Rousseau Reflection Paper

On prosecution cases I have submitted to EED or presented to the AUSA I maintain communications for status and update ICS as needed. I regularly request training to improve my skills and keep my knowledge base up-to-date. I share course material with my Supervisor and peers for classes I attend. For example, I attended some very good classes during the Diversity Conference in 2008; I not only brought back the message but the materials to share with my peers who were not selected to attend. In my Supervisor’s absence I will act in his place, conducting case reviews, correlating with other investigators on casework and field calls.

He will mention that people have the right to resume their original liberty and that the government should provide safety and security and not control people by power. In order to balance a limited government and create the protection of equal rights, there must be reasonable laws to help regulate, balance authority and create equality. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes that there should be social contract, meaning people join groups and the group makes up society. Social contract is the contract people agree to form. This is because Rousseau is more developed and believes the best way to go is not have a king.

The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group. From a liberal standpoint (and the standpoint of many non-liberals as well), it is important that every individual has the right to equal existence amongst their fellow human beings. Therefore, Altman’s justification for regulation of hate speech appeals to an intrinsically valuable liberal belief. Altman’s prescription not only appeals to the concerns ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing its targets down, therefore people must learn to successfully overcome the feelings that it intends to induce. Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it.

Also what if an individual decides they do not want to live by the common interests of this new society? Rousseau would suggest being forced to be free as the interests of the whole are served only by following rational principles that cultivate the common good which is comparable to a totalitarian

Can the government force a citizen to be free? In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau declares that it is not only possible for the government to do so, but also necessary under certain conditions. In this fashion, Rousseau expects complete obedience to the laws of the body politic. Though this concept is aimed at promoting the democratic principle of equality, it bestows the will of the community with a troubling degree of precedence over individual wills. For this, I argue that Rousseau’s idea of forcing citizens to be free is a dangerous notion.

Most of my community service time was allotted towards assisting a group specialized in helping autistic children. The Groden Center has graciously allowed me to help in some of their programs. Lending my help with the Special Olympics, winter parties, and arts and crafts activities, I was able to put an effort towards making sure things went smoothly. One long term service I provided with the allowance of the Groden Center was my assistance with the Speech and Language Pathologist worker. Every Friday for a set amount of weeks, I collected data analyzing autistic children’s growth with language development, organized files, and worked with spreadsheets.

Aristotle believes that humans are essentially good; therefore, they are more likely to achieve their full potential as good people, whereas Hobbes believe in fighting against original sin. The social contract is the opposite of Aristotle’s philosophy of humans being born essentially good. Hobbes’ state of nature considers humans as selfish and destructive beings that need must be tamed in order to survive; otherwise, chaos is bound to strike. Hence why I agree with Aristotle’s philosophy of exercising and cultivating the values that we originally possess. As one matures, one is capable of reasoning the quality we need in order to become incorporated into society.

Also in The Social Contract, Rousseau comments about how the grouping of people into a civil s... ... middle of paper ... ...o be perfect our flaws and inequalities emerge. This brings us to Rousseau’s idea that it is impossible to achieve perfection in society, for the only way to be perfect is to be in our natural state. Rousseau believes that we can not let ourselves get caught up with trying to be perfect. Instead ,he wants us to be nice to one another, ignore any differences or imperfections, and do things purely to benefit everyone else rather than himself. We need to work as a single cohesive unit so we aren’t able to do things strictly for ourselves, everything we do will help or hurt everyone.

When discussing Rousseau’s theory on the corruption of society, an interesting question arises. If humans are naturally so good, then how could society be so evil? Hobbes would argue that society is what keeps human nature stable by the use of sovereign power, laws, and the authority to regulate people’s actions. Without society, corruption would continue and people would have absolute freedom to do what they please, which would cause more fear. According to Hobbes " The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place.

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. By giving up a few of their freedoms the sovereign can maintain order with the rest of their freedoms. Locke, on the other hand, the government is for the people and if the government fails the people it/they can be overthrown and put in place new officials that will protect citizens