In his writing, Rousseau describes two main forms of freedom— the absolute liberty we enjoy in the state of nature and the freedom we preserve in civil society. The former freedom is fundamentally unattractive, and the latter can be achieved only with the concept of the general will. While this democracy is seemingly equitable, it ultimately suffers from numerous flaws that cause the freedom achieved in this state to be rather unappealing. In the state of nature, freedom is described as the condition where mankind is allowed to do virtually anything. They are limited only by ability and their notion of pity, which inspires them to act in their own self-interest while doing as little harm to others as possible. While not subjugated to arbitrary rule in this state, men are also isolated. And as we see from mankind’s tendency to have families, form communities, and live in society, we would be unable to maintain this form of freedom. But even if we could, there are several reasons why the absolute liberty of the state of nature is undesirable. First off, there is no uniform standard for how each person should pity another. While one person might refrain from kicking a man when he’s down, another, less agreeable individual might not do the pitiful man the same favor. Furthermore, this lack of standard mixed with the condition of absolute freedom can easily lead to a Hobbesian state of war. Life in such a state would truly be “nasty, brutish, and short;” society must be formed to prevent such a paltry condition. And finally, as Rousseau suggests, the savage man is devoid of thought. He has no appreciation for the arts, no strong emotions, and neither reason nor wisdom to guide his actions. Subsequently, freedom in the state of natu... ... middle of paper ... ... the corporate or government interest the same as the general will. But in this case, the government would be slow to act, and in times of emergency, the state would suffer as a result. A dictator would be needed, but by doing so, the state is once again liable to arbitrary rule and the people lose their freedom. By avoiding the problems of traditional governments, the general will faces a different set of problems. The state ruled by the general will is clearly an imperfect and undesirable state. A society in which dissenting thoughts are stifled and scorned is not conducive to arguments and the process of creating good legislation. But Rousseau’s idea of freedom is the right for people to rule themselves by conforming to the general will. In the end, the general will is trapped in an awkward state that does not work and does not fulfill its fundamental purpose.
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)
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 .
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
The principal tension is between a democratic conception, where the general will is simply what the citizen of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly, in simple terms Rousseau is saying the people generally settle for what the leaders of their individual communities lay down and out for them, and an alternative interpretation where the general will is the transcendent incarnation of the citizens common interest that exists in abstraction from what any of them actually want. Both views find some support in Rousseau’s texts, and both have been influential, modern and contemporary epistemic conception of democracy often make reference to Rousseau’s text and have both been
The abrogating purpose of Rousseau's consideration regarding the capacity and nature of metro establishments is that the procedures of enactment and laws are the best methods for developing good sensibilities in the group. The part of government is to make a feeling of profound quality and freedom: since all should partake in government this is a condition of good opportunity in light of the fact that through the gadget of self-assurance the subjects have self-sufficiency. For Rousseau then the legislature is a specialist of good perfectibility instead of a managerial machine for securing singular rights or property. Truth be told, Rousseau recommends that the target of good government is to protect and change the group: this desire would be accomplished when "every resident is nothing, and can do nothing without the rest". This goal of making a need of the group over the individual interests of every individual does not fit effectively with present day liberal originations. We have to perceive, however, that for Rousseau this was not a resistance of a tyrant manage of government, yet an endeavor to advance freedom and
While the problems within civil society may differ for these two thinkers it is uncanny how similar their concepts of freedom are, sometimes even working as a logical expansion of one another. Even in their differences they shed light onto new problems and possible solutions, almost working in tandem to create a freer world. Rousseau may not introduce any process to achieve complete freedom but his theorization of the general will laid the groundwork for much of Marx’s work; similarly Marx’s call for revolution not only strengthens his own argument but also Rousseau’s.
The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not delve as far back as Rousseau does and he begins his mission of finding a way to preserve people’s liberty in an organized society by looking to order of the ancient societies of Greece, Rome and England (Mill 5). These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizen’s were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mill’s conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will.
The general will, or the will of the people as a whole, takes the form of laws and policies which by convention creates everyone equal. This is contingent that citizens have an active political voice in determining and establishing such laws. The law is the act of the “whole people establishing a decree for the whole people.” The laws passed with the consent and support of the general body is the expression of the general will. Rousseau critiques other philosophers that they assume the individual applications of the law are representative of the sovereign. The application of the law or the execution of policy may be influenced by an individual but this is not the will of the general body. Again, this is dependent on citizens having political influence. Since the law is agreed on by the majority, it applies fairly and equally to the whole
Inferably, Rousseau admitted that only legitimate powers ought to be obeyed. But what is legitimate power? Where does it come from? If it all comes from God, how can w...
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...
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
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
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.