Kant and David on Causality Rousseau and Adam Smith on Social Order

Kant and David on Causality; Rousseau and Adam Smith on Social Order Compare and contrast Rousseau and Adam Smith, on the importance of economic or political mark in their account of social order. Rousseau saw the development of organized political life as synonymous with generating social inequality. As "individuals have more contact with one another and small groupings begin to form, the human mind develops language, which in turn contributes to the development of reason" (Discourse on inequality, Spark Notes, 2012).

This development of reason, although it seems like a positive advancement for the species, also enables human beings to compare their lot with others. As institutions are drawn up to govern the new society, persons with greater political and economic strength (generated through holding political or leadership positions or private property) come to dominate over other citizens. The more complex societies become, the more they necessitate divisions of labor, which creates class warfare between the haves and the have-nots.

The 'haves' must bolster their unnaturally beneficial social position with greater force and strive to dominate the 'have-nots' (Discourse on inequality, Spark Notes, 2012). Smith, in contrast, took a beneficial view of economics and the social order as conducive to promoting human freedom. Smith, like Rousseau, was against tyranny and the control of wealth by a narrow band of 'haves.' But rather than viewing community property as the solution, Smith based his philosophy upon a spirit of free exchange.

He thought that "social harmony would emerge naturally as human beings struggled to find ways to live and work with each other" ("Introduction," Adam Smith Institute, 2012). The division of labor would enable people to specialize and exchange outputs, not dominate over one another (as Rousseau feared). Smith's notion of an 'invisible hand' suggested that as "people struck bargains with each other, the nation's resources would be drawn automatically to the ends and purposes that people valued most highly" ("Introduction," Adam Smith Institute, 2012).

A less, rather than a more conflicted society would be created through privatized economic development. The natural sympathies human beings have for one another generate cooperation and are facilitated by rather than destroyed by the generation of social contracts and differentiated economic life. Q7. What did Hume and Kant say about causality in their views? compare and contrast. The philosopher David Hume denied the existence of causality.

Although we might believe, based upon personal observation, that A will inevitably produce B, Hume denied that such a supposition truly constituted knowledge: "cause and effect are entirely distinct events, where the idea of the latter is in no way contained in the idea of the former...The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it" (De Pierris & Friedman 2008).

Causal relationships are delusions. Feelings of causality arise based upon our perception, but the effect is not located in the cause a priori. However, Kant held that "the very concept of cause so obviously contains the concept of a necessity of the connection with an effect and a strict universality of the rule" (De Pierris & Friedman 2008).

Although not all effects may be evident within causes, concepts of causality do exist for Kant "a priori as pure concepts or categories of the understanding" within the human consciousness (De Pierris & Friedman 2008). Although not all perceptions of causality may be true, there is still evidence that causality is not merely a subjective 'connecting of the dots,' as supposed by Hume but that causality has a real existence.

Kant "claimed that experience requires experiencing things has having some temporal order other than the subjective order of one's own perceptions (for instance, the fact that I see one thing after another doesn't automatically entail that one thing happened after the other), but that the distinction between objective and subjective temporal orders requires the concept of causation" ("Causality," New World Encyclopedia, 2012). There is a distinction between my false, immediate perception of a causal.