Rousseau Social Contract Essay

In this book, Rousseau aims to discover why people gave up their liberty and how political authority became legitimate. In his case, sovereignty is vesting in the entire populace, who enter into the contract directly with one another. He explained, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remains as free as before.” That was the fundamental problem which Social Contract provides the solution.

“This fame study of original man, of his real wants, and of the fundamental principle of his duties, is likewise the only good method we can take, to surmount an infinite number of difficulties concerning the Origins of Inequality, the true foundations of political bodies, the reciprocal rights of their members, and a thousand other familiar questions that are as important as they are ill understood.” (Rousseau, Preface lviii)

The Social Contract by Jean- Jacques Rousseau can be seen as the foundation of the American political system. This is only true if the state believes to only serve the will of the people and that they are the full political power. They are the ones who give the power, or take away the power. I think that this is relevant when Rousseau brings up the general will and the will of all. Before I go into that I think it is important to go through the difference between what the general will is and the will of all. The general will is the will of the sovereign, it aims at the common good and it is expressed in the laws. The will of all is simply what we get when we add up everything that each individual wants. From this, I think that we are able to recognize the general will from the will of all by saying the general will is the will of the people in their position as a sovereign and the will of all is the will of the people in their position as citizens. Although it seems that it is easy to distinguish between the two, it is hard to make it clear through the political system. Rousseau believes that they can be determined through the popular vote, although he gives indication of whether the results of a certain popular vote in the end represents the general will or the will of all, and this leads to the question he even presents in The Social Contract, can the general will be wrong?

Rousseau establishes the Social Contract (Compact) that will provide the solution for a protective community of free individuals, who submit their freedoms or duties to the betterment of the whole collective body. While the individual is still free to conduct his life in freedom, the same citizen has a requirement to conduct business and make decisions that will be what’s best for the body. If everyone in the body commits to the arrangements of the contract, then the general members will have no problems with compelling to the political structure (Rousseau pg. 11).

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

In contrast, Rousseau had a generally positive view on human nature though a rather negative view on modern society. He proposed that humans had once been solitary beings and had learned to be political. He believed that human nature was not fixed and was subject to changed. Likewise, he believed that man was good when in a state of nature, but was corrupted by society as shown in his quotation, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Also differentiating himself from other humanists, Rousseau taught that the sciences and the arts were not beneficial to man. Rousseau believed the general will must always be right and to obey the general will is to be free.

All men must consent to this “two-way commitment between the public and the individuals belonging to it” (8). This social compact between the subjects of a state creates the states “unity, its common identity, its life and its will” (7). Rousseau then laid out the two crucial parts of a state and their crucial separation: the sovereign, or the people, and the government. At the end of Book I, Rousseau summarized his proposed social contract by stating that it “replaces…physical inequalities as nature may have set up between men by an equality that is moral and legitimate, so that men who may be unequal in strength or intelligence become equal by agreement and legal right” (11). Rousseau’s social contract in theory would give each individual, regardless of physical strength or education, guaranteed freedom from the chains of the state.

Therefore it is the people who hold the power within the state, and also the legal subjects within the republic. Rousseau refers to the individuals as citizens when they are acting passively, and sovereign when acting as an active group for example, devising laws. He writes 'this public group, so formed by the union of all other persons...power when compared with others like itself' (lines 41-43 Rousseau extract). Rousseau's evaluates his solution, perhaps tersely earlier in his work by suggesting that 'the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole of the community' (lines 17-18 Rousseau extract). The main aspects that incorporates Rousseau's version of social contract theory is that he wants to make a distinct separation of the 'will of all' from 'general will'. Will of all or individual will, is private wills and specific to each of the state's members, while general will is a common will for all and reflect the common good for state members. By separating the two wills, can help to reduce conflict that may arise between the two, and by evaluating all the opinions of each member. It is possible to see what issues are more pressing, and cancel out individualistic wills, if the majority of individuals share the opinions, thus making this majority, the general will. Rousseau sums this up when he writes, 'There is often a great deal of

In a society you can’t have anarchy otherwise it would become a blood bath where everyone kills one another. The death penalty dates back to the eighteenth century B.C. to current day where it is now a more controversial topic. In The Social Contract Rousseau debates political investments that come with monarchy, and as a result the anarchy that has ensued throughout time.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an Enlightenment thinker during the eighteenth century and is most noted for his work The Social Contract. The Social Contract published in 1762 and is a philosophical document that expresses the ideas of popular sovereignty. Popular Sovereignty is a form of government in which “the doctrine that sovereign power is vested in the people and that those chosen to govern, as trustees of such power, must exercise it in conformity with the general will.” This is basically a fancy way of saying that the people have the power of authority of their government and the people should decide how they are governed. Like The Social Contract, the Declaration of Independence is a document that sets out to explain the relationship between a government and its people based on an an understanding of that relationship. The Declaration of Independence was composed by Thomas Jefferson in 1766, and shares many of the same ideals as The Social Contract. The Social Contract and the Declaration of Independence are more similar than different because Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced John Locke, whose Social Contract Theories directly influenced Thomas Jefferson during the writing of the Declaration of Independence.

Even if a state were to have these basic premises in place, there must be institutions that allow for the prosperity of a democratic government. The democratic government, according to Rousseau consists of a legislative power and an executive power. While the legislative power belongs solely to the people (for they are the ones responsible for making the law), the executive power belongs solely to the Sovereignty. Along with this, Rousseau describes four types of law present in a democracy: political, civil, criminal and mores. These laws are in place to regulate relationships. Political laws regulate the relationship between the sovereign and the state, civil laws are for the relationship between the subjects, the relationship between man and law is regulated by criminal law and finally, and according to Rousseau, most importantly are mores laws which “preserves a people in the spirit of its institutions” and thus all other laws depend on this one.

The purpose which Rousseau ostensibly gives his social contract is to free man from the illegitimate chains to which existing governments have shackled him. If this is his aim, then it follows that he should be most concerned with the preservation of freedom in political society, initially so that savage man might be lured out of nature and into society in the first place, and afterwards so that Rousseau’s framework for this society will prevent the present tyranny from reasserting itself. Indeed, in his definition of purpose for man’s initial union into society, he claims that, despite his membership in an association to which he must necessarily have some sort of obligation if the

Book I Chapter 7, titled "The Sovereign" encourages a more controlling government and society. In the last paragraph (Social, p.64) he shows the reader a necessity for force among those who disagree with the general will. Rousseau thinks that anyone who refuses to obey the general will should be forced to be free. Freedom exists only by living under the general will. He is claiming that the general will is always correct and should not tolerate anyone who disagrees. This is the perfect way to ensure a totalitarianistic society.

Rousseau is theorizing from the concept of the general will, which promotes individuals to become conscious citizens who actively participate as a community to form policies for a governing structure. The general will advocates for a commitment to generality, a common interest that will unite all citizens for the benefit of all. Rousseau states, “each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau 61). The general will is an expression of the law that is superior to an individual’s

Since the people as a whole agreed on a general will, they all have a sense of acceptance of that will. Therefore, this will protect the people against each other and more importantly, it will protect the minority against the majority. The minorities will have a voice in the general will. This means that the general will not oppose there overall needs. Also, Rousseau believes that these laws will give the individuals a “civil freedom” instead of a “natural freedom” and I like Rousseau believe that the “civil freedom” is more important. The natural freedom is not overseen by any laws and this will result in conflict and violence. The right for people to own everything and anything will be determined by their physical power and fights over the scarce resources will result. Thus, the civil freedom that people gain when becoming the sovereign will put matters into order. The laws established by the people themselves will enforce more equality among the members. The government’s role will be limited to monitoring these laws and will only interfere when needed explains