According to Rousseau’s On the Social Contract, the general will is a collectively held common good or common interest (Rousseau 167). The general will is vital in Rousseau’s theory because the legislation must create laws that promote the general will of the public. To Rousseau, the sovereign’s main goal is to find the general will of society and create laws that promote the general will. Rousseau’s theory also includes that public discourse causes the legislation to stray from the general will (Rousseau 180). Rousseau did not want public discourse in his society because he believed too many particular wills in society would cloud the legislation and assembly from passing laws that promoted the general will. I agree with Rousseau’s argument …show more content…
I agree with Rousseau’s argument because there are several conditions in society that help prove his theory. A condition that supports Rousseau’s theory is if the society or assembly is small. This condition supports Rousseau’s theory because a larger populace size increases the amount of particular wills in the society. This, in turn, would increase the chances that an individual would vote to pass a law that goes against the general will. A larger populace size also increases the chance of public discourse and persuasions a citizen could face before voting. Also, a larger populace reduces the influence a citizen has while voting on which laws to pass. As the ratio of citizens increase, there is more divergence from equality as the populace starts to Rousseau says, “one should count more on the vigor born of a good government than on the resources furnished by a large territory” (Rousseau 186). An implication from this quote is that a state could focus on overproducing resources; instead of focusing on creating laws that promote the general will of society (Rousseau 187). Thus, increasing the size of the populace would, in turn, increase the chances a sovereign has of passing a law that goes against the general will. Another condition that helps prove Rousseau’s theory is public voting. Without public voting, citizens are easily coerced into voting for laws that support a particular will instead of the general will. Public voting guides striving for the common good because it allows citizens to discover the general will easier through public opinion. However, particular wills and corporate wills muddle public opinion. This may cause public opinion to be biased towards a particular or corporate will, as public discourse could sway citizens to vote for a law that promotes an individual will. In short, the size of the populace and public voting are conditions that
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)
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
...tract theory does raise additional questions. Rousseau envisioned a society in which every voice was heard. A solution to this impracticality is the idea of representation—something which Locke advocated for in The Second Treatise. The idea makes sense; have one person represent a group of people to improve functionality. However, how can a man fully represent an entire group’s interest? Surely there must be some differences between the representative and those he represents. If that is the case, can one call that justice? The man already relinquished certain rights by accepting the contract. With representation, he also gives up his right to full participation in the system. Despite this problem and the other issues with contractarianism, this theory served as a foundation for the American political system and continues to inspire political ideologies worldwide.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
The Freedom of Individual Citizens in Rousseau’s State “While uniting himself with all, [each associate] may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before."[1 ] While Rousseau would claim that citizens in his state are free, much of the criticism levelled against him is precisely because his state is seen as authoritarian and against individual diversity. Rousseau’s state is one created by all citizens in their own interests and therefore guided by the ‘general will’, whereby laws are made to promote the public rather than the private good. All citizens take an active part in decision-making and are required to adhere to the ‘general will’. Sovereignty is a key word in examining Rousseau’s state as it is held by the inalienable and indivisible body politic that acts in accordance with the ‘general will’.
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 ...
that ‘because you can force me to obey you, is it right that I should
Overall Rousseau explanation of the state of nature and social contract are extremely interesting and enticing. Past that it does seem hard to believe, given the supporting data, that humans are not social animals and that a time when humans were completely good. If one of the two main points were to fail, as they truly are the foundation of Rousseau arguments, it seems it would cause his conclusion to fail as well. Unfortunately his arguments lack the backing they need to create a truly infallible argument or beyond reasonable doubt. This does not suggest at all that his ideas are false or are not supported, just that they are on shaky ground.
... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (??)the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government. Both Rousseau and Locke formulated new and innovative ideas for government that would change the way people thought of how sovereignty should be addressed forever.
Rousseau came to the conclusion that the best way to examine the inequality in society is to examine the beginning of mankind itself. He tried to imagine the early state of man assuming there was ever actually a state where man existed only with the nature, in a solitary, and primitive lifestyle. He did not however revert as far back to the idea of the Neanderthal man to examine the ideas man held and where they came from. Instead, he looked at a state where man looked, and seemed to have the same physical abilities as he does today. Rousseau also concedes that a time where the ideas of government, ownership, justice, and injustice did not exist may not have ever existed. If what many religions tell us is true, then, in mans beginning, he was from the start, handed down laws from god which would influence his thinking and decisions. Through this, the only way such a period could come about would have to be through some catastrophic event, which would not only be impossible to explain, but consequently, impossible to prove. Therefore, imagining this state could prove not only embarrassing, but would be a contradiction to the Holy Scriptures.
The Republican Party, since its first convention in Michigan in 1854, has had a philosophy that has remained relatively unchanged. Its oath entices Americans to believe that "good government is based on the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized"
In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by alcohol. As we can control neither E nor L, then it follows that we can never act free. The thesis of compatibilist, however, states that we may have free will, even if all of our actions are determined by forces beyond our controls.
Rousseau suggests that the first convention must be unanimous, and the minority has no obligation to submit to the choice of the majority, “as the law of majority rule is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity at least once” (Rousseau, 172). For Locke and Hobbes, one’s self-preservation (and the protection of his property, which is quite synonymous to self-preservation to Locke) is the first principle , and if it is threatened, one has the rights to leave the “body politic” or rebel. Moreover, one also has the right to decide whether he wants to stay under the government when he grows to a certain age . Such arguments give the minority a passive freedom: their voice may not be powerful to change the society, but they can at least leave the society that is against them. Furthermore, Rousseau disapproves factions within a state, especially big ones, as their wills, namely the majority’s wills, potentially nullify the general will . His continual emphasis that the general will should represent the entire people indicates his concern for the
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.
Although it may seem counteractive to have the citizens develop the same laws that they will have to later follow, Rousseau says that all laws passed will be based on the general will and thus they will be inherently good. Rousseau states that all laws passed by the assembly are “solely the authentic acts of the general will” and because “the general will is always right” , all laws passed are inherently good.