The Pros And Cons Of The Public Sphere

1825 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Religion as a social phenomenon

From the public sphere comes a social contract, a contract in which citizens have to abide by in order to ensure that others have their personal freedoms all the while keeping their own intact. Jean-Jacques Rousseau brought to light this social contract that has been put into a democratic system of thought. He believed that the contract enabled us to make a society in which all are equal and conventionally free. The consequences of becoming part of this social contract can be daunting however; the stipulations are that when one signs the social contract they have dropped some of his or her own freedoms and gained an equal share of conventional liberty. However, Democracy is rather than a slave to the people more so an employee, giving the people …show more content…

One of the biggest enemies of the public sphere and its workings is religion. If one were to bring religion into the public sphere it could be detrimental to society. The public sphere is dominated by the majority and it is this majority that could push out the minority religions and make them unable to participate within the public sphere. Thus to not favor one opinion over the other when not based upon absolute fact. Of course the government similarly will not limit its citizens to certain faiths, for that is one of the freedoms ensured to its people. John Locke produces an assumption that since there will always be these two separate responsibilities the people feel important. Those responsibilities being to the Magistrate as well as to their own personal faith it is important to respect the serration between what has come to be thought of as the soul and the matter. Since God, or any other religious deity is that of a dictator, democracy cannot consider their alleged messenger’s argument to be valid. And since the messenger considers their views as the absolute truth the public sphere is then choked of its ability to argue; one can only argue with reason. Therefore, secular reasoning must be the only reasoning allowed into the public sphere. They cannot use emotional manipulation or manipulation in the words of God. One’s soul does not enter into the public sphere because the government and therefore, the public, is only interested in the body while in the public sphere. This concludes that although the state is required to respect the autonomy of its citizens, in all matters does the state have to consider the body of the individual and never the

Show More
Related

  • Rousseau View On General Will

    1487 Words  | 3 Pages

    The principal tension is between a democratic conception, where the general will is simply what the citizen of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly, in simple terms Rousseau is saying the people generally settle for what the leaders of their individual communities lay down and out for them, and an alternative interpretation where the general will is the transcendent incarnation of the citizens common interest that exists in abstraction from what any of them actually want. Both views find some support in Rousseau’s texts, and both have been influential, modern and contemporary epistemic conception of democracy often make reference to Rousseau’s text and have both been

    Read More

  • Controversial Relationship Between the Church and the State

    2537 Words  | 6 Pages

    In 1789, the First Amendment established that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This meant the Federal and State Governments could not be partial or show support for any certain denomination or religious organization. However, throughout the history of the United States the controversial question over the relationship between church and state has always been called into question in establishing a one religion government. The main focus of the inquiry is to decide whether to keep the establishment clause or to tear it down and move towards a theocratic system. One side of the debate is the group against the separation of Church and State, who believe that if America was a more religious nation that it would become more moral as well as bring everyone in agreement with national decision making. Therefore the belief is that the United State would become more unified in an already corrupt system. On the other hand, the side for separation argues that the distance between established religion and national government is inherently necessary to keep maintain: religious tolerance, prevent biases, and prejudices, along with any sort of religious freedom in country that has thousands of different organized religions.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Napoleon

    1289 Words  | 3 Pages

    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)

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.

    Read More

  • Analysis: We Can Force People To Be Free

    2204 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Marx (The Communist Manifesto) and Rousseau

    2059 Words  | 5 Pages

    The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Individual Freedom vs. Majority Rule

    1678 Words  | 4 Pages

    In answering this final question raised, the conclusion to the essay emerges. We have seen how difficult it is to simply define liberty as a single conception, but have discovered many properties that a statement of freedom must posses. In the question between the conflicts of freedom, where two persons individual freedoms create a zero-sum game, the idea of social freedom emerges, and the idea that it is possible for there to be restrictions on an individual's freedom that are morally desirable. To best, and most simply explain in what sense we want people to be free, a balance must be found between the extent to which society may restrict an individual's freedom, and vice versa. As can be seen by observing politics throughout the ages, it is finding this balance that has proven to be the most challenging aspect of the ongoing question of freedom.

    Read More

  • Rousseau's Theory Of Alienation

    1222 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Coexistence of Equality and Inequality under the Social Contract

    1501 Words  | 4 Pages

    Political theories abound, considering many parts of society and the body politic. John Locke was one of the first to expound on the origins of property, and sixty-six years later Jean-Jacques Rousseau would also address the issues of property and inequality. According to Locke and Rousseau, the social contract is sanctioned by formal equalities yet creates or gives way to inequalities after it is formed. Though Locke would argue that inequalities in the private sphere don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the government, Rousseau would say justice gets deformed through inequality. Understanding how both equality and inequality can be present under the terms of the social contract is important because we cannot understand how to minimize inequalities if we do not first understand how they originated (origin). Inequality and equality can coexist under the terms of the social contract because the contract was formed under the influence of specious reasons with only an illusion of political equality.

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty"

    1403 Words  | 3 Pages

    An individual does not make a community, and a community does not make a society. In order to have a functioning and prosperous society, one must relinquish some free will in return for protection. According to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, there are certain rights of the individual which the government may never possess. Centuries after the publication of Mill’s Essay, the court case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) challenged the protective role of government against the free exercise of religion.

    Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of The Public Sphere

Open Document