Problems without solution

"Savage man and civilized man differ so greatly in the depths of their hearts and their inclinations, that what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would reduce the other to despair," (80) Rousseau states in closing the crux of his argument.

For me, this begs the question, is that really true? Is the evolution we have undergone from an earlier era really the root cause of inequality/malice in the world? While Rousseau makes a valid argument in regards to the drawbacks of private property and ownership (which he equates to the root of moral inequality) I would argue that it is those very things that give us a sense of security and on a deeper level, a sense of 'being'.

While wealth certainly should not be the standard to which men are compared, there also is the idea that without wealth and division of property, all that would remain is the physical inequality that Rousseau also speaks of. It seems Rousseau believes that physical inequality need not be explored to the same depths as moral inequality - but why should one account for more wrongdoing than the other?

A weakness of Rousseau's argument in its entirety is that these questions remain unanswered due to a lack of clear solution. It is made very apparent through the text that this perceived inequality (brought forth by property) is unacceptable, but considering that a sense of property is what dominates us, I am unclear why little, if any, clues are given to explore alternatives and improve the situation. While an interesting and certainly detailed account of these theories of man and inequality, without Rousseau's own take on how to improve the situation, I can't help but question the validity of some of his arguments.