Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The social contract rousseau essay
The social contract rousseau essay
The social contract rousseau essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The social contract rousseau essay
According to Rousseau’s On the Social Contract, the general will is a collectively held common good or common interest (Rousseau 167). The general will is vital in Rousseau’s theory because the legislation must create laws that promote the general will of the public. To Rousseau, the sovereign’s main goal is to find the general will of society and create laws that promote the general will. Rousseau’s theory also includes that public discourse causes the legislation to stray from the general will (Rousseau 180). Rousseau did not want public discourse in his society because he believed too many particular wills in society would cloud the legislation and assembly from passing laws that promoted the general will. I agree with Rousseau’s argument …show more content…
I agree with Rousseau’s argument because there are several conditions in society that help prove his theory. A condition that supports Rousseau’s theory is if the society or assembly is small. This condition supports Rousseau’s theory because a larger populace size increases the amount of particular wills in the society. This, in turn, would increase the chances that an individual would vote to pass a law that goes against the general will. A larger populace size also increases the chance of public discourse and persuasions a citizen could face before voting. Also, a larger populace reduces the influence a citizen has while voting on which laws to pass. As the ratio of citizens increase, there is more divergence from equality as the populace starts to Rousseau says, “one should count more on the vigor born of a good government than on the resources furnished by a large territory” (Rousseau 186). An implication from this quote is that a state could focus on overproducing resources; instead of focusing on creating laws that promote the general will of society (Rousseau 187). Thus, increasing the size of the populace would, in turn, increase the chances a sovereign has of passing a law that goes against the general will. Another condition that helps prove Rousseau’s theory is public voting. Without public voting, citizens are easily coerced into voting for laws that support a particular will instead of the general will. Public voting guides striving for the common good because it allows citizens to discover the general will easier through public opinion. However, particular wills and corporate wills muddle public opinion. This may cause public opinion to be biased towards a particular or corporate will, as public discourse could sway citizens to vote for a law that promotes an individual will. In short, the size of the populace and public voting are conditions that
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
During the enlightenment period in the 1600’s to the 1700’s, writers like Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau influenced some of America’s founding documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. During this time period, these writers had no idea that their works would impact such influential documents. The first document these writers influenced was the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by alcohol. As we can control neither E nor L, then it follows that we can never act free. The thesis of compatibilist, however, states that we may have free will, even if all of our actions are determined by forces beyond our controls.
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 Enlightenment was characterized by the emergence of philosophes who advocated for critical thinking and reasoning. Marx shared some common things and even was influenced by Enlightenment thinkers. Works of Rousseau, John Lock and Hegel were believed to be inspiration to Marx. In his book Das Kapital (Capital), Karl Marx adopted the idea of Jock Locke that human existence is directly related to requirement to fulfill basic needs( Hunt ,718). Marx believed the most important thing that distinguishes human beings from other creatures is that humans produce their means of subsistence. Despite the fact that Rousseau and Marx differed in the idea of Government and state, both attacked private property. According to Marx, it is the existence
In his essay, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau attempts to explain the relationship between the formation of political and social institutions and the state of human nature. Before going into depth regarding the state of human nature, Rousseau starts by first demonstrating the first crucial steps in human evolution and the effects these steps had on the development of inequality. Rousseau believes that the combination of these concepts are important to understanding where we came from, who we are now as a society and what our society will resemble in the future.
that ‘because you can force me to obey you, is it right that I should
Therefore, in order for any form of democracy to function, Representative Democracy is the superior form of political rule. Jean Jacques Rousseau is considered by many to be the `Grandfather' of direct democracy theory. Rousseau's ideal society would be where the citizens were directly involved in the creation of the laws which are to govern their lives. He maintained that, "all citizens should meet together and decide what is best for the community and enact the appropriate laws. Any law which was not directly created by the citizens is not valid, and if those laws are imposed on people, that is equivalent to the people being enslaved.
Rousseau came to the conclusion that the best way to examine the inequality in society is to examine the beginning of mankind itself. He tried to imagine the early state of man assuming there was ever actually a state where man existed only with the nature, in a solitary, and primitive lifestyle. He did not however revert as far back to the idea of the Neanderthal man to examine the ideas man held and where they came from. Instead, he looked at a state where man looked, and seemed to have the same physical abilities as he does today. Rousseau also concedes that a time where the ideas of government, ownership, justice, and injustice did not exist may not have ever existed. If what many religions tell us is true, then, in mans beginning, he was from the start, handed down laws from god which would influence his thinking and decisions. Through this, the only way such a period could come about would have to be through some catastrophic event, which would not only be impossible to explain, but consequently, impossible to prove. Therefore, imagining this state could prove not only embarrassing, but would be a contradiction to the Holy Scriptures.
...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.
...gainst the state and the general will. Rousseau contends that, “every offender who attacks the social right becomes through his crimes a rebel and traitor to his homeland” (Rousseau 65). Once this offense has been undertaken, the criminal is longer a member of society and is now viewed as an enemy. The state’s preservation is at odds with the preservation of the offender and therefore the offender must be put to death. Also, Rousseau feels that the danger of members trying to enjoy the benefits of civil society without performing their required duties is a serious threat to civil society. Such actions must be constrained by all other citizens and offenders to this agreement must be “forced to be free” (Rousseau 55). This is a rather paradoxical argument as the idea of forcing someone to be free hardly works in most people’s definition of freedom. What is essential to remember here is that Rousseau believes that the true form of freedom can only come about once an individual enters civil society and accept the terms of the social contract. Therefore by forcing someone to adhere to society’s order, you are really granting them with civil freedom, the most important freedom of all.
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.
The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In his Social Contract, Rousseau describes the transition from a state of of nature, where men are naturally free, to a state where they have to relinquish their naturalistic freedom. In this state, and by giving up their natural rights, individuals communise their rights to a state or body politic. Rousseau thinks by entering this social contract, where individuals unite their power and freedom, they can then gain civic freedom which enables them to remain free as the were before. In this essay, I will endeavour to provide arguments and examples to conclude if Rousseau provides a viable solution to what he calls the 'fundamental problem' posed in the essay title.
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.
This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of