Rousseau The Social Contract
What is the author’s central question of the text? Is there explicit text giving a concise statement of this question? What is it?
Jean Rousseau's central question is how political authority is morally justified if individuals have the right to naturally exist freely. In the first chapter Rousseau states, "How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate?" Rousseau takes into account how force can play a role in the implementation of political authority and compares how would it wouldn't be morally justified given human's natural rights.
What is the author’s thesis? Is there an explicit sentence capturing it? What is it?
Society can exist under laws and regulations only if social contract arises voluntarily through experience and not by force.
"“The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution."
"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."
Rousseau is able to capture the relationship between a political body and social contract (how a society must come together to mutually agree to a sovereignty).
What is the big-picture structure of the argument?
Rousseau's big-picture structure of his argument is the opposition to the idea that social contract is formed by force and slavery, and rather created through mutual/voluntary conditions. He explains that slavery and force don't create an obligation to obey because we have the "right" not to do so. Rousseau also explains that social contract can preserve individual freedom such as moral and civil liberty, while still remaining obedient to the law.
Are any central terms/concepts that the author uses key to the argument?
Rousseau uses terms like natural and civil liberty to describe the limitations of physical and lawful powers/rights, general will to describe the best interest of the people not just individuals (private), and legitimacy to describe how authority can be morally justified.
I think one of the most interesting topics explained by Rousseau is his idea of humans not having any obligation to obey laws simply because we do not have to listen to force.
"If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so."
"If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its never being violated."
Questions
How do we as a society ensure that everyone's needs are being met if we continue to use terms/ideology such as "general will"?
How is Rousseau's idea on "forced to be free" different from natural freedom/liberty?
Jean Jacques Rousseau
"Every philosophical argument boils down to John Locke vs. Jacques Rousseau"- John Goldberg
"Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains"
"One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer."
Rational Consent (Social Contract Theory)
When to Choose
Hypothetical, idealized circumstances of choice
State of Nature
Noble Savage
All needs satisfied by nature->
Competition & inequality->
Cruelty & revenge->
Why would problems arise if all our needs are met (we have lots of wants and there becomes inequality)
People want more than they need
World is not big enough to give us what we want even if it can give us what we need
Ex. Mean Girls
Lockean Contract
Punishment, morality->
People who are cruel to others
Happiness->
Initially
Metallurgy, agriculture->
Until…
Hunter-gatherer stage (some people have better skills)
People develop tools
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land 'This is mine', & found people naïve enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society."
"From how many crimes, wars, & murders, from how many horrors & misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, & crying to his fellows."
"Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, & the earth itself to nobody."
We can go with Locke's conception if we never developed agriculture (if we never tried to determine who owns what land)
Private Property
Labor, injury, slavery, misery->
People become mistreated when we become dependent
Greater inequality->
Deception, hypocrisy- you must try to appear something->other than what you are
You have an incentive to appear as what you're not
Basic themes
Human nature is plastic
Can be molded, changed, agriculture ruined it (how they appear vs. how they really are)
Bad systems make bad people
Ruined human nature
Good systems make good people
Give people an incentive to be authentic
"On, the human species is divided into so many herds of cattle, each with its ruler, who keeps guard over them for the purpose of devouring them."
Hobbesian Contract
Strong dominate weak->
War->
Rich dominate poor->
The rich become richer, the poor become poorer
"…a few gorge themselves on luxuries while the multitude lack necessities."
The fall of mankind
First we succeed off what we can do, then we become unauthentic
How to Choose
Rational criteria for choice
"The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, & obedience into duty."
Leads to a highly unstable situation
Perpetual conflict
Only way out is the following…
"Let us then admit that force does not create right, & that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers."
Wealth does not make right
"But the social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature, & must therefore be founded on conventions."
In the state of nature there is just conflict
The strong are trying to push around the weak (rich vs. poor)
We don’t have a natural right
We have to give up something in exchange for it (not for free)/how is this possible? (social contract provides a solution)/ I want something for nothing/ (I don’t want limitations on my freedom)
Regress Problem
Good laws require god legislators
Good legislators result from good systems…
Education: good people require good teachers
Good teachers learn from good teachers…
What to Choose
Principles, institutions, government that would be chosen
"…the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community…"
We surrender everything-- we're all in
We get everything back
We gain right to our fair share of the fruits of cooperation
Force-> right
Possession-> property
"Finally, each man, in giving himself to all gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over whom he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has."
Absolute Power
All rights-and liberty, equality, security-derive from the state
You surrender everything to the community
The community decides what is of use to it
"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, &, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."
Will of the community (the best) (may not actually be what people would vote for)
General Will
The common good
Some people vote on personal ideas
The will of the people
People willing the common good
Absolute Power
How should the state allocate property?
According to the general will, that is, the common good, the general welfare
And what will that imply
“Tolerate neither rich men nor beggars.”
Nobody should be too poor nor rich
Beggars are a source of social instability
We want to solve conflict
They're helping but not benefiting
They do not benefit from the social contract
Because they're not benefiting they do not have an obligation to obey or consent to the social contract
Illegitimate
They thus have no reason to consent to it
Government authority over them would be illegitimate
There should be no rich, for
They can manipulate the political process
Leading the people’s will as expressed in elections to diverge from the general will
Engage in their own propaganda