a state of nature. Rousseau states that humans living in a state of nature are only a short term solution for society and would not survive in the long run. Society living in a civil state of social contracts is a more secure and safe way of life in which the people have security and more importantly happiness. Throughout "The Origin of Civil Society," Rousseau goes into great deal of detail regarding slavery and families including the social contracts that go into making a civil state along with the problems of a state of nature. Although the essay is presented well, Rousseau makes assumptions with no evidence to back them up and uses many writing devices to persuade the reader. .
Rousseau is adamant about the faults in a society that lives in a state of nature. In this state of nature, man is only a "stupid animal" whose existence is one of instinct and necessity for his own self interest and survival. In this state, man does have natural liberty to take anything he desires assuming he is the strongest. But when living in a civil state, man trades this natural liberty for civil liberty where he can secure property he can claim as his own. Rousseau goes on to explain how man has no security in this state of nature where only the strongest survive. Eventually, even the strongest would die or an outside threat or natural disaster would lead to the end of society. Yet, Rousseau fails to look at other possibilities of human nature and a family bond in a state of nature.
In this argument, Rousseau makes the assumption that humans by nature are driven by self interest with no evidence or explanation. This may be argued that humans by nature are loving caring beings and not these "stupid animals" of which Rousseau refers to. Rousseau fails to mention the role of the family in a state of nature, where parents would instinctively protect their children from outside dangers.
