In every part of his written books he outlines his thoughts and how they work in a fully functioned modern state. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t believe in other principles of government. He believes in some principles of government that he thinks if being used accordingly can provide more of less the freedom they’d received in the state of nature. Rousseau’s contribution to political philosophy can be seen scattered around in his work. The most well-known work he created are Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, the Discourse on Political Economy, The Social Contract, and Considerations on the Government of Poland.
After observing numerous governments, he concludes that people should only be governed by the Sovereign, a body with one collective will. In any other system, the people give up their freedom without any reason; it should be created only if all agree to it. The social contract would exist for the purpose of self-preservation, pushing the common will of the Sovereign. To convince his audience of these complex ideas, Rousseau must stay organized and be intentional in his rhetorical
In fact, he believes that people need to be educated to a common civic sense that allows them to pursue a greater good; but for me his education is a form of indoctrination and Rousseau’s perfect government is destined to degenerate in a totalitarian regime. Anyway, the idea of government proposed by Rousseau is very complex, and to better understand it, it is necessary to first analyze his view
Rousseau believed that men in the state of nature were the most natural and free they could be before they were corrupted by the unnatural grips of civilization. Rousseau’s hypothesis was similar to Locke’s in that man was naturally good and would be content in the state of nature. Rousseau was in favour of individual freedom and independence. In contrast to Hobbes he believed that human life in the state of nature would not be clouded by selfishness and that men would not have this unearthly desire to acquire more possessions, for which he would have no need or desire. Rousseau’s theory unlike Locke’s theory states that men would be independent and not need to rely on each other.
However, they actually have key points of disagreement; namely, Rousseau wants the state to play an active role in religion, whereas Madison does not. More broadly, they disagree about the optimal relationship between liberty and the state: Madison focuses on the liberty to act free from state intervention — what is often called “negative liberty” — while Rousseau prioritizes the liberty to act freely, enabled by state support, known as “positive liberty.” Madison and Rousseau’s disagreement about the nature of liberty in relation to the state gives rise to their
In this section, I will like to compare these two philosophers‟ views. First of all, their conceptions of natural inclinations are different. Locke disagrees on naturalism while Rousseau disagrees on the use of habits and social conventions for the education of young children. Locke believes that humans are born without innate ideas and gradually acquired knowledge through experience and external environment. He fostered an idea of “tabula rasa” which believes the child is born neutral not evil.
Artificial equality would be the result of this statement by Madison, “ Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”(Federalist 17) Rousseau believed strongly in free choice and in the Federalist Papers it is shown that it is very difficult to establish a government that is stable and will not threaten the liberties of the people. Overall Rousseau believed that the people should be left to create their own natural equality and inequality through their use of liberty while the Federalist Papers focused on how the government could accomplish the same task. The motives were similar yet their plans to create this ideal society
He states that hierarchy actually does not exist in the state of nature, as it alienates and chains most of the population. Because of this hierarchy, anyone under property owners and the wealthy consequently suffer and do not benefit from the modern social contract. This displaces power and puts a strong emphasize on one’s political life which in return only benefits individual interests. This despotic society where one class rules everything and corrupts the masses, through a liberal social contract, is what Rousseau deemed the most destructive
To be more specific the Rousseau’s motion of convention is wrong but the right one is the motion of agreement as he mentioned in glossary of The Social Contract book. In order to put some notable touches on the idea of both convention and ‘agreement’ as it can be seen in writing critical commentary. Moreover, Rousseau conception of agreement is like the contract between society and authority the other conception of convention is like when the ruling power or authority or even king as he mentioned on the quote has a power over the individuals in society as he refers to the term of Despotism which means the absolute power of the authority or king, as a similar to the term of Dictatorship now a
Rousseau’s his political philosophies flows through his moral philosophies. In order to understand this better, let me begin by explaining in details both his moral and political philosophies ROUSSEAU’S MORAL PHILOSOPHY- Rousseau was of the one of the very few thinkers who felt that human beings are good by nature but it is the society that corrupts them. He necessarily talks about three components that form the basis of Rousseau’s moral psychology- amour de soi, amour propre and pitie. All these three elements have developed well in Emile and in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. He begins by talking about amour de soi, which is a kind of self love and according to it human should cater to their own needs first and then help others.