How do you describe a society? A common answer would be how it conducts its government. Governments are perceived as an essential part of our society, and it is difficult to imagine a world without them. However, early philosophers considered the presence of government to be a topic of concern. How did man first start to develop the ideas of government? There were many philosophers who took interest in this question such as Aristotle, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau Jacques sought to answer the question by developing social contract theories. These two theories describe how man came to agree on the ideas behind civil societies. Aristotle, however, believed governments were a natural part of human …show more content…
While they both require the consent of the people and active involvement from those citizens, it is Rousseau’s contract that asserts virtue and morals into the government. He does this in his argument against particular will of citizens Rousseau’s social contract requires the general will of the public to be unanimous, so he says, “His absolute and naturally independent existence can lead him to view what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will be less harmful to others than its payment is burdensome to him. And considering the moral person that constitutes the state merely as being produced by reason because it is not man, he would enjoy the rights of a citizen without being willing to fulfill the duties of a subject- an injustice whose spread would cause the ruin of the body of politics.”(175) The point made by Rousseau is that a man gives himself to the state. If one does not, he has false morals, and commits injustice. Another point is made that “For such is the condition that, by giving each citizen to the fatherland, guarantees him against all personal dependence- a condition that makes for the ingenuity and the functioning of the political machine and that alone makes legitimate civil engagements which would otherwise be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most enormous abuses” (175) This paragraph can be mirroring Locke’s social contract. Locke’s social contract can be said to rely heavily on personal dependence, and tries to put the government as far away from the people as possible. Locke promotes free market and property. Rousseau says that those actions promote tyranny. Aristotle believes tyranny to be the worst form of government. Rousseau has made a point to add morals into the government, and fight tyranny, both very similar to Aristotle’s ideal civil life, but he, also, calls for a lawgiver that plays a role that mirrors Aristotle’s virtuous king.
Things in the Middle East, Syria and Iran are in some complex situations right now, Mr. President, with the outcome of the Arab Spring and the issues the United States has with its allies and enemies. The United States needs to repair its alliances, make peace with its enemies and cautiously tread into understanding and gathering knowledge with the situation in the Middle East before declaring any actions to be taken.
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.
This 18th century philosopher wrote three books but the most important of the three was the Social Contract. This greatly influenced the constitution and also many other things as well. He encouraged the minds of citizens who believe that they should deserve more freedom and more say in what the government decides. Now, every vote counts for every person no matter age, class, how intelligent they are, or their looks. In his book, he stresses constantly the different types of freedom there are, natural, civil, and moral. Natural freedom is being able to do whatever one wants. Civil freedom is in agreement with The Social Contract in which has to obey the laws the Rousseau helped make in the Constitution. Moral freedom is doing the right thing and not whatever you want. Rousseau thought that civil freedom was th...
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was known for his thoughts that humans are basically good and fair in their natural state but were often corrupted by the shared concepts and joint activities like property, agriculture, science, and commerce (Schmalleger, 2012). He felt that the social contract started when civilized people agreed to establish governments and systems of education that would correct the problems and inequalities that were brought on by civilization (Schmalleger, 2012). Rousseau believed in the formation of a social contract where the government system would fight off the corruption that was brought out. He felt that human rights should be applied to laws (Schmalleger,
In political theory we have covered readings of many authors that all have their own opinions on how a government should be run and what the purpose of having a government is. Most of the political theorists we have read about inform us of a person’s natural state or how they act while not among a civil society. In the natural state that each political theorist creates, he is able to create his hypothesis of how a government should be setup in the transition from a natural state to a civil society. Whether to preserve the natural state of man or to place laws against man’s natural state is the main question for the political theorist. I believe that Rousseau does the best job of answering this question because of his creation of the social
Rousseau values ancient freedom more, he thinks it is the kind of freedom that modern individuals are able to enjoy. Ancient liberty is when the citizens carry out collectively but directly many parts of the overall functions of the government, coming together in the public square to discuss
It is clear that Locke and Rousseau had different views on equality and democracy. Locke believed in reason and self-governance whereas Rousseau advocated for decision making for the good of the community rather than just the individual. Locke believed that the government is responsible for the protection of rights and freedoms in the state of nature, yet Rousseau relinquishes these rights and says that it is the government’s job to advance the general will of the people.
The idea of consent is a key element in the works of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the "Second Treatise of Government," Locke puts forth his conception of the ideal form of government based on a social contract. As Locke develops his theory of consent, he also incorporates theories of political obligation on the part of all citizens of his state as well as his theory of revolution and the conditions under which rebellion is permissible. Though Locke may appear to have explored the notion of consent completely, there are some problems with his theory that weaken its impact. Despite the possible problems encountered with Locke's idea of consent in a political society, Rousseau, in his essay "On the Social Contract," seems to agree with Locke with regards to the concept of consent as it applies to the use of money. The works of Locke and Rousseau explore political foundations that depend on a social contract which requires consent above all things in order to secure liberty for the people.
If Locke and Rousseau read the summary of the NCLB Act, I believe that their responses would vary slightly. Locke and Rousseau’s principles on education have more in common than people realize. Ironically, the NCLBA left a lot of students behind, resulting in our current Every Student Succeeds Act. Due to the testing that became required did not allow ALL students ample time to effectively grasp and maintain the knowledge to do well on the test.
Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr...
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.
The right of revolution was provided to those in Locke’s society as he did not believe in giving the government absolute power. He was against this because an absolute monarch does not provide separate powers to file grievances in the event that an appeal of injury was needed. Locke believed in the rule of the majority. If the majority felt that the government was not protecting their natural rights or acting in their best interest they had a right and a duty to engage in revolution. Rousseau believes in republicanism where they are ruled by the will of the people. Once everyone in this society agrees to the contract, the general will is made and agreed upon by all in the society, and everyone must abide by said will. Rousseau believed the more active we are in society, the
Society is a result of our interactions, and society guides our interactions. This all stems from social construction. Social construction conveys values, ideas and traditions. These values, ideals and traditions are created and become traditions that are then passed on. These traditions then come to be perceived as natural rather than cultural, which is often how media will display it and society unknowingly accepts.
What is society and how did it help shape me into the person I am today? First, society is the state of living in organized groups of people. These organized groups of people are the ones that made me who I am today and will continue to shape me, as I grow older. My version of society is white middle class people who grow up going to catholic schools. These white middle class people are only associated with other white middle class people, and very seldom venture out of this little society. As stupid as that sounds to not associate with other people it is true. The reason this is true is because of where I live, where I go to school, and who my friends are. I guess it is just like Emerson said, “the virtue in most request is conformity.” So, the three social forces that have played the biggest impact on my life are my community, my friends (family) and my education.
From elementary to high school and even college students are compelled to attend school all around the world. In schools students not only learn general education but learn a lot about themselves. It is said that in the first twenty years of an individual’s life are the years that the individual finds out who they really are. An individual’s moral beliefs are one of the most personal and complex pieces of that individual. There are several great moral theories that could be taught in school, but to only choose one is very difficult. Some of the most known moral theories are Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, Kantianism and even Social Contract Theory. All of these theories were developed by some of the most incredible philosophers of all time.