More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical analysis of social contract theory of Rousseau
Jean jacques rousseau the social contract essay
Critical analysis of social contract theory of Rousseau
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State “What does it matter to me?” the State may be given up for lost,” written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract reveals the important responsibility a citizen plays in their government (Good Reads 7). History shows the world was once divided into empires where subjects made up the majority of society and over time subjects demanded equality among royalty so the shift towards citizenship occurred. A major step towards citizenship for the subjects was through the feudal system and the traditions of fealty and homage (McKay el al. 393). Then many subjects were led to pursuing a revolution so the people could acquire specific rights they had demanded for decades. When placing citizenship beside the idea of being a subject the contrast reveals that a citizen has …show more content…
437). One major difference between a subject and a citizen were that subjects were not given natural rights. Therefore, the government often saw subjects as individuals of lower social status and did not believe they should have representation in their government (438). Often time laws were made to limit those who could vote, from requiring individuals to take tests to requiring they own land or hold possession of a specific amount of money (McKay al el, Viewpoints). However, even though subjects did not receive representation they still had duties demanded of them. For example, many were required to partake in battle if their empire went to war. The Greek Empire recognized the disjoint of requiring duties of subjects but not giving them representation; therefore they developed the citizen soldier where in return for their military service they were giving voting and decision making privileges (119). Many political systems started to give their subjects privileges if they completed certain
Skyrms’ book, Evolution of the Social Contract, offers a compelling explanation as to why individuals, when placed with one-shot prisoner’s dilemmas, will often cooperate, or choose the equilibrium that will benefit both parties equally. He uses examples to outline how individuals of certain environments frequently engage in activities that benefit the group at their own personal expense. Using both game theory and decision theory, Skyrms explores problems with the social contract when it is applied to evolutionary dynamics. In the chapters of the book, he offers new insights into concepts such as sex and justice, commitment, and mutual aid.
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...
Good Citizenship is something that is valued by a country. Although not normally noticed or recognized, good citizenship can come in many forms and can be very beneficial to a specified area. Good Citizenship could mean many different things but ultimately good citizenship promotes prosperity, and increases the well-being of said region. In this country we do have government officials, but they only can do so much, and reach so far, in this country you need to focus on "...Not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" (Kennedy). This means pulling your own weight and not relying solely on these officials and their policies, to get out and try to make this country the best it can be. Which is why through the use of the educatory school system in the United States and through obeying laws of their city/state or nation, and also through the practice of Volunteer work/charity the average American citizen can become above-average and awesome (in every sense of the word) and can also develop into a righteous, upstanding, convivial citizen.
The Enlightenment was an astonishing time of transformation in Europe. During this time in the eighteenth century there was a progressive movement that was labeled by its criticism of the normal religious, social, and political perceptions. A number of significant thinkers, with new philosophies, had inspired creativeness and change. These thinkers had many different thoughts and views on people and the way they act, and views on the government. Two well-known and most influential thinkers of this time were the English political philosopher John Locke and the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two men had laid down some of the intellectual grounds of the modern day government and both had different opinions on what the government’s role in a society.
For those who are familiar with John Locke’s social contract should remember that as an individual we give up certain freedoms that we see fit in order to protect our basic rights to life, liberty, and property. If an individual breaks this “contract” then why should they reape its protection. If someone violates the terms of a contract then they lose all that it entails. Why should it be any different in this situation. The individual has willing broken the contract and should suffer as anyone else would in this certain situation. By taking away the rights to life of someone else that person has forfeit their own. This means that they officially become the state 's property does it not? This is something to think of as it would completely change the system by which our criminals of a caliber as high as this would be tried. People that argue against this ask for a sympathetic role to which leads the question to,”To what are you appealing?” At this point they are already unable to contribute back to society. They are in a word a parasite leeching away at the life of those that follow the rules that they as a part of society have created and contribute to.
The most important liberty was freedom to speak out for the common good in the public assemblies (16). The Greeks practiced a system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. However, only ten percent of Athenians were citizens; one had to be native born, free, male and over the age of 18 to be considered as a citizen. Unlike the Athenian Constitution, the original American Constitution did not list the requirements to vote; Article VI, clause 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". For the most part of American history, the determination of voters ' qualifications was left to the individual states to decide. It was only after the Civil War period when citizenship and the right to vote were extended. The 14th amendment states that all persons born or naturalized are citizens of the United States; the 15th amendment prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen 's race, color, or previous condition of servitude; the 19th amendment prohibits any
In the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau he describes what he believes is the state of nature and the social contract that humans form in civilizations. This discussion mostly takes place in his book called the “Social Contract”. The first area that will be covered is what Rousseau thinks is the state of nature. This will then be followed by what he believes is the social contract that humans enter to live in normal society or civilization. The last portion will be to critic and summarize his findings.
...quals for political rule, the theoretical possibility of absolute rule becomes a crucial part of it. This causes difficulties because if Aristotle values citizenship and political participation as vital for attaining eudaimonia, then the possibility of absolute rule is clearly inconsistent with his standard of justice as virtuous and capable citizens would have to give up their citizenship. Conversely, Aristotle would argue that surrendering citizenships can be done without loss of virtue or eudaimonia as both types of rule are equally just. Fundamentally, both provide outstanding virtuosity, ability and rule in the interest of all which is crucial for obtaining a good government and eudaimon life. Thus, even in the most just state, the value of political participation is such that it should be accepted when offered although it is not essential for the eudaimon life
The meaning of citizenship as a concept varies significantly for each individual-this meaning is directly influenced by factors such as age, ideological beliefs and socioeconomic class. Due to this difference in perspective it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what citizenship entails concerning the balance between the freedoms that we experience as citizens and the responsibilities that we must each fulfill in order for a democracy to function with stability and efficiency. This has become an issue in modern society as some citizens (particularly those in the millennial cohort) shrug off traditional duty based citizenship norms such as voting in elections, paying income taxes and obeying the law- for more “engaged” forms of participation such
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.
This type of exclusion comes under the political bracket, as it includes the rejection of citizen rights, such as the right to vote, freedom of speech and equal opportunities. Bhalla and Lapeyre (1997) argue that political exclusion ‘involves the notion that the State, which grants basic rights and civil liberties, is not a neutral agency but a vehicle of the dominant classes’, thus, exclude some social groups and include others. However, one must note that citizenship is not only political, as social citizenship refers to ‘the rights and obligations that determine the identity of members of a social and political community and which as a result regulates access to the benefits and privileges of members’ (Turner, 1997). Thus, citizenship is centred on the capacity of using individual and collective rights, and inequalities which can cause a social hierarchy, created of first class and second class citizens. When individuals are made unequal before the they do not have access to public goods, which consequently leads to alienation from society, and lack of opportunities freedom. T H Marshall divided citizenship into three aspects; civil (the right to certain freedoms), political (right to take part in elections) and social (the right to some economic welfare and to ‘share to the full of the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being accorded to the standards prevailing in the society’(Marshall,1963). Citizenship should be a status enjoyed by the members of a political and social community which is attached to rights and obligations, without these one is excluded from society and isolated from society and oneself. The exclusion of ethnic minorities comes under the bracket of the problem of citizenship. In Britain, the Social Exclusion Unit of the government stated in 2000, that ‘In comparison to their representation in the population, people
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 fifth-century BC, Athens emerged as one of the most advanced state or polis in all of Greece. This formation of Athenian ‘democracy’ holds the main principle that citizens should enjoy political equality in order to be free to rule and be ruled in turn. The word ‘democracy’ originates from the Greek words demos (meaning people) and kratos (meaning power) therefore demokratia means “the power of the people.” The famous funeral speech of Pericles states that “Our constitution is called democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people.” However, only citizens (free adult men of Athenian descent) could participate in political matters. Women and slaves held no political rights, although they were essential in order to free up time for the citizens to participate in the matters of the state. The development of Athenian democracy has been fundamental for the basis of modern political thinking, although many in modern society UK would be sceptical to call it a democracy. Plato and Aristotle in The Republic and The Politics respectively were critical of the Athenian democracy, by examining the culture and ideology present the limitations and possible downfalls of a democratic way of life. Within this essay I will outline these limitations and evaluate their validity.
Ancient Greece was made up of individual city states, known as a Polis, which relied heavily on citizen participation in politics. The idea of self-rule was an entirely new way of governing. Citizenship was unheard of at the time. Although still considered citizens not everybody was allowed to participate. In Athens only adult males who had military training were allowed to vote. The majority of the population, namely slaves, children, metics (free noncitizens) and women were excluded from participation in politics. “[Metics] and women were not citizens and did not enjoy any of the privileges of citizenship.”(Sayre, 137) Athenian citizens had to be descended from citizens, excluding the children of Athenian men and foreign women. Individuals could be granted citizenship in to Athens by the assembly this was usually as a reward for some service to the state. Ancient Greece paved the way for the representative democratic style of government that is practiced by many countries today. Much like how voting rights started out in America, originally only the wealthy land owners were allowed to vote and call themselves citizens, but soon all men were allowed to have a vote and a voice in their states politics. Essentially the Greeks were the first to introduce citizen rights and freedom similar to what’s seen today.
Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.