`If one must obey because of force, one need not do so out of duty; and if one is no longer forced to obey one is no longer obliged' (Rousseau: Cress (ed. ), 1987, bk1, ch.3, p.143). Therefore Rousseau has shown that superior power, naked force or power through tradition is not the source of any legitimate authority the state has over us. Rousseau's fundamental problem is to find a solution of structuring the state so that we can live in a state and yet remain as free as possible. Hence, by sacrificing our particular will on major social or national matters in favour of the general will we are ennobled and freed .
Rousseau also tried to refute what Thrasymachus might consider force being equal with physical power and its effect on the will. With force, no person is acting out of duty, but out of coercion, which opposes the will. But is it ever so to defy a greater force and still be exempted from punishment? If that is the case, disobedience could be thought as legitimate. If the strongest can use force and disobedience to make themselves right, there is no reason why they should not only aspire to become much stronger than ever before.
However, in order to comprehend the disparity between political thought, the very primary ideas needed to be described. While the central aim of Rousseau’s writing was to explain how the freedom of the individual can be integrated with the authority of the state. Hobbes illustrated the need for political societies which he calls the Leviathan, with the purpose of the dire and natural state of man to be saved. Although, both agree with the inherent equality of men, Hobbes believes men are intrinsically malicious and must be governed by a superior power. In contrast, Rousseau believes men are born with the potential of goodness but the social systems in place propagate animosity.
The first and foremost being that politics and morality should not be separated and the second principal is freedom which the state should do it’s utmost to preserve. Rousseau was a man of the people and his social and political theory was written from the bottom up and not the top down. In his works the Confessions Rousseau tells us what it is like to rise ... ... middle of paper ... ...l society. He teaches us that morality and reason are the basis for all legitimate government. If a Government fails to respect the morality and reason of the individuals it represents it fails to be legitimate and therefore it fails to exist.
Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system. Realists: Kennan, a notable realist, famously said that morality should be a foundation for civic virtue and a condition for a successful democracy. He also argued that morality is a preference on the part of the people.
Autonomy overrides the importance of authority. He also thinks that classical democracy fails to be a solution to this problem. An autonomous person is not subject to the will of another. This is thought to be the primary obligation of man. In political philosophy, autonomy is a refusal to be ruled, and authority of the state is the right to rule, there is a conflict.
Both philosophers were supporters of individual equality and freedoms. The two contrast in that Hobbes theorizes a contract exists between the sovereign and the people, once you agree to the sovereign, he cannot be overthrown and you are at his mercy. He also feels that social order begins with a state of nature. However, Locke feels the government is conditional and can be overthrown if the people are not represented correctly. He argued that without the arrangement of a successful government human being’s would live in the “state of nature.” Locke and Hobbes also differ because Hobbes feels that the sovereign should be all-powerful and individuals should not rebel against the sovereign.
Western political philosophers have focused their thoughts towards addressing the role of individuals in their large and complex societies. Some, like Thomas Hobbes, argue that individuals need to be under tight control and are better off when living in a society ruled by an absolutist sovereign.  According to him, peace and order can only be maintained if power is centralized by a sovereign under a social contract.  Jean Jacques Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”, but he considers that a social contract should be established to protect the civil rights of the people.  In the Social Contract, he introduces the idea of the general will, or the idea that the will of the people
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.
Rousseau presents an extreme type, where the people have a say in most matters. Locke, on the other hand, is on the side of a reluctant democracy, for he sees that it is necessary to secure his insecurities about natural rights. Lastly, Rawls favors a “just” democracy, in that his goal is not necessarily an efficient society, but it is to create a most noble one.