The Social Contract, the General Will, and Institutions of Inequity
Rousseau's The Social Contract set forth a view of government and society that challenged much of the established order (and even its "enlightened" challengers, the philosophes) by insisting that governments exist to serve the people, not the other way around, and that government derives its authority from the "general will" of the people-the desire for the common good. Two elements of European society in Rousseau's time, the rule of aristocracy and the capitalistic economical views of the bourgeoisie, were especially at odds with Rousseau's ideas of equality and social responsibility. To understand the challenge of The Social Contract to eighteenth-century society, it is necessary to understand what, exactly, is the "social contract," and how its assumption of equality makes aristocratic politics and bourgeois economics incompatible with the general will.
The social contract is, essentially, the process by which people in a state of nature form an association, for the benefit of all without sacrificing the freedoms of any (p. 60), which establishes a state of society. The natural state, as Rousseau describes it, is characterized by such things as instinct, desire, and physical impulse; "the absolute right to anything that tempts him and that he can take;" possession based on force or "the right of the first occupant;" and natural liberty limited only by the individual's physical power (p. 64-5). In short, man in nature is little better than the animals, though the simplicity of such a state may seem idyllic. However, "men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater than the strength that each man has to p...
... middle of paper ...
...ied out. As long as there has been interaction between individuals, I think there has been society to some degree; and therefore I do not believe the social contract to be as much a single moment in time when men determined to end their state of nature and become social, as Rousseau implies. Rather, the covenants that bind people as societies must have developed gradually, only occasionally being formally stated or the "articles of association" worked out and agreed upon. Yet, once these covenants and associations exist, I do agree with Rousseau that from them derives the equality of all their members, which many social institutions besides aristocracy and capitalism have sabotaged with their preference for private interests over the common good.
Works Cited
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Trans. Maurice Cranston. London: Penguin Books, 1968.
Those opposed to the legalization of the cannabis plant in a September 11th 2003 article claim that with legalization of cannabis will come further problems. They say that legalization would lead to greater drug use especially with children as well as drug trafficking from legalized areas. They claim the tobacco and alcohol cause enough problems and there is no reason to add a new product into the mix. The claim is also made that drugs such as cannabis lead to poverty, crime, and violence. They argue that although the drug war cannot be completely successful it is worth it to slow down drug trade and that truly very few people are brought up on a simple possession charge of cannabis. Finally they make the claim that if cannabis and other drugs were legalized it would prevent court ordered addiction treatment. I understand the basis of all these claims and understand where they come from. Many arguments are made generally about the legalization of all illegal drugs including cannabis and I do agree that drugs other than cannabis should be kept illegal for all the reasons listed above. Where I find fault with the expose is the unfair grouping of cannabis into the article.
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 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.
For Rousseau, the state of nature was a world in which we more or less behaved like animals. He believes one way to assess the way humans behaved in this state of nature;
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher in the 18th century that believed that humans are inherently good and that if humans went back to their natural state they would still be compassionate. Rousseau believes that society creates corruption and that if people are left alone they can do much greater things then what society wants. Rousseau believes that society makes you desire things that aren’t necessary and he also believes that the reason man turns savage is because it is only concerned about self-preservation, "let us conclude that, being self-sufficient and subject to so few passions, he could have no feelings or knowledge but such as befitted his situation". (Rousseau) Rousseau believes society causes people to make rules to judge themselves to the point were it ruins and confuses and makes them hide their true nature, "man frequently deviate...
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.
Although there are many factors and limitations that employers must consider and inform their employees of, the bottom line comes down to finding the best workers to produce a good service or quality product. Completing this task is much more enjoyable for coworkers and (higher up officials) when a worker is able to so, without the influence of a substance effecting their productivity and personality. The effects of any type of substance on the human body will affect it in some manner. Since work is a vital part of most American lifestyles; The issue of a drug or substance related incident is something that many are not willing to take th...
The legalization of marijuana is a smoldering topic that sparks a debate anytime someone brings up the controversial subject. It is listed on the top of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) drug schedule listing as a controlled Schedule I substance. According to the DEA, “Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence.” Yet, the United States has allowed 20 states to legalize it for medicinal purposes; and, two of those states are legally allowed to use it recreationally. That makes 40% of the country obtain a prescription, while the other 4% are stoners. Why such a discrepancy? Because someone always has to make the rules, while others are just trying to break them.
Every year cigarette smoking is responsible for 500,000 premature deaths (Nugel), you do not want to be just another statistic, do you? America’s first cash crop was tobacco. That means that tobacco has been around for a really long time. It was not until 1865, though, that cigarettes were sold commercially. They were sold to soldiers at the end of the Civil War (Dowshen). From then, cigarettes spread like wildfire, and it was not until 1964 that anyone made a stand about the negative effects of tobacco and cigarettes. People start smoking for all different reasons, some to fit in and some to “escape”. Regardless, it is a horrible habit. 3900 children will try their first cigarette today. Amongst adults who currently smoke, 68% of them began at age 18 or younger, and 85% at 21 or younger (American Lung Association). And of all those people, 70% say if they were given another chance they would never have picked up that first cigarette (Tobacco Free Maine). Smoking is responsible for 1 and 5 deaths in the united states, and is the number one preventable cause of death (NLH). Smoking burns and there is no doubt about that, but before one picks up that cigarette, understand the negative effects on not only oneself, but others affected by ones poor choices, like second-hand smoke. Because of smoking cigarettes, many types of cancer, decrease of life quality, and negative health effects have become all too common in the world today.
Through public education, most elementary school kids can understand that smoking is bad for them and that cigarettes are additive. Cigarettes are addictive due to nicotine, a drug found in tobacco (“Quitting Smoking”, 2015). According to Schneider (2016), some of the greatest health problems associated with smoking include: lung cancer, other cancers, coronary heart disease, other heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, other vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), prenatal conditions, and sudden infant death syndrome. As stated by the Authority of the American Lung Association in an article titled “Health
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “The Social Contract”. Modern Political Thought, Second Edition. Ed. David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2008. 427-487.
John Locke’s social contract theory applies to all types of societies in any time era. Although, Jean-Jacques Rousseau did write during the Renaissance era, his philosophy limits itself to fix the problem of an absolute monarchy and fails to resolve other types of societies. These philosophers have such profound impacts on modern day societies. For example, the United States’ general will is codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, meanwhile individual rights are distinguished in the Declaration of
When employees get hired, they get a drug test due to the fact that the drug testing can prove if the person they are hiring is a good person for their business. For an example “Approximately eighty-one percent of companies in the United States administer drug testing to their employees.” Drug testing also proves that people who passes it are clean and responsible people who the company can trust on doing their job well done and showing overall percentage of the US using drug testing (Chodorow). People who cheat on a drug test and gets a job will later ruin their job of getting into accidents during working and or start a fight with the boss or coworkers unknowingly just because they were high on drugs. That is why companies strive to do drug tests every time they hire an employee now due to the fact that they don’t want to be reliable for an employee who isn’t responsible and trustworthy of their time at their company. Which it will affect the company financially once employees gets hurt on their job. An employee who is not a drug abuser can really benefit a company by not causing trouble for themselves getting hurt in the company and also the business not being reliable for anything that is caused by the employee; who was not responsible. Another example is that reports confirm that 80% of those injured in “serious drug related accidents are innocent coworkers.” And after it began requiring accidents drug
Companies that do not require drug testing are more likely to have less productivity in their company due workplace accidents and fatalities. In National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance, it states that 33% less productivity will cost the average business $7,000 annually (NDWA). All the while, causing the quality of products to decrease and cost the company money from all the down side affects from the production loss. Some problems that employers and co-workers have to deal with by interacting with a worker that is under the influence would include carelessness, reduced productivity, decreased work quality, poor judgment, increased mistakes, and difficulty following instructions. These irresponsible actions impose the risk of possible fatalities or people in the workplace getting injured. With an individual that is under the influence of drugs, it is also common for those people to not even show up, take extended lunch breaks, and have no sense of dependability. A company should not have to face this problem by having irresponsible individuals interacting throughout the workplace, and these problems will be majorly reduced, if not, eliminated with the assistance of standardized drug
As drugs such as marijuana continue to legalize, the United States of America jeopardizes the safety of the citizens. Today, people have a construed belief that drugs allow a person to become more intellectual. Because of this distorted view of drugs, both teens and adults are relying on drugs to accomplish their duties such as their jobs. To guarantee the safety of the employees, the government enforces the “General Duty Clause” of the OSH Act of 1970. Under the OSH Act of 1970, companies are responsible in creating a better working environment. As much as employees disagree with drug testing, drug testing helps create a better working environment.