Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his writing The Social Contract, (Rousseau), philosophizes on what a civil society entails. Rousseau shows great ability to allow reason to prevail over manipulation in his political assertions. In the writings ‘Of Slavery’ section, Rousseau examines the nature of conflicts and alleges that war exists between states and not man. Rousseau applies reason to the actions of man and claims it to be a requirement for civil society to exist. Following his logic, he surmises that slavery of individuals and/or whole societies cannot exist in a civil world because this contract would be invalid in the eyes of reason and nature. I believe Rousseau’s ideas are sound in principal and should and some should be incorporated into modern legal doctrines. Natural law works subtly against violators of it by natural methods. This sometimes takes its form in the conscience of people and directs them to act helping to regulate natural order.

Rousseau attempts in his writing to show that there is a higher reasoning than the conscience of man, and this is verbalized in his statement concerning men who submit into a contract of slavery voluntarily, “for to alienate another’s liberty is contrary to the natural order, …” (Rousseau 61).

Rousseau continues that slavery is a not a valid contract by reasoning fairness to both parties does not exist, in effect making such an arrangement in the eyes of common sense “vain and meaningless” (Rousseau, 61).

It is easy enough for slaves to agree with this train of thought; but what is there to make free people or slaveholders to find truth in Rousseau’s beliefs?

Rousseau’s rhetoric involves presenting scenarios, often the opinions of others, and countering them in accordance to his philosophies. Using Grotius’ theory on the rationalization for slavery of the defeated in war, Rousseau briefly looks at these justifications to lay a base of reasons, creating contrast for his own opinions on which he then elucidates. Grotius held that it is a right of the victor to extirpate, referring to the defeated, he followed this argument by concluding that it is within the victor’s rights to “ransom his life at the expense of his liberty”(Rousseau, 62).

Grotius elaborates in his book On the Law of War and Peace referring to enslaving losers of war, “Nor is the commission of crime requisite to reduce them to this condition, but the fate of all is alike, who are unfortunately taken within the territories of an enemy, upon the breaking out of war” (Grotius). Grotius’ opinions give no merit to moral civility. The ruler or ruling that denies the property and liberty to the individuals of a defeated nation or group is fighting an uphill battle on civility and natural law, forces that are often underestimated by corrupt oppressors. The definition of natural law that I am referring to is well defined in James A. Donald’s Natural Law and Natural Rights including “Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man” (Donald).

Donald and I agree that this theory of natural law is embedded in human nature and government policies that go against the ingrained human core morals will always be subject to resistance equaling that to which it is opposed. When evaluating causes and definition of war, one can see that indiscriminate killing and slavery are direct extensions of war, and being such will always face opposition. » Read more: Rousseau – Slavery, War, and Natural Law