Rousseau and the Constitution Rousseau, at the time, greatly affected the way some thought, especially thinkers of the Constitution. The reason for this is due to his writings issued in The Social Contract. In it, he expresses his feelings on man being free. The major quote Rousseau uses in it was “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” Rousseau thought that every man should be able to be free but under laws. This meaning that you can have an opinion and do certain things as long as they were within the guide lines of the law enforcers and or government. This gave a great effect on the government because they had followed some things he expressed in The Social Contract. We as Americans felt it was greatly important to be a democracy and for every person’s vote to count. Back then and sometimes now, the way your future was planned out was based and dependent on your class and what you’re born into. (Rousseau, 1) This 18th century philosopher wrote three books but the most important of the three was the Social Contract. This greatly influenced the constitution and also many other things as well. He encouraged the minds of citizens who believe that they should deserve more freedom and more say in what the government decides. Now, every vote counts for every person no matter age, class, how intelligent they are, or their looks. In his book, he stresses constantly the different types of freedom there are, natural, civil, and moral. Natural freedom is being able to do whatever one wants. Civil freedom is in agreement with The Social Contract in which has to obey the laws the Rousseau helped make in the Constitution. Moral freedom is doing the right thing and not whatever you want. Rousseau thought that civil freedom was th... ... middle of paper ... ... general will” (Bertram, 12). Rousseau also states citizens are “forced to be free” in The Social Contract (Bertram, 12). This is basically saying that we are free as long as we act within the guidelines as enforced and interpreted by local and regional government. The irony in this can differ greatly within our own social contract (i.e. the Constitution of the USA). Everybody should have freedom no matter your differences toward one another. Works Cited Bertram, Christopher, "Jean Jacques Rousseau", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Jean¬Jacques Rousseau, Contrat social ou Principes du droit politique (Paris: Garnier Frères 1800), pp. 240¬332, passim. Translated by Henry A. Myers. SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778).” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2005. Web. 26 Nov. 2013
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)
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 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 order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
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.
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...
Locke had a major influence upon the Founding Fathers because their main goal was to embody and improve learning of the ages, and they tried to do this with Locke’s view on issues. Locke’s theories were also being used when they were writing the Declaration of Independence because they used his ideas as a guideline when writing and coming up with new points to add. The Declaration of the Rights of Man includes one major thinker from the French Enlightenment, Jean Jacques Rousseau. His concept that the state represents the general will of all the citizens is a basis that is taken deeply into consideration when Marquis de Lafayette started to write this Declaration. This is how both of these philosophers relate back to both of these documents that were written. Both of these philosophers helped impact the world’s history in many ways, and should be remembers as well as both of the documents that were mentions which were huge turning points in history as
...d (Locke, 4). By exploring these two ideas of the social contract between a government and its people, as well as the natural rights of man, Locke created many waves in England, as well as impacted several important intellectuals who would later be responsible for the American and French Revolutions.
Rousseau is firstly justified in his claim that perfectibility led to the abolishment of the gentleness of natural man and resulted in a competition
SparkNotes: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778): The Social Contract. (n.d.). SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/rousseau/section2.rhtml
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.
In the Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the idea of forced freedom. “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the entire body; which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free” (Rousseau, SC, Bk 1. Ch. 7). This forced freedom is necessary for a government that is run by the people and not a small group of few to one sovereign(s). For forced freedom allows a difference of opinions but the outcome is the idea with the greatest acceptance. Because political rule requires the consent of the ruled, the citizens of the state are required to take action within their community.
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...
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.
...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.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. "On Democracy." Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. 179-80. Print.