Although Adam Smith is considered a great defender of commercial society and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as one of its eminent critics , the two thinkers share certain criticisms of the division of labor. Both recognize that the distribution of tasks among individuals leads to the creation of social distinctions and the vain search for happiness in luxury. For Rousseau, the division of labor causes moral inequality, a difference established by social convention. Cooperation with others enslaves modern man by creating the right to property, which allows the domination of the rich over the poor. Furthermore, the division of labor gives man new needs, those of others and material objects, which have no meaning in relation to his natural needs (Rousseau 67). For Smith, the division of labor also creates frivolous needs, expressing human selfishness. He finds it unwise that people seek luxury when the poorest members of society have enough to survive (Theory 181). Additionally, Smith asserts that the division of labor diminishes intellectual and physical skills due to its highly specialized nature (Wealth 782). Yet, despite his misgivings, Smith views the division of labor as a beneficial economic mechanism. Thus, it seems unusual that although Smith and Rousseau present powerful critiques of the division of labor, these critiques lead them to different views of its place in commercial society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay The conflicting views of Smith and Rousseau arise from their different assumptions about human nature. Their beliefs about whether humans are naturally solitary or social affect their definitions of inequality and how the division of labor contributes to inequality. Their assumptions also determine how the allocation of tasks affects the individual. Rousseau in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality presents man as naturally solitary, devoid of emotional or practical need for others. He states that man in the state of nature was happy, because he had few needs and little contact with those around him (Rousseau 57). Conversely, Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, presents man as social or as having an innate need for others. He argues that the division of labor arises from a natural propensity to exchange goods (Wealth 25). Smith also asserts that man has a natural sympathy and therefore longs for others to share his pain and joy (Theory 22). Thus, the relationship between natural sociability and human satisfaction determines the way in which Rousseau and Smith evaluate the distribution of tasks between individuals. While Rousseau views the division of labor as antithetical to solitary happiness, Smith views it as an essentially positive outcome of natural sociability and offers solutions to its harmful effects. The decision to make man social or solitary by nature constitutes the driving force behind the criticisms of both authors. . Rousseau uses his hypothesis that man is solitary to explain his views on inequality and to later show how the division of labor contributes to inequality. He emphasizes that in the state of nature, solitude is essential to human happiness. Rousseau claims that man had few needs, apart from those of food, rest and sex. Even sex, which requires contact with others, does not create emotional attachment in the wild man. He maintains that heit is simply a tool to propagate the species (56). Rousseau also asserts that man was not tempted to dominate others because of his natural pity, his repugnance to see others suffer. He affirms that “pity is that which, in the state of nature, takes the place of laws, morals and virtue” (55). Thus, thinking about man before commercial society, Rousseau discovers that he has a simple system of needs and that he has no tendency to conflict. According to Rousseau, the division of labor changes this situation by requiring unnecessary cooperation with others and establishing a new set of meaningless needs that destroy solitary happiness. When man makes part of his happiness dependent on others, social comparison begins and the first vestiges of moral inequality appear (65, 67). Although Rousseau recognizes that social associations may have formed in response to natural obstacles such as climate, it is only with the division of labor that these associations come to fruition and impose restrictions on natural freedom. He asserts that once humans stopped performing the tasks of one person, “equality disappeared, property appeared, and labor became necessary” (65). Thus, Rousseau views the division of labor as contrary to human nature while Smith has a different view. In contrast, Smith uses his hypothesis about man's inherent sociability to justify the division of labor. He states in the Theory of Moral Sentiments that man is born with natural sympathy and therefore tends to share the pain or joy of others (9). This concept is similar to Rousseau's idea of ​​natural pity. However, Smith differs from Rousseau in that he maintains that man also has a natural desire to be the object of the sympathy of others. It states that the person primarily concerned with an event will put themselves in the position of a spectator just as the spectator performs the same act of emotional substitution (Theory 22). Smith believes that this desire is so strong that the person concerned will alleviate their suffering so that the viewer can more easily sympathize with them. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith expands his thinking on natural sociability and provides the motivation behind the division of labor. He argues that the division of labor arises from a “natural propensity to carry, barter, and exchange one thing for another” (Wealth 25). Because of a natural sympathy and inclination toward commerce, Smith thus conceives that humans achieve part of their happiness through social associations. Furthermore, the degree of man's natural sociability affects how Smith defines inequality as it relates to the division of labor. Smith does not propose it, “equality has disappeared” with the sharing of tasks as Rousseau points out (Rousseau 65). Although the division of labor creates property, Smith considers the basis of social comparison and distinction to be natural. He asserts that inequality arises from the natural tendency to share the success of others: “upon this disposition of humanity...are founded the distinction of ranks and the order of society” (Theory 52). Because he views human nature as leading to inequality, Smith sees the harmful effects of the division of labor in a more sympathetic light. Thus, Rousseau and Smith's different hypotheses about human nature imply more doubts. The extent of the two thinkers' criticisms depends on how they define happiness in relation to man's natural state. Rousseau and Smith argue that the division of labor distorts natural needs. However, for Rousseau, this harmful effect presents a larger problem, because it opposesto the essential components of human happiness. Because the division of labor requires distributing complex tasks among people, it increases dependence on others. The shift from independent to group work creates a need for social association distinct from the natural needs for food, rest, and sexuality. This makes man no longer self-sufficient and happy in himself. Furthermore, Rousseau argues that when one man demands that others meet his needs, another can dominate him. The division of labor creates the means of social domination by creating property (68). Rousseau cites metallurgy and agriculture as two examples of the division of labor. He proposes that once man used tools to cultivate the land, property rights developed (66). The desire to protect property pushed the rich to develop the social contract and the poor to enter into it. Rousseau asserts that the social contract has destroyed natural freedom, fixed moral inequality and made the fruit of labor the profit of a few. Thus, because it assumes that man is solitary and therefore happy, the division of labor violates Rousseau's concept of natural need. While in the state of nature man's needs contribute to his happiness, the division of labor leads modern man to become the slave of his own passions (67). Because Smith views the false needs of commercial society as having a natural cause, he considers attitude more favorable to the division of labor. Like Rousseau, Smith argues that the division of labor creates imaginary needs. He states that the sharing of tasks allows the poorest workers to “enjoy a greater share of the necessities and conveniences of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire” (Wealth 10 ). Furthermore, in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith, like Rousseau, criticizes the vanity of man in commercial society. He finds it somewhat illogical that people struggle to pursue wealth while the poorest members of society can survive (50). Later in the text, Smith describes the discontent of the aspirant to commercial society: "He serves those whom he hates...Throughout his life he pursues the idea of ​​a certain artificial and elegant rest which he will never be able to achieve. achieve, for which he sacrifices a real tranquility which is at all times in his power" (181). However, it is the division of labor which allows man to go beyond the tasks of a single person and to produce goods useless to his survival. Thus, it seems illogical that Smith condemns luxury when the division of labor is the mechanism that allows its continuation. This apparent contradiction comes from the fact that Smith believes that man naturally desires to be the object. Furthermore, Smith argues that humanity is more inclined to celebrate the joys of others than to share their sufferings (Theory 51). natural sympathy. While Rousseau limits true human needs to food, rest, and sex, Smith cannot view this definition of need as permanent because of its assumptions about human nature. has a natural desire to gain the approval of others, the scope of his needs must always expand. Although the division of labor allows for the pursuit of luxury, Smith proposes that man's false needs have a natural and more legitimate cause. Thus, unlike Rousseau, Smith's most important fears concern not the creation of false needs, but the effects of the division of labor on physical and mental competence. Smith's assumptions about human nature lead his main criticisms tofocus on the individual. While Rousseau's main concern is that the division of labor increases natural needs, Smith analyzes its consequences on mental and physical capacities. He argues that the simplicity of tasks, crucial for the division of labor, intellectually numbs workers. Because each worker has no reason to consider anything other than his menial tasks, he loses his ability to engage in intelligent conversation and form analytical judgments. Smith suggests that the working poor fall more easily into this state of intellectual malaise than other social classes, because they occupy the most simplistic jobs (Wealth 781-2). Rousseau in the Discourse also discusses how social forces can influence differences in mental abilities. He asserts that “the prodigious diversity of education and lifestyles” within civil society contributes to creating disparities in mental insight (58). Although Smith recognizes the negative influences of the division of labor, he nevertheless considers it a useful economic mechanism. Furthermore, because Smith views the division of labor as a consequence of human nature, he advocates ways to remedy its harmful effects rather than simply criticizing it. Smith thus proposes a system of public education to combat its deleterious effects on the abilities of ordinary people (Wealth 785). Smith argues that the division of labor has a similar degenerative effect on physical capacity. Due to workplace inactivity, the division of labor reduces the physical strength of ordinary people. Smith argues that this sedentary lifestyle threatens the security of the state because the population cannot meet the physical demands of its defense (Wealth 782). Rousseau also evokes the physical weakness of man in civil society. Because wild man had to do whatever was necessary for his survival, Rousseau asserts that he was of robust constitution. A division of labor that teaches workers to concentrate on a specialized task renders civilized man “effeminate” in Rousseau’s terms (40, 43). Again, while Rousseau praises an era before the division of labor, Smith seeks a way to remedy its negative consequences. He suggests that the government should maintain the physical strength of ordinary people through physical education. To provide a useful example, Smith praises the physical education programs of ancient Greece and Rome and their role in promoting a "martial spirit" among the general population. Smith argues that by strengthening the physical and mental capabilities of ordinary people, the state becomes more stable. He argues that a nation composed of informed and capable people is less prone to upheaval and factional divisions (Theory 781, 786-8). Thus, because Smith believes that the division of labor is an essentially beneficial consequence of human sociability, he argues that government should play a role in mitigating its negative side effects. Although natural sociability explains Rousseau and Smith's divergence on the division of labor, it is important to take into account their other views on human nature. Although the two have contrasting views on whether man is social, they at times take similar positions on whether the division of labor is a natural phenomenon. In the Discourse, Rousseau asserts that man possesses perfectibility, a natural inclination to improve over time. He proposes that perfectibility leads man to leave his original condition and "makes him a tyrant over, 1982)