Introduction
Have you ever pondered over why different theorists are obsessed with the question of what the law is and what is its character? In my perspective this obsession is driven by the realization that laws and the rule adopted by any community are the primary determinants of how the people in that society fair socially, politically, economically, and even in the private spheres of their lives. Rousseau theory of the social contract goes beyond merely describing the process of developing and implementing laws, to the relationship between states and the people to expounding on how these societies are formed and how the law is sustained through the different systems of governments and doctrines such as the sovereignty of people and the
…show more content…
When the surrenders this rights to liberty, he gains the right to civil liberty which serves the general will. Civil liberties allow man to possess the tile to property. The right to life and death is exercised when man, who is part of the sovereign community, overruns political laws used by the state to issue pardon to some people who have sanctions of death issued on their lives.
On the issue of strength in state of nature existence, the social contract allows a transmutation where strength is to be transformed to right and ‘obedience’ is transformed to duty. This ensure that the strongest persons remains the master in a civil society (book I page 2), while the weak have an opportunity to grow as well. In summary, my understanding of Rousseau’s theory is that as individual men, we come together and subject ourselves as slaves to a common master in order to access alternate rights which see that our rights to property and life and death and preserved without infringing on the rights of the next person. We are still ‘free’ since our liberties are combined to form a sovereign power which is non-destructible, and meant to serve the general will at all
…show more content…
He believes that we are all created equal and by virtue of the laws of nature and justification, we have the right to exercise our force and align our resources to ensure we thrive in the best conditions possible. His development of the social contract theory and the formation of civil polities is based on the realization that as time changes, an individual man’s resources become lesser than the force required to sustain his life in the state of nature. Since man cannot create new force, the only way to ensure to ensure peaceful co-existence is to pool forces and resources and establish a unit of control of the balance between the rights and responsibilities of the people through a social
Rousseau presents this question “How is a method of associating to be found which will defend and protect-using the power of all-the person and property of each ember and still enable each member of the group to obey only him and to remain as free as before?” Thomas Paine says that “Government, on the other hand, is an institution whose sole purpose is to protect us from our own vices.” In order to grow and protect itself people join a society. For a society to have order and justice and remain equal, laws must be put in place, such that protect the individual rights of these people that they were born with. Equality is another belief that all these philosophies shared.
In any case of failure to protect the rights, the people were in their complete right to overthrow the government (Doc 2 & Pg. 630) In agreement, Rousseau believed that the government’s power also comes from the consent of the people, which he included in his book, The Social Contract. (Pg. 632) Rousseau included much more ideas that incorporated political aspects, but he also his thought about
Rousseau’s beliefs coincided with the beliefs of other Enlightenment thinkers. This is shown when he writes, “Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties [the people and the government] to aid each other mutually” (Document 3). In that period of history, it was typical for people to be ruled by a monarch and they had very little say, if any, in the laws and policies that impacted their day to day life. Rousseau felt that the system was outdated and it made citizens feel as if they were living in someone else’s home rather than their own, so he theorized that by fabricating a system in which the government and the people are forced to work together, it creates a sense of unity and equality. This works because “ … an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic.
Rousseau argued for the elimination of privileges and social hierarchies, and the declaration reflects this principle by proclaiming that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law and entitled to the same rights and protections. This is seen in the declaration in the words “the law must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes (National Assembly 78).” It also speaks about all being equally protected and no one doing anything which would harm another, as seen in the words “ Liberty consists in being able to do whatever does not harm another (National Assembly 77).” It draws a line when others are harmed, protecting all and limiting all to make sure people are not
Rousseau demonstrated the importance of “rights as a community as a whole” regarding the different benefits in the hierarchical divisions found through the estates . This atmosphere of questioning how France was governed was a significant change in the pre-revolutionary
The Ratification of the Constitution The United States Constitution has been operative since 1789. Today, many question the relevancy of a document 222 years old to our society. The Founders created a government farmworker, guaranteed rights of people, and separated the powers. There was great controversy of whether the Constitution should be ratified. The “Federalists”, supporters of the Constitution, were up against a loosely organized group know as “Antifederalist.”
Throughout the past month, we have read and discussed both The Social Contract by Jean-Jaques Rousseau and The Racial Contract by Charles Mills’. As I said before, the two philosophers derive from very opposing backgrounds, their literary works theorize vital agreements between the members of a society that unite them for the overall benefit of its citizens. Each philosopher addresses the elements and ideas, but Charles Mills’ tackles the elephant in the room involving the issue of race. Because of his ability to see the need for this unspoken issue to be incorporated, I believe that Mills' Racial Contract is more persuasive. Both Rousseau's Social Contract and Mills' Racial Contract are inferred agreements that are existent throughout
However, by doing so, we retain our individuality and freedom. In chapter 6, of the social contract Rousseau argues that people need to give up their individual freedom and unite for the common good of all in order to overcome the natural threats to their own existence. It is their own existence that motivates them to give up their individual freedom and unite. The problem with the social contract lies in the opposing forces of individual freedom versus the sovereign that was formed when they united.
The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
In his work Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Rousseau presents the argument that political inequality is rooted in the origins of human sociality. He suggests that in the state of nature, only physical inequality existed. Thusly meaning that political inequality only came into being as a result of human beings shifting from undifferentiated oneness to differentiated individuals. He illustrates three main stages that lead to this (civil society): the development of village life, the social division of labor and the formation of government. In forming society, we as human beings entered into social relationships and so were able to socially construct agreed upon measurements of human worth (i.e. private property) and so create political inequalities.
INTRODUCTION Jean Jacque Rousseau was born in the city state of Geneva, Switzerland in 1772. Rousseau is primarily known for major works like- The Social Contract, Emile, Discourse on the origin of Inequality, the Constitutional Project for Corsica, and Consideration on the Government of Poland. What makes Rousseau such an important figure in the history of philosophy is because of his contribution to both political and moral philosophies and his concept of ‘general will’, which also gained him a lot of criticism. Apart from his philosophical and political contribution, he was also a novelist, an autobiographer, botanist, composer and also a music theorist.
Rousseau, one of the most leading philosophers during the Enlightenment, had indeed left many of legendries behind. Not only his writings had caused many of the reactions at that time, but also influenced many writers’ aspects of the French Revolution and the overall understanding of inequality and the General Will. As one of the chief political theorists during the French Revolution who was also influenced by Rousseau’s ideas, Abbe Sieyes, published the pamphlet, “What is the Third Estate?” in 1789. This pamphlet was one of the documents that changed the world and lit the flame toward the French Revolution, as characterized by Joe Janes, a University of Washington professor (Janes).
In Book One, Rousseau sets out to figure out why people had given up their natural liberty, and how political authority had become legitimate? Rousseau starts off the first chapter with the quote “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Which means whether they want to be free or not; they are always restrained as slaves in some way. Rousseau decides that there can be a legitimate government, but people must become “a people” before any social contract can be proceeded.
This paper examines both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and James Madison remark concerning ‘ factions ’ as the potential destructive social force to the society. To layout and examine, this paper will first outline and discuss on Rousseau’s understanding of factions in The Social Contract,and Madison’s discussion on factionalism in the Federalist Papers 10.But there are many component surrounded with their view’s on ‘factions’,so it is important to consider together. Firstly,I will consider the definition and the element surrounded with their view on factions. With regard to Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract,he believes that the society can only function to the extent that people have interest in common.
Though Rousseau argues that for the original social contract to emerge a complete unanimity of consent is required and no representative body can replace the sovereignty of general will, yet, on some places, he supports representative assembly for as the manifestation of the general will. He writes should the whole nation or community be assembled after every event to discuss the legislation? His answer is a negative one, to him it would be highly impractical and the mere assembly of people cannot guaranty the manifestation of the general will.