William Godwin’s doctrine of perfectibility gains philosophical depth when set beside the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The two share common views over human nature and the possibility of political reform, but they differ on the methods of human improvement. Rousseau understands moral progress in a carefully structured political community that protects natural freedom while aligning individual will with the general will. Godwin, by contrast, dismisses political institutions as inherently corrupting and places all hope for improvement in the rational capacities of individuals. Reading them together clarifies what is distinctive, and radical, about Godwin’s vision.
Both thinkers begin from an Enlightenment intuition that humans are capable of improvement. Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality describes human nature as originally free, compassionate, and uncorrupted, but vulnerable to being warped by dependence, luxury, and social comparison. For Rousseau, inequality is historical and structural, not metaphysical. It comes from institutions that encourage competition. His proposed remedy (most famously articulated in the Social Contract) is not to abolish society but to reconstruct it on principles that promote freedom through collective self-legislation. The most realistic example of this type of government is ancient Athens where all citizens voted directly on laws. This places Rousseau at odds with Godwin, who insists in Political Justice that the very existence of coercive institutions, even democratic ones, distorts opinion by rewarding self-interest. As Mark Philp emphasizes, Godwin sought a “science of morality and government from reason alone,” one that would reveal why political authority is unnecessary and ultimately incompatible with human improvement (Philp 1986, 14).
Rousseau and Godwin also differ their understandings of how improvement happens. Rousseau is skeptical about the power of reason to reform human passions. He thinks education and political structure must work with, rather than override, the natural psychology of human beings. His theory in Emile shows that reason matures slowly and must be shaped indirectly, through carefully managed experiences.
For example, Emile, a small child, is told to care for a garden and becomes genuinely invested in the garden. However, one day Emile finds the garden torn up and destroyed, a carefully orchestrated scenario designed by his tutor to guide his moral development. He feels frustrated and upset and begins to grasp the concepts of fairness and property. Rousseau thinks carefully orchestrated events like this for children is what leads to moral improvement.
Fun Fact: Rousseau had five children, but left them all to a Paris orphanage.
Godwin, by contrast, treats reason as the primary causal force capable of reshaping motives themselves. His necessitarianism inspires this optimism. If motives and actions are determined by causes, and if rational argument and education are among those causes, then character can be indefinitely improved. As Godwin writes in Political Justice, “The more we know of the law of necessity, the better we shall understand how to regulate our own conduct and that of others” (PJ, Bk IV, ch. 2). In the Emile case, Godwin thinks even children have the capacity for reason and that everyone can come to understand the best course of action.
This divergence leads directly to their different assessments of political institutions. Rousseau thinks a properly designed government can have both freedom and authority by ensuring that individuals obey only themselves under the general will. The general will is the collective good of the people aimed at the general good. Godwin rejects the general will because institutions operate through coercion and enforce conformity, they obstruct the exercise of independent judgment, the very thing perfectibility requires. In Political Justice, coercive government is described as a perpetual counter-force to truth and rewards partial interests. Godwin says “government by its very nature counteracts the improvement of original mind” (PJ, Bk V, ch. 1). That is, even a virtuous republic remains a republic, functioning through law rather than rational independent thought. For Rousseau, this is a necessary compromise, but for Godwin, it is an abandonment of reason. Godwin chooses to put much effort into the idea of the individual whereas Rousseau the collective.
The opposing views of the two thinkers is clearer when we consider their conceptions of human progress over time. Rousseau is wary of linear narratives of improvement. While he admits that the arts and sciences have advanced, he famously doubts that moral improvement naturally follows. For example, Rousseau argues that Rome became more polished, educated, and artistically sophisticated at the same time that its moral character declined. Godwin, in contrast, offers an overarching historical argument for the indefinite expansion of human capacities. In Political Justice and The Enquirer (1797), he describes the history of science, ethics, and social organization as evidence that understanding and virtue progress together. If human nature had fixed endpoints, such advances would have ceased long ago. Godwin sees advances in art and science as evidence of, and contributors to, moral improvement, whereas Rousseau sees no such correlation and often suggests the opposite.
Both philosophers understood the power of literature as tools of sharing their ideas. Rousseau turned to narrative works like Julie to portray moral sentiment and the dangers of social corruption. It’s a novel told through letters about a young woman who struggles with a passionate love for her tutor. However this is frowned upon as Julie comes from an aristocratic family who is expected to marry someone of her own social rank. Julie ultimately marries another man and builds a moral life according to Rousseau. This mirrors the political idea that a good citizen must sometimes place the common good above immediate private desire. Godwin also used fiction such as Caleb Williams to expose the psychological effects of coercive authority. In Caleb Williams, A young servant, Caleb, uncovers a secret crime committed by his aristocratic employer, Falkland. When Caleb tries to reveal the truth, Falkland uses his social power, reputation, and the legal system to persecute him. Caleb becomes a fugitive, constantly hunted and imprisoned despite being morally innocent.
In the end, comparing Rousseau and Godwin shows how differently they think about progress. Both believe humans can improve, but Godwin places his trust in the individual, while Rousseau focuses on the collective. Godwin thinks advances in art and science are signs of moral growth, whereas Rousseau often sees them as signs of corruption. Still, both used literature to share their ideas, and both believed that government could be improved in the future, even if they imagined that improvement in very different ways.