Difference Between Kant And Rousseau

Obeying the state has many advantages, it creates structure that enables citizens to enjoy maximum level of satisfaction. As a result, of obeying the state it allows order and it guarantees that each others rights are met. Furthermore, in historical context, the obligation to the state has been explained by many political philosophers such as, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and David Hume. Rousseau believed in a social contract, while Hume had a more pragmatic approach focusing on the usefulness of the state, and Kant focused on an individuals moral obligation to the state.
Rousseau, describes the relationship between the state and a person as contractual, thereby explaining the state as a place with no law or morality, and has been left for its benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society evolves and develops, the needs of society increases such as, having private property, industry for growing and building. With demands increasing this required the human race to adopt institutions of law. Rousseau believed that in order to maintain a state of nature, society needs to enter into a social contract and abandoning the natural rights. This is done to protect themselves and have liberty. Entering a social contract allows submission of
Kant believed that in a society every action has to have a motive behind it, or else it has no moral value. Also in his work he said, “in the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity.(Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, pp. 42-43). This belief signifies how Kant believes a state should run, and that if everyone does all his actions with morality then society will function as a