Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Theory of social contract by Rousseau essay
Rousseaus liberal theory
Rousseaus liberal theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theory of social contract by Rousseau essay
Rousseau’s political theory revolves around a central idea that in order to deal with moral or political inequality (“social” inequality), man must move out of the state of nature and establish a social contract, “a form of association which defends and protects… the person and goods of each associate, and by the means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 432). Although Rousseau’s plan pledges to protect individual liberty, the plan rests on the legislation of the “general will” and the successful unity of a “body politic,” both of which are vaguely defined and become too concerned with state interest.
Rousseau defines the general will as concerning “only the general interest,” saying it can be arrived at by taking all individual wills and “[removing] … the pluses and minuses” from each to “cancel each other out” (437). He doesn’t say what parts of individual opinion are “pluses and minuses” however. Rousseau’s outlook on humanity seems to be overwhelmingly positive in this case, since he assumes that people will need no specific guidelines to lead “good” political lives. This faith in humanity is where his arguments become weak.
Although Rousseau has faith in human beings to be inherently “good,” he does concede that society is what corrupts people– since his plan is to lay out a new kind of society, it seems strange that he would not plot his theory out more specifically in case anyone failed...
Rousseau writes that humanity is a mixture of good and evil. There are people who follow the education of nature and become self-reliant individuals. There are also those who tamper with nature and deprive individuals of their freedoms. They are the evil ones. Rousseau held such a position because he was raised much in the manner he wrote of, with no formal education until his twenties. His work is a production of the Enlightenment. Although he was unaware of psychology, his views on how to educate and raise a child are studied in current theories of human development. Rousseau had a mixed view if humanity was good or evil.
...tract theory does raise additional questions. Rousseau envisioned a society in which every voice was heard. A solution to this impracticality is the idea of representation—something which Locke advocated for in The Second Treatise. The idea makes sense; have one person represent a group of people to improve functionality. However, how can a man fully represent an entire group’s interest? Surely there must be some differences between the representative and those he represents. If that is the case, can one call that justice? The man already relinquished certain rights by accepting the contract. With representation, he also gives up his right to full participation in the system. Despite this problem and the other issues with contractarianism, this theory served as a foundation for the American political system and continues to inspire political ideologies worldwide.
Rousseau states how it has created members of society to be dependent on each other as well as makes them compare themselves to others creating a need to be better than the rest, “But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared,” (Rousseau, 255). In which Smith saw division of labor as more advantageous, Rousseau sees it as more disadvantageous, introducing inequality into society. Now, Rousseau’s solution to the injustice wrought on society is to get rid of laws altogether. Laws have driven us further away from our original state of nature and gave powers to the rich and wealthy, “Such was, or may well have been, the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness,” (Rousseau, 261). These laws enforcing a need for property and distribution of labor only brings inequality and enslavement, therefore they should be forgotten
... 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.
...hat is prepared by others. To take a walk, one must progress along the streets constructed by others, or along the earth that exists due to a supreme power. To have a conversation, one requires another to communicate with. To comprise a single thought, reverts back to the need to even exist as a human. The examples are endless while the fact is simple: to do anything of an individual desire requires the direct or indirect partnership of another. This sole principle ruins the basis of the social contract. If people are aware of their existing group efforts, they may be reluctant to give up natural rights that they do not have, for a society in which they’ve already established. In reality, Rousseau’s theory is that of natural existence; he just made it sound appealing by adding a few accents. In response to this reality, Rousseau may propose that a social contract must be enforced upon a society to encourage security, general will and proper law regulations. This response may be sufficient enough to blind a society into conformity, but it does not change the natural fact that as a single being, we can do nothing alone.
In his book A Discourse on Inequality, Jean- Jacques Rousseau turns to the state of nature in search of the real “essence” of man. What made humans to be humans? Rousseau is trying to determine the prodigious events, such as the acquisition of knowledge and errors, the mutations that took place in the constitution of the body, and the constant impact of the passions that eventually led to the separation of man between the state of nature and society (67). He describes how as time change, humanity change as well. He figures that if by first looking into the origin of man, it can lead to the “source of inequality among men” and the unnatural ways man has evolved to become (67).
In this essay I will be assessing the extent to which Rousseau and Wollstonecraft work contributed to the development of social thought and focus on the key ideas both of these researchers encountered, jean- Jacques Rousseau remains an important figure in the history of political philosophy and moral psychology, Rousseau views often very negative seeing philosophers as the past- hoc rationalizers of self interests, as apologist for various forms of tyranny, and as playing a role in the alienation of the modern individual from humanities natural impulse to compassion. The major concern that dominated Rousseau’s work was to find a way to preserve human freedom in a world where humans are increasingly dependent on other for the satisfaction of
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. Prominent, influential, relevant and most important of all as human as they come, Jean Jacques Rousseau was truthfully, brilliant. Rousseau was born in Geneva Switzerland to a watchmaker in 1712, lacking of a formal education his father taught him to read, exposed him to literature and he managed to educate himself while living with Madame Louise de Warens,in the kingdom of Sardinia, modern Italy. Jeans childhood was far from easy “His autobiographical Les Confessions (1783) offers a thorough account of his turbulent life in her household, where he spent eight years studying nature and music, and reading English, German, and French philosophers. He also pursued the study of mathematics and Latin and enjoyed the theater and opera” (Hager 1). After leaving de Warrens in 1744, Rousseau eventually made his way to Paris, where he befriended French philosopher Denis Diderot who actually invited him to contribute to the Encyclopedie a major work of the enlightenment period, which he did, Rousseau wrote articles on music and political theories. Then in 1750 he wrote A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. Where he claimed Human beings were naturally good, he argued; it was only the corrupt institutions of civilization that led them to do evil. Rousseau continuously returned to that theme in his subsequent writings in fact he stated A new-born he thought was intrinsically perfect: all society could do was to limit his views and maim his mind. Hence, the more civilized, the worse. A savage was nearer perfection than a philosopher. Yet he was a philosopher but Rousseau's own view of philosophy and philosophers was firmly negati...
In his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
One of the interesting things about Rousseau was that he had different views then previous philosophers, such as Hume and Locke, on the state of nature. In Rousseau’s point of view humans in the state of nature would be most like a noble savage. What this means is that Rousseau believed that in the state of nature humans are naturally good, and are lead by basic appetites or sentiments. This would also be a prehistoric place where humans would not have discovered rationality or morality. This mainly applies because Rousseau believes that these prehistoric humans made, as later discussed, decisions based on sentiment and not on reason, thus since morality requires the ability to chose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral. Rousseau believes that evil starts to occur when civilizations are created. This is mostly due to increasing amounts of dependence on others and the need of unnecessary luxuries. In fact another possible reason that this evil arises and what sets prehistoric human apart from other animals is the need for self-improvement. Thus the prehistoric human would live in solitary state, in complete autonomy, and as his own sovereign. Along with this he would not strive for anything outside their imme...
...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.
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...
ABSTRACT: The classical contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have enjoyed such fame and acceptance as being basic to the development of liberal democratic theory and practice that it would be heretical for any scholar, especially one from the fringes, to critique. But the contract tradition poses challenges that must be given the flux in the contemporary socio-political universe that at once impels extreme nationalism and unavoidable globalism. This becomes all the more important not in order to dislodge the primacy of loyalty and reverence to this tradition but from another perspective which hopes to encourage that the anchorage of disclosure be implemented. The contract tradition makes pronouncements on what is natural and what is nonnatural. It offers what many have contended are rigorous arguments for these pronouncements that are "intuitive," "empirical," "logical," "psychological," "moral," "religio-metaphysical." What I offer in this essay is a challenge from the outside. I ask: 1) on what empirical data are the material presuppositions of contractarianism built? 2) what is the epistemological foundation of contractarianism? 3) is contractarianism not derivable from any other form of sociological presupposition except that of the state of nature? 4) does any human know a "state of nature"? 5) given the answers to the above questions, to what extent are the legal and moral foundations of contractarianism sacrosanct? I attempt to answer these questions in what can only be a sketch, but my answers suggest that it is very presumptuous of contractarianist to suppose that they have captured the only logically valid basis of democratic practice universally.
In Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on The Origins of Inequality, Rousseau is arguing to his readers about the natural state of a man, and how it connects back to inequality. Rousseau argues his ideas of amour propre; living in the eyes of other people and amour de soi; self-preservation. I believe that Rousseau’s analysis of civilization is in fact true, I do agree with his analysis. In the next paragraphs I will be discussing how Rousseau has developed amour propre and amour de soi, as well as his analysis on civilization. Throughout the essay I will also be giving a few pieces of evidence that support my thesis from peer reviewed journals.