Why does Rousseau reject natural law teachings?
He claims that natural law is something invented after-the-fact - in other words, we develop natural law teachings in order to talk ourselves into doing what is naturally right after we have been corrupted by society.
Rousseau claims these theories mean that human beings must have used the faculty of philosophic reason to develop society, but that faculty of reasoning only develops within society, and really only within a society of a certain
kind. So there is a fundamental incoherence in saying that natural law is discovered outside of society and then leads us into it.
Natural law is a name given to discoveries of reason. Since we don't know what natural humanity is - we only know what human beings are in the state of civilization, which alters them - it's vain to speak of natural law. We don't
know human nature, so how can we speak of natural law?
All of these.
. None of these.