Rousseau and Burke on Revolution: Comparing Their Views
This paper examines and compares the philosophical views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke on the nature and justification of revolution. Drawing on Rousseau's key works—including The Social Contract, Discourse on Inequality, and Discourse on the Arts and Sciences—the paper traces how Rousseau grounded his revolutionary theory in the corruption of human nature by society, the transformation of amour de soi into amour-propre, and the necessity of a legitimate social contract. It then analyzes Burke's contrasting position as expressed in Reflections on the Revolution in France, showing how Burke distinguished between justified and unjustified revolutions. The paper concludes that, despite their apparent differences, both thinkers ultimately accepted revolution as a legitimate political force under the right conditions.
- Introduction: Two Revolutionary Thinkers: Overview of Rousseau's life and revolutionary legacy
- Rousseau's Philosophy of Human Nature and Society: Amour de soi, amour-propre, and society's corruption of man
- Rousseau's Social Contract and the Seeds of Revolution: Social contract theory and revolution as political necessity
- Burke's Conservative Critique of the French Revolution: Burke's opposition to French Revolution and radical change
- Burke's Nuanced Position on Revolution: Burke's acceptance of some revolutions but not France's
- Conclusion: Agreement Beneath the Disagreement: Both thinkers accepted revolution under the right conditions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper structures its argument as a genuine comparison, examining each thinker in depth before drawing meaningful contrasts and surprising areas of agreement in the conclusion.
- Key French philosophical terms — amour de soi and amour-propre — are clearly defined and consistently applied as analytical tools throughout the discussion of Rousseau.
- The conclusion synthesizes both arguments to reveal a counterintuitive insight: despite their apparent opposition, Burke and Rousseau both endorsed revolution in principle, differing chiefly on what justifies a particular revolution.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis by tracing each thinker's core premises — Rousseau's theory of natural goodness corrupted by society, and Burke's defense of tradition against radical rupture — and then showing how these premises lead to divergent evaluations of the same historical event, the French Revolution. This technique of grounding comparison in foundational premises rather than surface-level positions strengthens the paper's analytical depth.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a biographical and contextual introduction to each philosopher, then devotes the bulk of its body to Rousseau's multi-text philosophical framework (covering three major works) before turning to Burke's Reflections and related writings. A brief conclusion draws the two threads together, identifying the key point of agreement — that revolution can be legitimate — while clarifying the precise source of their disagreement over the French Revolution specifically.
Introduction: Two Revolutionary Thinkers
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712 – July 2, 1778) left a legacy as one of the finest Western thinkers. He was a Franco-Swiss writer, philosopher, political theorist, and self-schooled composer of the Age of Enlightenment. Rousseau's political ideas served to guide the French Revolution, the development of socialist theory, and the growth of nationalism — some credit him with inspiring America's famous isolationism as well. His legacy as a radical and revolutionary is perhaps best demonstrated by his most famous line, drawn from his most important work, The Social Contract: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Edmund Burke (1729–1797), by contrast, is most famous for his writings opposing the French Revolution, and his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) is widely regarded as a founding text of modern conservative thought. Yet, as this paper argues, both thinkers were ultimately proponents of revolution — they differed chiefly on what makes a particular revolution justified.
Bibliography
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, 1750.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin and Basis of the Inequality of Men, 1754.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract, 1762.
Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.