Milord 1

Brianna Milord
Professor Mark LeBar
Modern Political Thought
2 November 2015
A Case for Dependence
The aim of this paper is to argue in favor of Adam Smiths positive outlook on
human cooperation though the division of labor. To complete this intention, I will begin
by explaining both Smith and Rousseaus views on the implications of human
cooperation. Then, I will unpack Rousseaus definitions of freedom and dependence and
respond with other definitions of those words that I feel better encapsulate the concepts.
Following that, I will respond to Rousseaus objection to cooperation because of, the
loss of independence and freedom, by arguing that the freedom that worth having is not
impinged upon by dependence (Cahn, 365). The final element of my argument will be
explaining that the type of freedom that Rousseau argues is taken by cooperation is worth
giving away for the security that dependence brings. I will wrap up my paper with the
conclusion, which will consist of a summary of my points, a long with my final case for
Smiths view on the impact of human cooperation.
The following paragraph will be a summary of Adam Smiths points about the
benefits of human cooperation. Smith believes that the division of labor, a form of human
cooperation, creates a system where workmen have a specialty in producing a product
and can trade his work for other goods or sell to them to receive a profit. He notes that,
Every workman has a great quantity of his own work to dispose of beyond what he has
occasion for; and every other workman being in the same situation, he is enabled to

Milord 2
exchange a great quantity of his own goods (Cahn, 454). Smith is saying that
everyone is given an advantage being an expert at making a specific product because they
can use benefits of trade and retailing to gain wealth. Trade, an essential component of
the division of labor and a form of human cooperation, allows for the betterment of both
parties involved: receiving a profit on a good that you have produced large quantities of
in order to receive something that you need.
I will now explain Rousseaus view on how human cooperation leads to
dependence and slavery. Rousseau argues that cooperation leads us out of the state of
nature, where humans are described as noble savages (Cahn, 363). The noble savage
enjoys complete alienation from others while meeting their needs through the fruits of
nature. According to Rousseau, we truly didnt need any forms of social relations or
cooperation with others of our kind because we dont have obligations to each other
(Cahn, 365). The introduction of human cooperation through the formation of
communities eventually leads to comparison amongst each other. Finally, what completes
what Rousseau calls the fatal accident is becoming accustomed to the luxuries of living
together, thereby loosing our independence and freedom (Cahn, 367-368). Cooperation
does in fact lead to wealth and prosperity but does not see it as a defensible reason to
escape the state of nature and lead into slavery.
I will begin my argument by explaining that although Rousseau believes that
cooperation takes away our natural freedom, the type of freedom that he alludes to is
worth giving away for the security that dependence brings. Rousseau defines freedom as,
solitude by which you have the ability to exist entirely for yourself and by yourself
(Cahn, 371). He continues by explaining that each person must uphold the authority to

Milord 3
direct his or her own lives without input from others. In response to his definition, I argue
that a more important version of freedom is defined as, the right and capacity of people
to determine their own actions, in a community, which is able to provide for the full
development of human potentiality (Marx). In this case, it is agreed upon that freedom is
a right in which you can determine your own actions, but I challenge Rousseaus premise
that freedom cant be enjoyed within a community. I believe that giving up Rousseaus
concept of freedom would be passable because there is freedom that exists within groups
that function through cooperation. The freedom worth having is not impinged upon by
dependence and cooperation. As long as security, self-preservation and morality still
makeup the basis of communities, giving up the freedom of solidarity is worth the fruits
of cooperation.
As we have gone over, Smith proposes a system, through the division of labor,
where individuals can specialize in specific aspects of the production of, lets say the
making of a pencil. Through human cooperation, they are able to sell these pencils for
something that they need, like shoes, for example. This case shows that cooperation
benefits both parties: one party has a new pencil that they needed and the other shoes.
Rousseau argues that dependence on others for making your shoes or pencils leads us into
slavery, dependence and strips away our freedom. I argue that the type of dependence that
arises after cooperation is not a problem like Rousseau makes it out to be. A trading and
production type of dependency between people is necessary in order to gain access to
things that they otherwise wouldnt have. Rousseau says that if you arent able to make a
pencil, than you just will never have a pencil in his solitary story of the state of nature. I
believe that in order for people to live up to their full potential, they need resources that

Milord 4
are sometimes out of their capacity to produce or acquire. Having a dependency on those
who are able to provide goods and services will allow you to better your situation
because they are also dependent on your production, creating the system of free trade. I
acknowledge that Rousseau is right in saying that we are dependent of each other after
cooperation, but that dependence is not necessarily a problem.
I will conclude my paper by restating my argument for Smiths positive outlook
that cooperation has on human interaction. Both Rousseau and Smiths theories account
for the increase in prosperity and wealth, as indicated by the Great Divergence (Cahn,
447). Unlike Smith, Rousseau believes that the onset of dependence that is created by
cooperation makes us enslaved to one another, and strips away our natural freedom. I
argue that the dependence that is generated through cooperation like the division of labor
is not only a non-issue, but it also necessary. In order it achieve universal opulence, as
Smith puts it, we have to allow ourselves to be dependent on each other and give up the
freedom of solidarity to acquire what is needed for individual and communal wealth and
success.

Milord 5
Works Cited
Cahn, Steven M. Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts. New York: Oxford UP, 2005.
Print.
Marx, K., Engels, F., (1974). The German ideology. London: Lawrence & Wishart.