Tina Cheesman Clark Donley Political and Social Thought November 23, 2015 Rousseau, Hume, and Kant on Justice Justice is a very interesting concept. As an idea it is often very difficult to define because justice is often perceived differently by each individual to whom it is applied. Even today, there are many definitions by which it operates. Each of these different definitions has been informed to some degree by the work of either Rousseau, Hume, or Kant. Each philosopher took a vastly different stance on what constituted justice and the manner in which justice functioned in society. Rousseau believed very simply that justice was reflective of the common will. Hume believed that justice was little more than an “artificial virtue” and only …show more content…
In order to define justice, it then becomes imperative to ask: where does the common will come from? Rousseau’s argument plainly is that civil society is based on a contractual agreement of rights and duties that are applied equally to all people. In this contract, individuals exchange their natural liberties for their civil liberties, natural rights for legal ones. They enter into this contract with one specific condition in mind: that the contract and thus society will promote their good. The contract guarantees that civil laws promote the public, rather than private, good; this is because the contract is based off of the will of the people, called the “common will” by Rousseau. If individuals enter into a society based on a contract intended to promote their collective good, then justice cannot be defined as "the right of the strongest" or the power of some individuals to gain advantage over others. If justice were equivalent to the ability of one to gain an advantage over another, then the most powerful individuals (those who were in some way stronger, smarter, better) would be the most just. If justice were nothing more than the coercing of an individual to comply with a demand, individuals would have no motivation to obey their lawgiver, unless their lawgiver had the power to force compliance. If this were the case, then individuals would remove themselves from the society …show more content…
While Rousseau believes justice to be based on the will of the people, Hume believes it to be based on the public utility. Hume believed that justice was based on trust and mutual agreements which actually aim for the maximization of public utility. According to Hume, ‘public utility’ is the “sole origin of justice.” Hume asserts that “… the rules of equity or justice depend entirely on the particular state and condition, in which men are placed, and owe their origin and existence to that utility which results to the public from their strict and regular observance”. From this we can derive Hume’s opinion that justice’s purpose is the maximization of the public utility. The question then is how justice actually maximizes public utility. Here, it makes sense to explain Hume’s general ideology surrounding morals as they relate back to justice. Hume separates morals into two groups: morals stemming from reason and morals from sentiment. Hume states “No man reasons concerning another’s beauty; but frequently concerning the justice or injustice of his actions”. According to Hume, morals stem from reason if we come to understand them through logical argumentation. Therefore reason provides us knowledge, the ability to understand and make judgments, and the ability to consider the outcomes of our actions (whether they are just or unjust). Hume indicates that “Moral distinctions, it may be said, are
It is important to acknowledge that Justice protects our possession and our rights as humans. Without justice, it would be more likely for destruction to occur than that of benevolence in a society. Glaucon and Hume philosophy of justice aligns with each other, in the sense that justice is a contract created to prevent people from killing each other. I agree that the sole purpose of justice is its utility to the public. Although, I cannot help thinking what would happen if I possessed the power to be unjust without ever suffering consequences.
In the first case, the will, when declared, is an act of Sovereignty and constitutes law: in the second, it is merely a particular will, or act of magistracy—at the most a decree”(1). Rousseau mentions the same term that Thomas Hobbes talked about but interprets it differently, he uses the term sovereignty to represent the vote of citizens that is essential to exercise the general will of the people; in addition, he points out that this is a way to promote directed democracy by allowing the people to vote based on majority rules based on what’s beneficial to them, and with this system everyone would have to follow it: “IF the State is a moral person whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of its cares is the care for its own preservation, it must have a universal and compelling force”(3). Rousseau implies that for the sake of
He tried to convince us of this by describing the difference between the state of nature and the civil state, and in effect, asking which we think is better. To be in the state of nature, would be to act on appetite and so be slavish and bad. To be in the civil state, is to act according to reason and so be noble and good. We ought constantly to bless the moment that we moved in to the civil state because this gives us the chance to be noble and good .So,says Rousseau it is in each of our interests to choose the general will .Therefore, if we think according t...
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)
There is no justice when humans are living in the state of mere nature in “this war of every man against every man...nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong or just and unjust have there no place.”(188) These are the conditions that constitute mere nature. Justice has to battle all of human desire just to begin to establish a foothold in an arena where force and fraud are the supreme virtues.(188) Anything and everything is allowed in mere nature and absolute liberty “without impediment”(189) is used accordingly, as ones own reason dictates. When Human desires and aversions are pursued for only self preservation this puts us in a state of perpetual war with one another on an individual level, each of us doing whatever is necessary to survive. Therefore to establish justice is to first institute laws and government, but before this can be done you have to decide who or what entity has the right to do so? How is this power transferred to them? And at what
Also, that justice is a certain type of specialization, meaning that performing a particular task that is a person’s own, not of someone else’s. Plato (2007), Polemarchus argues with Socrates in book I that, “Justice was to do good to a friend and harm to an enemy” (335b p.13). Plato (2007) he then responds, “It is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite the unjust man” (335d p.14). His views of justice are related to contemporary culture, because when someone does something that they are supposed to do, they receive credit or a reward for it, but if the opposite of that is performed, by not doing the particular task that is asked, they are then rewarded but with punishments. Also, that justice is doing the right thing in a society. Justice of contemporary culture does not diverge from the views offered in The Republic and Socrates views are adequate, because if a task is not performed the way it needs to be, and is supposed to be a person should not be rewarded for it. Additionally, that an individual should be just not
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
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.
Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been continually adopted by democracies. Marx on the other hand took an unconventional route of concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics. Despite their different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization. While both theories operate on reason and seem to be sound, they remain unproven due to their contingency on various factors of time and place, but mainly on their prerequisite of incorruptibility. Now, while both theories may very well have the odds dramatically stacked against their favor, I believe they must be thoroughly dissected for their content before attempting to condemn them to utopianism.
Before Hume can begin to explain what morality is, he lays down a foundation of logic to build on by clarifying what he thinks the mind is. Hume states that the facts the mind sees are just the perceptions we have of things around us, such as color, sound, and heat (Hume, 215). These perceptions can be divided into the two categories of ideas and impressions (215). Both of these categories rely on reason to identify and explain what is observed and inferred. However, neither one of these sufficiently explains morality, for to Hume, morals “. . .excite passions, and produce or prevent actions” (216)....
Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live
...gainst the state and the general will. Rousseau contends that, “every offender who attacks the social right becomes through his crimes a rebel and traitor to his homeland” (Rousseau 65). Once this offense has been undertaken, the criminal is longer a member of society and is now viewed as an enemy. The state’s preservation is at odds with the preservation of the offender and therefore the offender must be put to death. Also, Rousseau feels that the danger of members trying to enjoy the benefits of civil society without performing their required duties is a serious threat to civil society. Such actions must be constrained by all other citizens and offenders to this agreement must be “forced to be free” (Rousseau 55). This is a rather paradoxical argument as the idea of forcing someone to be free hardly works in most people’s definition of freedom. What is essential to remember here is that Rousseau believes that the true form of freedom can only come about once an individual enters civil society and accept the terms of the social contract. Therefore by forcing someone to adhere to society’s order, you are really granting them with civil freedom, the most important freedom of all.
Hume opens with the following “… justice is useful to society, and consequently that part of its merits, at least, must arise from that consideration, it would be a superfluous undertaking to prove. That public utility is the sole origin of justice, and that reflections o...
In David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, he divides the virtues of human beings into two types: natural and artificial. He argues that laws are artificial and a human invention. Therefore, he makes the point that justice is an artificial virtue instead of a natural virtue. He believed that human beings are moral by nature – they were born with some sense of morality and that in order to understand our “moral conceptions,” studying human psychology is the key (Moehler). In this paper, I will argue for Hume’s distinction between the natural and artificial virtues.