More handpicked essays just for you.
Alexander hamilton vs thomas jefferson beliefs
Alexander hamilton vs thomas jefferson beliefs
Comparisons of Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Society and Government:
Which is the Cart and Which is the Horse?
1. Political unions rule our lives; religion rules our souls. So long as both exist, a balance must be struck between them. James Madison, in “Federalist Paper Number 10” and “A Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments,” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, each tries to determine this balance, yet they come to vastly different conclusions. While Madison believes religious freedom is essential, Rousseau cares little for it and instead argues that the government should establish requirements for its citizens’ religious beliefs. It may be tempting to explain the difference between Madison and Rousseau as an argument over the relative importance of societal
…show more content…
Rather than consider full religious freedom detrimental to society, Madison actually believes it vital for government and society to function. He states that a fair government “will be best supported by protecting every citizen in the enjoyment of his religion” (MMR, 25). Madison here says that the best way for government to function properly is to ensure that everyone have equal right to decide his or her own religion. Moreover, Madison adds that keeping government out of religion protects society from polarization and strife. He claims that establishing a government-supported religion would destroy the “moderation and harmony” that religions develop if there is no government religion (MMR 25). To Madison, government control over religion serves to make religion less moderate and more likely to result in conflict. In contrast, providing religious freedom mitigates any religious conflict that does arise. Madison states, “Equal and complete liberty … destroys [religious discord’s] malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State” (MMR, 25). According to Madison, freedom of religion preserves the wellbeing of society. Thus, Madison believes freedom of religion protects not only individuals’ rights, but also societal interests.
8. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that religion needs to be limited for society to function. Rousseau explains that his state-mandated religious beliefs include lack of intolerance because “whenever theological intolerance is allowed,
…show more content…
Rousseau, in contrast, believes that the creation of government leads to the creation of society. According to Rousseau, each subject first “places his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will” (R, 24). The citizens first become subject to decisions by a governmental force—the general will. Rousseau then continues that it is “this act of association” that “produces a moral and collective body” (R, 24). The collective body, society, forms because of the creation of the governmental force. From this reasoning, it is clear that unlike Madison, Rousseau believes that government creates society, not the other way
From 1786-1800, James Madison and other political theorists, wrote eighty-five federalist papers explaining issues on our country and urging people to reconnect with the new constitution. In Federalist paper 10, Madison illustrates that with government and the way that we think about who we look up to in terms of rights has strengthened a divide in mankind. “A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself,” (Madison: The Federalist 10). James Madison ties with Jefferson in his opinion about how religion and government do not mix well. He does not tolerate when an argument between a citizens beliefs and the law becomes a problem because it clearly states in the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting a religious movement” (Americans United) In Federalist paper 51, Madison also expresses on how being under the same ruling and in the same environment we have to learn to listen to both sides of the story. “In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects,” (Madison: The Federalist 51). The way that Jefferson and Madison compare is through the way that they think things should be perceived, such as,
Rousseau beings his work with a flattering dedication to his country of origin, Geneva. He praises the government of Geneva by stating that one is only free when everyone is governed equally by the same law. Even with Rousseau’s intention that law and government should be of the people, it is not a true form of freedom. Man is considered free when he has the ability to make laws for himself, natural law, instead of outwardly imposed laws that conflict with man’s personal morality. Rousseau's comparison of liberty to wine and meat is not parallel: Liberty is not something that turns negative when experienced in excess. It leads to constant progression which leads to an improvement in society. This idea that progress is negative in nature is a recurring and fundamentally wrong.
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 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
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.
Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. 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...
...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.
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
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “The Social Contract”. Modern Political Thought, Second Edition. Ed. David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2008. 427-487.
...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.
To understand the Rousseau stance on claims to why the free republic is doomed we must understand the fundamentals of Rousseau and the Social Contract. Like Locke and Hobbes, the first order of Rousseau’s principles is for the right to an individual’s owns preservation. He does however believe that some are born into slavery. His most famous quote of the book is “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau pg 5). Some men are born as slaves, and others will be put into chains because of the political structures they will establish. He will later develop a method of individuals living free, while giving up some of their rights to...
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.
Rousseau believes total alienation, where people give up everything, is required to achieve a legitimate society. For Rousseau, total alienation of each person to the community means that no one is dependent on another person. Everyone has an equal voice.
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 argues that the citizens should be the ones who create the law when living in that particular society. He says “Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association. The people, being subject to the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it.” Since the law is aimed at the citizens and punishments would oblige if not obeying to the law, it would simply be more accurate if the citizens themselves would create the law to make obedience simpler.