The Social Contract By Jean- Jacques Rousseau

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

He mentions that in a healthy state it will be easy to aim for the common good. The common good of society will seem like common sense. In a healthy society the general will also come much closer to a unanimous decision. In an unhealthy society, how would you discern what the general will is? When society is faced with two combating ideas, how are they to reason which one is better for the sovereign? And after they vote how can they be sure that what the majority voted for was the actual general will. In votes where the answer is not completely clear, or there vote is extremely close, I don’t know if its safe to say that the majority vote is consistent with the general will. In life it seems as though many things can easily be confused or manipulated for a certain cause. For example, say the people must decide between kiwi and watermelon to be endorsed as the state fruit and watermelon is slightly closer to the common good of the sovereign and is liked by more people. Yet, because of some enthusiastic supporters on the side of the kiwi people are being swayed to vote in favor of the kiwi despite their previous knowledge of the many benefits that the watermelon provided that the kiwi did not. In the end even those that were supporters of the watermelon in the beginning switched their vote in order to try and stay in line with what at the time may have been portrayed as the popular vote. Even when the person’s

John Locke is considered by many as one of the greatest political minds of our time. So much so that our Founding Fathers used the principles derived from Locke's Second Treatise of Government to forge the government of the newly-founded United States of America. Locke's defense of a limited government found in the Second Treatise echoed the sentiments of another great political thinker, Jean-Jacques Rosseau, shown through his work The Social Contract. Although written years apart, their views on natural law and human rights are similar. However, they both drew quite different conclusions on the type of government which would lead to a civil society.

Sacrifice is indispensable in order to fulfill the needs of the many over the needs of the few (antithesis). Each member of society must play their part successfully in order for a government to prosper. In Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, a plane crashes into an uncharted island, stranding a group of schoolboys. Captive on an isolated island with no adults, the ideas of community and individualism quickly become apparent as the boys slowly adapt to an unfamiliar world. With Ralph elected as leader, the power of the conch shell, and the responsibilities assigned to each group, the boys appear to have created a successful society. However, as Jack disregards his responsibilities in order to play, society and structure falls apart. The events that transpire and Ralph’s goal for the group of boys is patently related to The Social Contract Theory, written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Similarly, the ideas of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, other social contract theorists, also appear in Golding’s book. The basic idea of The Social Contract Theory is that one must sacrifice some of their individual freedoms for the greater good. Without sacrifice of one’s personal freedoms and failure to unite together towards a common goal, society and structure will collapse. Through the society the boys create on the island, Golding proves that the society on the island demonstrates ideas of The Social Contract Theory.

What entity dictates life on the most fundamental level? Is it the government or the people who permit the government to exist? This is the main point of contention between Baron de Montesquieu 's Spirit of Laws and Jean-Jacques Rousseau 's On the Social Contract. Interestingly, their interpretation of different forms of government converge on the sovereignty of a democracy, but that is where most of their common ground lies. While Rousseau shares similarities on the sovereign authority of a democracy with Montesquieu, he departs by arguing how regardless of government, sovereignty always rests in the hands of the people. He also disagrees on how the populace should participate in the democracy and on their representation in government, making his principles more relevant today.

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

Since the beginning of the modern age, governments and states have existed in order to maintain moral law. Essentially these institutions are for the greater good of humanity. However, little thought is ever given to how humans lived without governments. Each and every person in the modern age is born into a state, and becomes a part of that state regardless of their will. The concept that humans are born into a state is derived from the social contract. The social contract is a voluntary agreement that allows for the mutual benefit between individuals and governments with regards to the protection and regulation of affairs between members in society. Essentially the idea is that citizens will give up some of their freedoms to the government in return for protection of their remaining rights. Throughout history, there have been a number of philosophers that have discussed the social contract and each philosopher has had there own social contract theories. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was the foundation for social contract theory in Western political philosophy. While The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was written a century later and inspired political reforms in Europe. Both Hobbes and Rousseau in their theories appeal to the social contract as being needed as a means to control man in society. However, their theories differ significantly on the basis of the state of nature, the phase after man has left his natural state and

Why is it, when the intrusions of government intercede with the will of the people, and the foreboding of tyranny portends on the horizon, that humanity attempts to legitimize their captivity, rather than minimizing the abilities of those powers? Likewise, the Greek philosopher Plato and French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau imagine an ideal society where a controlling government dominates the will of choice, in their works The Republic and The Social Contract. Ironically, the two concepts of a society living in complete harmony include philosophies that would purge their societies into chaos. Of these several examples stand out, including government officials becoming appointed based on vague or unspecified conditions, all beliefs

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.

Since society changes over time the need for rules and regulations to safeguard citizens is unanimous in keeping the peace under social control without sacrificing individuality and local liberties. The term social contract is a moral philosophy that holds the theory whereby members of society give up certain natural rights by entering into a political agreement with the government to maintain social stability to protect society’s best interests (Gaines & Kappeler, 2015). This means there is an exchange of rights under the laws of democracy to provide officials the right to take another’s life, use physical force and deprive another of their liberties to secure life and regulating social conduct. Given these factors, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques

On the formation of the Social Contract Theory has a long history, many people have formed Social Contract Theory has made a great contribution. Thomas Hobbes as one of the representatives of Modern Social Contract Theory, his departure from the theory of human nature, to a fictional state of nature as a starting point, put forward the basic principles of natural law, natural rights, and then through the Social Contract Theory, the establishment of his country theory. Thomas Hobbes certain extent, played a significant role, for people to bring enlightenment. But his theory does not apply in all cases; we need to analyze different aspects of different problems. In this essay, I will describe the Social Contract Theory, and explain the problem of how do we get out of the State of Nature raised by Hobbes Game. I explain the idea of cooperation that Thomas Hobbes can give to this problem, and then argue that this is not a satisfactory response to the problem for three reasons.

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

When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote his Social Contract, the idea of liberty and freedom were not new theories. Many political thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had already evolved with their own clarification of liberty and freedom of mankind, and in fact John Locke had already publicized his views and ideas on the social contract as well. In Rousseau’s case, what he did was to transform the ideas incorporated by such substantial words, and present us to another method to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to leave the state of nature, and enter into a structured civil society? Liberals believes that this was the assurance of protection - liberty to them implied being free from destruction and harm towards one’s property. Rousseau’s concept of freedom was entirely different from that of traditional liberals. According to Rousseau, liberty is meant to voice out your opinion, and participation as human being. “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man” (Wootton, 454).

As the individual relinquishes all he had to the sovereign, it would suggest he was going to become a slave to the state. However, this is exactly what Rousseau was trying to avoid. This sovereign was not concerned with a simple majority; in fact Rousseau expressed distain for existing forms of civil state and their limited freedoms; “ England regards itself as free, it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of its Members of Parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.” (Rousseau, as cited in Garrard, 2012, p.33) His general will was a more a greater, almost spiritual consciousness, which Rousseau outlined, somewhat abstractly, as “a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau, 1968 p.60). The laws or constraints “never formally stated, they are everywhere the same, everywhere tacitly admitted and recognised” (Rousseau, 1968, p.60). Yes, you would give up natural liberty, but you would gain civil liberty, thus achieving freedom, however now within the constraints of the general will, a structure that