Comparing The Views Of Aristotle, Rousseau, And Justin Smith

Throughout history human beings have in some shape or form established small communities in order to survive. In these communities, eventually rules were established for the establishment of function and order. As time progressed, it became a debate that this foundation was in favor for the greater good of humanity. So the question is: are humans by nature political animals? Aristotle, Rousseau, and Justin Smith have distinctive views on the subject of whether or not we in fact are. I believe that when humans started to live among each other, there began to be a sense of morale for the preservation of self and in turn human kind. I believe that this mindset did evolve by observing other animals and species in how they function for survival.
In the “Social Contract”, Rousseau refers to the collective group of citizens as a sovereign and that sovereign should be considered in itself as an individual person. For Rousseau, this sovereign is for the common good and any individual person who violates this social contract, should be given the death penalty in certain situations. Rousseau proclaims the sovereign has the authority to grant pardons. However, it shouldn’t be used in access in order to preserve the law. (Rousseau, 1762) Rousseau also encourages individual beliefs and views, but ascertains that when participating within the sovereign, you put your personal views aside and make decisions or cast votes to pass laws or regulations for the common
In Justin Smith’s “We Are Not the Only Political Animals”, he states that “the domination of animals went together with their symbolic incorporation into human society” (Smith, 2014). Justin Smith established that animals are also political beings and that human political formations are connected to certain animal species. Smith gives the example of ant colonies and how they have a system of specific tasks that are allotted to specific colonies. He also makes mention of elephants and how they plan raids on human spaces in order to recover the remains of their slaughtered loved ones. (Smith, 2014) Smith defends his perspective by making historical connections. “In particular, there is increasing evidence for canine domestication contemporaneous with what is often called the “great leap forward” in the Upper Paleolithic, a period that witnessed the appearance of such features of human behavioral modernity as symbolic thought and religious ritual. More important, many thousands of years later the first sedentary, proto-urban cultures arose in the Levant in tandem with the rise of livestock domestication (and also, of course, of agriculture).” (Smith, 2014) In fact, early human civilizations knew that they were not the