For this, I argue that Rousseau’s idea of forcing citizens to be free is a dangerous notion. In stating that citizens must be compelled to submit to the general will, Rousseau offers a form of government that stifles individual liberty and allows for the tyranny of the majority to prevail. The notion of forcing citizens to be free is a product of Rousseau’s version of the social contract. While Rousseau is more optimistic about the state of nature than Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, he still recognizes that it may become necessary for men to exit the state of nature and unite under a sovereign. When this time comes, Rousseau contends, men must enter a social contract with one another.
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.
These suggest that society and government should please the general will and work together as a cohesive unit. Rousseau has several famous books, one of which is The Social Contract. The book start with the words: “Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains.” By this he means to say that the civil society, in which we live, oppresses our birthright of freedom. Without our freedom we are not man and can never be truly happy. He suggests that general will not only requires individual freedom and diversity but also the idea of well-being of the whole.
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... ... middle of paper ... ... 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.
He believed that the people should be the basis of the government and that the power of the government is derived from the people’s feelings towards it. In the social contract, the people can revolt against an ineffective government, and it is the people who decide when a government is not longer acting in the best interests of its people. The only rights that people surrender are those that prevent the enforcement of the law of nature, all other rights remain intact. Since the issue in the state of nature was unintended biases that originated from the lack of reason, Locke suggests the idea of a legislator to act as the supreme power that represents the general good of the commonwealth, and the executive, that is the supreme power by default in the absence of the legislator, but is bound by a constitution. Unbiased judges and courts would then be responsible for punishing the transgressors of the natural law of the people, instead of potentially prejudice citizens.
He compares it to a state of nature, where there is no authority but themselves. Rousseau believes in authority figures to lead, rather than rule and enslave. He believes in giving up some rights for an overall and better bit of freedom by achieving a common good for balance. He clearly states that this is different than giving up all freedoms by stating that the people should be able to choose what laws are just and unjust for the community. For a backup plan, he suggests that people can leave whenever they feel the ideals of the community do not fit together with his or her ideals.
So, the aim of this paper is to discuss and evaluate differences between Rousseau and Marx’s points of view. Rousseau in some perspective did not support ideas of Hobbes and Locke – people who also described, at some points, principles of social contract. Rousseau argued in The Social Contract, " Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains" (Rousseau 1761). For Rousseau, the riddle is the way to accommodate the chains of authority with the "natural state" of people’s freedom. Rousseau's option is to create an administration that could be seen as the one, which deserves to be trusted.
Philosophy 4: Paper Two (Prompt #2) Rousseau believes that even when one votes in the minority they can obey the law and still be free. But, “how can the opposing minority be both free and subject to laws to which they have not consented?” (Rousseau, pg. 153) Rousseau’s response is that citizens must consent to all the laws because “ to inhabit the territory is to submit to the sovereign.”(Rousseau, p.153) In accordance with the social contract, when a citizen votes they should completely surrender their personal interest and vote for what they believe to be the general will. The general will of each individual is considered to be their real will when it comes to social policy. The majority vote will depict the general will, and the minority shows the citizens that are mistaken about the true nature of the general will.
In contrast, Rousseau believes men are born with the potential of goodness but the social systems in place propagate animosity. Despite the fact that Hobbes and Rousseau are both concerned with self-preservation, Hobbes supports the idea of an authoritarian regime ruling men in order to prevent a state of war, and Rousseau specifies that freedom consists in men giving themselves their own laws. Years later, many of the issues of inequality and questions of the nature of men are still relevant in our societies. Hobbes and Rousseau have deeply impacted the world of philosophy with their arguments and theories. Despite their differences, both dominant intellectual figures wrote these texts with the central aim to highlight the necessary conditions for the subsistence of a society and ideal governing body and
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.