Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The similarity between representative democracy and direct democracy
Aristotle's concept and views about justice
Critically examine Aristotle's theory of justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Rousseau thinks the ideal society is where the citizens are directly involved in the creation of the laws that govern over their own lives in society. In my opinion, I agree with Rousseau’s idea to use a direct democracy, instead of a representative democracy in our society. Representative democracy does not fulfill the rightful needs of the people and does not look out for the common interest of the people. Direct democracy gives the people a stronger voice in society and makes them feel more important when it comes to governmental policies and issues.
(Rousseau 2004) Rousseau explains that citizens of a society must be able to obey and develop the idea of “general will” because it is the process of establishing the common good of the people. Rousseau argues that, “the general will is always rightful and always tends to the public good; but it does not follows that the
He believes that the rule of the majority has to not show high moral standards in practice because it is too difficult to find a majority who can do this. Aristotle expresses the idea that democracy does not help achieve the good life for all of its citizens. He states, “The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest” (Aristotle 61). This quote shows that the government should be designed to allow the citizens to receive what is best for them in society. Aristotle explains that man is a social and political animal in our society so, he should be allowed to voice his opinions. Man is given the gift of speech for a reason and a government should not be able to take that away from him in society. Without the right to voice your opinions and views in society, it takes away from your rights of freedom that are entitled to
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy The term Democracy is derived from two Greek words, demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule. These two words form the word democracy which means rule by the people. Aristotle, and other ancient Greek political philosophers, used the phrase, `the governors are to be the governed', or as we have come to know it, `rule and be ruled in turn'. The two major types of democracy are Representative Democracy and Direct
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
At this point, Rousseau carries forward some of Locke’s ideologies in that Locke argued the natural law is an innate and inadvisable right of men. However, Rousseau does not remain at the same level of thought, instead, he tries to go beyond Locke’s idea of the natural right. According to Rousseau, in order for men to have social relations, they have to give up certain freedom, which logically means, underlying beneath Rousseau’s ideas, there are possibilities that men’s freedom could be strangled. Through establishing his own reasoning of the social contract, Rousseau tries to eliminate this
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.
Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...
Well I believe that Aristotle had good reason to feel this way about direct democracy because he has personal experience. I think that his thoughts were justifiable because he lived in the world's first democracy. It eventually turned into chaos because once people bent the law so much, there was no law. Also, the requirements to be a citizen were unfair because the majority of Athens residents lacked them. I understand why he didn't agree with direct democracy and why he wanted things to change. Their government almost went to nothing. Athens was a complete anarchy and who would want to live those circumstances? After reading chapter 1 and coming to know what his opinions were, his ideas, and how he lived, I utterly agree with Aristotle. While
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
ľ The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right second edition revised; Jean Jacques Rousseau translated by Henry J Tozer; 1898; Swan Sonnenschein and Co.
The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not delve as far back as Rousseau does and he begins his mission of finding a way to preserve people’s liberty in an organized society by looking to order of the ancient societies of Greece, Rome and England (Mill 5). These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizen’s were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mill’s conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will.
Rousseau argues that the citizens should be the ones who create the law when living in that particular society. He says “Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association. The people, being subject to the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it.” Since the law is aimed at the citizens and punishments would oblige if not obeying to the law, it would simply be more accurate if the citizens themselves would create the law to make obedience simpler.
This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of
When each person has the equal capacity to participate in governance, Rousseau believes that a body politic will be more likely to pursue what is best for the common good, rather than their private interests, which ultimately allows all people to embrace their freedom of conscience and live their best human lives. When trapped in an illegitimate relationship, Rousseau argues that one loses their capacity to self-govern, which inhibits a society from reaching the ideal that is the General Will. In abusive relationships, the aggressor takes away the victims ability to self-govern by endangering their freedom of conscience, health, and sometimes even life. Rousseau would say that even if the victim is convinced that they deserve the abuse, this relationship is in pursuit of the private will of the aggressor rather than the good of both people, and he would call on the sovereignty to step in a create laws to prevent these sorts of relationships to allow victims to self-govern and move towards his concept of an ideal