Ben Jeffery Dr. Harvey 04/03/2024 General Will vs. Kingdom of Ends What is General Will and Kingdom of Ends and which would be better to have in a society? Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant are both important political theorists during the Enlightenment Period and both present their versions of how a perfect society should be. Rousseau, the author of the book The Social Contract, dives into the General Will and why it is the best form of government for a community through collectivism. Kant, who wrote Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, on the other hand, had focused on the Kingdom Of Ends, which focuses on the subjective imperative as it represents moral laws. Although each of these theorists viewpoints are drastically different, …show more content…
Because the wealthy had more power, this could result in the rich threatening the poor when speaking about their desires for the community. This scenario can turn the General Will from a democracy into a tyrannical form of government where only one opinion should be considered. Unlike the General Will, Immanuel Kant’s Kingdom of Ends has a completely different approach to the perfect government system. What is the Kingdom of Ends and what makes it better than the General Will? Kant b] breaks down the Kingdom of Ends into parts such as Categorical Imperatives and Moral Law that all connect together to create Kant’s perfect government. There are three forms of categorical imperatives which involve the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature, Formula of Humanity, and Formula of Autonomy. Kant defines the first formula of categorical imperative in his book, “Act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature.” (Kant ch.II, pg. 24 online book. What Kant is explaining with this quote is that in the Kingdom of Ends your actions would be a universal law and that everyone would follow your
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)
The lawyer and scholar believed that there should be one universal government ruling the people, this government would be a led by a mix of all three classes. He states how a monarchy would be the ideal rule, but is extremely unrealistic as all humans reason equally. By instating a mixed form of government, people would feel more of a connection with the laws and more of a personal responsibility to follow them if they had a part in creating them. Additionally, all people would be seen as equal before the law as all have equal capabilities and through effort, a common good can be achieved; the only thing differentiating humans is their variety of gifts, besides this, there is no variation. A person’s economic status by no means defines their ability to lead, by all groups participating in government, there are no idle citizens that are not a part of the
In seeing interests too varied, a ruler or executive is forced to impose domination onto the people he is supposed to serve (Montesquieu 140). This not only once again corrupts the principles of democracy, but it also weakens the entire collective of states. Such domination incites the people to rise up against those that govern them and to expel them and challenge their ability to govern and lead a free people – much as Shay’s rebellion demonstrates. Montesquieu is wise here to realize that the only way to govern large swaths of land is only through monarchy and despotism – that of which we have only so recently freed ourselves from (142). When large amounts of territory are placed under a single government, the only way it can govern itself is through coercion and force. In a mid-sized territory, failure to do so leads to the rise of an aristocracy that will, much like the aforementioned wealthy man, will see the oppression of their fellow man as the means necessary to advance their own wealth (Montesquieu 141). In a large territory, despotic command becomes necessary to ensure that the laws and powers of the government are followed quickly and immediately so that the territory can be adequately governed (Montesquieu 142). Both of these would lead to violence and the destruction of liberty and
Society’s structure has been debated and contested as far back as ancient Greece. Since then, man has developed social systems that greatly differ from anything the ancients had in mind. One such system is the social contract theory, which first came to prominence around the time of the enlightenment. Simplified, social contractarians argued that in order to achieve a balanced and stable society, all of its members must sacrifice certain liberties to a government or similar authority. As Rousseau explains, the contract begins when “Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will” (148). Essentially, it is an agreement between the rulers and the ruled that produces a stable political state. John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract are both enlightenment works that detail contractarianism, yet each has a unique and different way of considering the social contract. Although John Stuart Mill is also known for his work with Utilitarianism, his essay On Liberty considers consent and other issues relating to contract theory. These authors provide different insights into the social contract, and frequently one will reject another’s idea and offer a new solution. Even after this meshing of ideas and solutions, contract theory falls short of practicality. The idea is appealing, appearing on the surface as a fair and just way of governance. However, true liberty cannot arise from a contract, as man cannot be “forced to be free” (150). There are two fundamental flaws with contractarianism: it is not practical and it ignores human nature, and even if were possible to establish a true contract-based society, the citi...
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, rulers adopted basic enlightenment principles, like religious toleration, freedom of speech and press, and the right to hold and maintain private property. According to Kant, in his What is Enlightenment? of 1784, “A prince who…prescribes nothing to men in religious matters but to give them complete freedom while renouncing the haughty name of tolerance, is himself enlightened and deserves to be esteemed by the grateful world and posterity.” Many rulers accepted these newfound ideas; however, when it came time to actually implement them, rulers were often too scared of losing power. This, in turn, led to the idea of an “enlightened despot,” who reflected the principles of the Enlightenment, yet continued to exercise the basic ideals of despotism.
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 ...
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
Oligarchy is valued above a democracy although they are both ruled by the appetite of the soul. Those within an oligarchy pursue necessary appetites whereas democratic individuals pursue unnecessary appetites. Rulers are present...
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Throughout history, the effects of the unequal distribution of power and justice within societies have become apparent through the failure of governments, resulting in the creation of theories regarding ways to balance the amount of power given and the way in which justice is enforced. Due to this need for change, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke created two separate theories in which the concept of a social contract is used to determine the ways in which a government can govern without forfeiting justice. In this essay, the relationship between force, morality, and rights within both theories will be investigated in order to determine the most beneficial format for society based on the ideas of the natural condition of mankind, the rights of the government, and the rights of the governed. Through this examination of ideas, a conclusion may be made concerning the ideal form of government to preside over society today.
Kant explores the good will which acts for duty’s sake, or the sole unconditional good. A good will is not good because of any proposed end, or because of what it accomplishes, but it is good in itself. The good will that is good without qualification contains both the means and the end in itself. People naturally pursue the good things in life and avoid the bad. Kant argues that these good things are either means to a further end or good ends in and of themselves.
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.
John Locke’s social contract theory applies to all types of societies in any time era. Although, Jean-Jacques Rousseau did write during the Renaissance era, his philosophy limits itself to fix the problem of an absolute monarchy and fails to resolve other types of societies. These philosophers have such profound impacts on modern day societies. For example, the United States’ general will is codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, meanwhile individual rights are distinguished in the Declaration of
If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
... those who come from noble families and the virtuous, can share in the power of association. Artisans, trades persons, and those who do not own property are not given equal share in power of the state. They are not "citizens" in respect to ruling. Polity is "a mixture of oligarchy and democracy" (IV, 1293 b34), is an attempt to combine the freedom of the poor majority and the wealth of the rich minority (IV, 1294 a17). Rule is a complex of activities that can be allocated to different social categories. Polity is the form of government in which different organs of government are controlled by different sections of the population, in such a way that both rich and poor have a share of power. Because power is shared by all categories, all take turns to rule.