Since my previous reflection, I have continued to operate the 24-Hour Hotline with the Domestic Abuse Project each weekend, which entails answering calls that report domestic abuse in Minneapolis, and providing immediate follow up and resources for the victims. Along with Locke and Hobbes, I have also been able to connect my work with the philosophers read in the second half of this course. Specifically, I have made connections between the purpose of the Domestic Abuse Project and Rousseau’s understanding of human life and the role of the government, which primarily focus on the importance of one’s ability to self-govern in pursuit of the common good. Although Rousseau primarily refers to the relationship between the government and the citizens of a body politic, I have …show more content…
When each person has the equal capacity to participate in governance, Rousseau believes that a body politic will be more likely to pursue what is best for the common good, rather than their private interests, which ultimately allows all people to embrace their freedom of conscience and live their best human lives. When trapped in an illegitimate relationship, Rousseau argues that one loses their capacity to self-govern, which inhibits a society from reaching the ideal that is the General Will. In abusive relationships, the aggressor takes away the victims ability to self-govern by endangering their freedom of conscience, health, and sometimes even life. Rousseau would say that even if the victim is convinced that they deserve the abuse, this relationship is in pursuit of the private will of the aggressor rather than the good of both people, and he would call on the sovereignty to step in a create laws to prevent these sorts of relationships to allow victims to self-govern and move towards his concept of an ideal
Rousseau believes its possible to have both complete freedom and yet also legitimate authority. The essential outline Rousseau paints an equal relation between freedom and the authority of state. He argues that we as naturally free people, if it doesn't detract from our freedom. `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 .
The authors of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and the United States Constitution pulled from many different sources during the infancy of these invaluable documents. They used pieces such as Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, Rousseau’s Of The Social Contract, and Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws as inspiration for America’s fundamental government. Each of these influential political philosophers were instrumental in making our government what it is today. Hobbes brought the ideas of natural equality, a strong, powerful government, and the principle that governments must be able to protect the people to American political philosophy. Locke added that
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...
...ic interest that makes serenity possible. Others however are concerned about Rousseau’s argument the people can be “forced to be free,” that people can be required, under law, to do what is right. They see Rousseau’s idea as an opening to dictatorship or to “totalitarian democracy.” Some political realists doubt whether Rousseau’s idea of direct democracy is either wanted or practicable.
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)
...eing mandated for protection. Rousseau’s conception of liberty is more dynamic. Starting from all humans being free, Rousseau conceives of the transition to civil society as the thorough enslavement of humans, with society acting as a corrupting force on Rousseau’s strong and independent natural man. Subsequently, Rousseau tries to reacquaint the individual with its lost freedom. The trajectory of Rousseau’s freedom is more compelling in that it challenges the static notion of freedom as a fixed concept. It perceives that inadvertently freedom can be transformed from perfectly available to largely unnoticeably deprived, and as something that changes and requires active attention to preserve. In this, Rousseau’s conception of liberty emerges as more compelling and interesting than Locke’s despite the Lockean interpretation dominating contemporary civil society.
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
Both Aristotle's “Politics” and Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality address the natural right and superiority of man and his subsets. In his piece, Aristotle discusses the emotional feeling of superiority, while Rousseau discusses the more logistic aspects. Together, their writing begs the question of the morality of slavery. Aristotle seems more willing to accept slavery as a natural creation by humans, however, in the end both of their pieces show the immorality and abnormality of slavery.
The charge of sexism on Rousseau and the badge of feminism on Wollstonecraft render their arguments elusive, as if Rousseau wrote because he was a sexist and Wollstonecraft because she was a feminist, which is certainly not true. Their work evinced here by the authors questioned the state of man and woman in relation to their conception of what it should be, what its purpose, and what its true species. With an answer to these questions, one concludes the inhumanity of mankind in society, and the other the inhumanity of mankind in their natural, barbarous state. The one runs from society, to the comforts and direction of nature; the other away from nature, to the reason and virtue of society. The argument presented may be still elusive, and the work in vain, but the point not missed, perhaps.
First, I outlined my arguments about why being forced to be free is necessary. My arguments supporting Rousseau’s ideas included; generally accepted ideas, government responsibility, and responsibility to the government. Second, I entertained the strongest possible counterargument against forced freedom, which is the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Lastly, I rebutted the counterargument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. In this paper I argued in agreement Rousseau that we can force people to be
Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher who lived in the Enlightenment. He was a very influential philosopher and “Thinker” he has written many books including The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Rousseau’s theory was in essence that humans were created naturally pure and innocent but over time and new technologies become more evil. He had thought that in the very first light of man he was completely innocent, a being who had no intention to harm anyone else. However as time progressed and the growing capacity for man increased and the
This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they are subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. Bibliography:.. Works Cited Cress, Donald A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau “The Basic Political Writing”.
...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.