Although Adam Smith is considered a great defender of commercial society and Jean-Jacques Rousseau one of its eminent critics, both thinkers share some criticisms of the division of labor. The two recognize that the division of tasks between people leads to the creation of social distinctions and the futile pursuit of happiness in luxury. For Rousseau, the division of labor causes the moral inequality-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 are meaningless compared to his natural needs (Rousseau 67). For Smith, the division of labor also creates frivolous needs, giving expression to human selfishness. He finds it unwise for people to pursue luxury even though the poorest members of society have enough to survive (Theory 181). Furthermore, Smith states that the division of labor diminishes intellectual and physical competence due to its highly specialized nature (Wealth 782). Yet, despite his doubts, Smith considers the division of labor to be a beneficial economic mechanism. It therefore seems unusual that, while Smith and Rousseau present strong criticisms of the division of labor, these criticisms 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Smith and Rousseau's contrasting views stem from their different assumptions about human nature. Their beliefs about the solitary or social nature of man influence their definitions of inequality and the ways in which the division of labor contributes to inequality. Their hypotheses also determine how the division of tasks affects the individual. Rousseau in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality presents man as naturally solitary, with no 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). In contrast, 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 derives from a natural propensity to exchange goods (Wealth 25). Smith also states that man has a natural sympathy and therefore desires others to share his pain and joy (Theory 22). Therefore, the relationship between natural sociability and human satisfaction determines how Rousseau and Smith evaluate the division of tasks between people. While Rousseau sees the division of labor as antithetical to solitary happiness, Smith sees it as a mostly positive outcome of natural sociability and proposes solutions to its negative effects. The decision to make man social or solitary by nature provides the driving force behind both writers' criticisms. . Rousseau uses his assumption 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 argues that man has few needs other than those of food, rest and sex. Even sex, which requires contact with others, does not create emotional attachment in wild man. He claims that it is simply a tool to propagate the species (56). Rousseau further argues that man has notno temptation to dominate others due to his natural pity, repugnance at seeing others suffer. He states that "pity is that which, in the state of nature, takes the place of laws, customs and virtue" (55). Thus, thinking about man before commercial society, Rousseau discovers that he has a simple system of needs and has no tendency towards 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 depend 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 become concrete and place restrictions on natural freedom. He argues that once humans stopped performing single-person tasks, “equality disappeared, property came into existence, and work became necessary” (65). Therefore, Rousseau sees the division of labor as contrary to human nature while Smith has a different view. Instead, Smith uses his hypothesis about man's intrinsic sociability to justify the division of labor. He argues in the Theory of Moral Sentiments that man is born with a natural sympathy and therefore has the tendency to share the pain or joy of others (9). This concept is similar to Rousseau's idea of ​​natural piety. However, Smith differs from Rousseau in that he argues that man also has a natural desire to be the object of the sympathy of others. He states that the person primarily affected by an event will place themselves in the position of spectator just as the spectator performs the same act of emotional substitution (Theory 22). Smith believes that this desire is so strong that the affected person will ease his suffering so that the viewer can sympathize with him more easily. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith extends his thinking on natural sociability and provides the rationale behind the division of labor. He argues that the division of labor arises from a natural “propensity to traffic, barter, and exchange one thing for another” (Wealth 25). Because of natural sympathy and the inclination to commerce, Smith therefore believes that humans realize a portion of their happiness through social associations. Furthermore, man's degree of natural sociability influences how Smith defines inequality in relation to the division of labor. Smith does not propose that “equality disappeared” with the division of labor, as Rousseau insists (Rousseau 65). Although the division of labor creates property, Smith sees the basis of comparison and social distinction as natural. He states that inequality arises from the natural inclination to share the success of others: "on this disposition of humanity... the distinction of ranks and the order of society is founded" (Theory 52). Because he believes that human nature leads to inequality, Smith sees the negative effects of the division of labor in a more sympathetic light. Therefore, Rousseau and Smith's different hypotheses about human nature provide the greatest implication of doubts. The extent of both thinkers' criticisms depends on how they define happiness in relation to man's natural state. Both Rousseau and Smith argue that the division of labor distorts natural needs. However, for Rousseau this negative effect presents a broader problem, because it opposes the essential components of human happiness. Since the divisionof work requires the division of complex tasks between people, increases dependence on others. The transition from independent to group work creates a need for social association separate from the natural needs for food, rest, and sex. This makes man no longer self-sufficient and happy in himself. Furthermore, Rousseau argues that when a man requires others to satisfy his needs, another can dominate him. The division of labor creates the means for social domination by creating property (68). Rousseau provides metallurgy and agriculture as two examples of the division of labor. According to him, 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 it. Rousseau argues that the social contract destroyed natural freedom, established moral inequality, and made the fruits of labor the profit of a few. Therefore, because it presupposes 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 causes modern man to become a slave to his own passions (67). Since Smith believes that the false needs of commercial society have a natural cause, he considers more favorable attitude towards the division of labor. Like Rousseau, Smith argues that the division of labor creates imaginary needs. He states that the division of labor allows poorer workers to “enjoy a greater share of the necessities and comforts 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 in pursuit of wealth when the poorest members of society can survive (50). Later in the text Smith describes the would-be man's discontent in commercial society: "He serves those he hates... All his life he pursues the idea of ​​a certain artificial and elegant rest which he can never attain, for which sacrifices a true tranquility that is in his power at all times" (181). But it is the division of labor that allows man to go beyond individual tasks and produce goods that are not necessary for his survival that Smith condemns luxury when the division of work is the mechanism that enables its pursuit. This apparent contradiction arises from the fact that Smith believes that man naturally desires to be the object of sympathy. Furthermore, Smith argues that humanity is more inclined to celebrate the joys of another than to share his sufferings (Theory 51). Therefore, he states that people pursue wealth and avoid poverty to receive natural sympathy. While Rousseau limits true human needs to food, rest, and sex, Smith cannot see this definition of need as permanent a because of his assumptions about human nature. Since Smith argues that man has a natural desire to gain the approval of others, the scope of man's needs must always be expanding. 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. Therefore, unlike Rousseau, Smith's most important doubts 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 cause his main criticisms to focus on the individual. While Rousseau's primary concern is that the division of labor expands natural needs,Smith analyzes the consequences on mental and physical abilities. He argues that the simplicity of tasks, crucial to the division of labor, makes workers intellectually numb. Because each worker has no reason to contemplate anything other than his menial tasks, he loses the ability to engage in intelligent conversations and form analytical judgments. Smith suggests that the working poor fall into this state of intellectual malaise more easily than other social classes, because they work the most simplistic jobs (Wealth 781-2). Rousseau also discusses how social forces can influence differences in mental abilities in the Discourse. He argues that “the prodigious diversity of education and lifestyles” in civil society contributes to disparities in mental acuity (58). Although Smith recognizes the negative influences of the division of labor, he still considers it a useful economic mechanism. Furthermore, because Smith assumes that the division of labor is a consequence of human nature, he advocates ways to resolve its negative effects rather than simply criticizing it. Smith then 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 abilities. Due to the inactivity of the workplace, the division of labor reduces the physical strength of ordinary people. Smith states that this sedentary lifestyle threatens the security of the state because the population cannot meet the physical demands of defending itself (Wealth 782). Rousseau also discusses the physical weakness of man in civil society. Because the wild man needed to do whatever was necessary for his survival, Rousseau states that he was robustly built. A division of labor that teaches workers to concentrate on a specialized task makes civilized man "effeminate" in Rousseau's terms (40, 43). Once again, while Rousseau praises the 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 helpful example, Smith praises the physical education programs of ancient Greece and Rome and their role in fostering a "martial spirit" in 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 knowledgeable and capable people is less prone to upheaval and factional division (Theory 781, 786-8). Therefore, because Smith believes that the division of labor is a mostly beneficial consequence of human sociability, he argues that government should play a role in mitigating its negative side effects. While natural sociability explains the divergence between Rousseau and Smith on the division of labor, it is important to consider their other views on human nature. Although the two have contrasting views on the question of whether man is social, at particular times they take similar positions on the question of whether the division of labor is a natural event. In the Discourse Rousseau states that man possesses perfectibility, a natural inclination to improve himself over time. He proposes that perfectibility takes man out of his original condition and "makes him a tyrant over himself and over nature" (45). Therefore, since the division of labor improves man's productive capabilities, it could be the effect of human perfectibility. While Smith considers sympathy for others and the propensity to exchange goods as the natural causes of the division of labor, Rousseau can find its source in a natural desire to improve if, 1982)