Objection to Cohen’s Development Thesis Essay

Even though G. A. Cohen’s development thesis seems rational and justified, it is possible to offer a strong objection to it. I can admit that all the following opposing claims will rely on the fact that Cohen was deterministic in providing his perspective. In his Discourse on Inequality, J. J. Rousseau offers reasonable arguments that can oppose the thesis under consideration. Firstly, Cohen stipulates that productive forces develop because people are rational; however, Rousseau states that human beings deal with two inequality kinds. For example, the thinker admits that individuals face moral or political inequality that refers to the richness and other privileges, while natural inequality provides people with different “qualities of the mind or of the soul.”¹

That is why it is impossible to state that rationality results in development because the discrepancies above determine that some individuals may not involve in development because of lacking qualities. Secondly, Cohen stipulates that people improve their material circumstances because they have the intelligence to do it; in turn, Rousseau admits that love of self is a leading motivation force.

This objection focuses on the fact that people have strong self-love that makes them take appropriate actions to promote their development. According to Rousseau, this phenomenon enables individuals to find the most suitable living conditions or improve their existing ones to satisfy all their needs, including hunger, thirst, and others.²

It denotes that any improvements occur because they want to take care of themselves and not because they can do it. Rousseau’s argument implies that love of self provides individuals with the necessary means to reach their goals. Thirdly, Cohen states that people tend to develop because they typically live against the background of scarcity. However, I can suppose that world history has witnessed more ways of how people could enhance their material welfare. For example, increasing exploitation and numerous conquests led to development, while scarcity did not motivate them. Furthermore, Rousseau mentions that the emergence of the private property indicated the end of equality, leading to the fact that some individuals became more interested in enhancing their material welfare.³ It denotes that people engage in development processes more actively when they see that this activity will generate personal benefits for them. Thus, the arguments above have created a strong objection to the three claims of G. A. Cohen’s development thesis.

References

See J. J. Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality , p. 9. Web.

Footnotes

1. See J. J. Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality , p. 9. Web.
2. See Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, p. 10.
3. See Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, p. 27.