Rousseau

Conclusion: The Sovereign Cannot Break a Covenant

Argument Breakdown
- (1) If the sovereign could break a covenant, then it must be with either a multitude or a single person.
- (2) The sovereign cannot break a covenant with a multitude.
- (3) The sovereign cannot break a covenant with a single person.
- (4) Thus, the sovereign cannot break a covenant with either a multitude or a single person.
- (5) Therefore, the sovereign cannot break a covenant.
Reasoning
- Hobbes’ premise states that all parties to a covenant with the sovereign are either individuals or multitudes, eliminating the existence of another sovereign.
- A multitude cannot break a covenant as they lack a unified entity to represent a single will (only an organized group can make a covenant).
- Citation from Hobbes: “yet they are not one person.”
- Regarding a single person, Hobbes provides two main justifications for why a sovereign cannot break a covenant:
1. The sovereign has the authority to act on behalf of the individual, thus making any agreement with the individual a non-breach of covenant.
2. There exists no adjudicator to resolve disputes between the sovereign and the person; hence, the sovereign's judgment prevails by default.

Rousseau’s Life
- Born 1712, passed 1778, French Enlightenment thinker.
- Experienced a difficult childhood, nurtured by Madame de Warens.
- Self-taught in music, philosophy, and classics.
Key Works:
- First Discourse (1750): Explores the impact of the restoration of the sciences and the arts on moral character.
- Second Discourse (1754): Investigates the origins of inequality among men and its justification by natural law.
- Social Contract: His exploration into social structures that are often critiqued for their inequalities.

General Inquiry: Assessing inequality particularly within social contexts.
Methodology:
- Part 1: Motivation and Methodology
- Part 2: Stages of Development
- Part 3: Evaluating Rousseau's stance on inequality.

Different Philosophers' Views:
- Hobbes: State of nature breeds survival instincts leading to violence.
- Key motives include competition, diffidence, and glory.
- Resulting condition is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
- Locke: Views the state of nature as real, emphasizing natural rights.
- Rousseau: Acknowledges the hypothetical nature of the state of nature, focusing on its moral implications rather than its factual occurrence.

Physical Properties:
- Humans rely solely on their own bodies; strong, powerful, and healthy.
Mental Properties:
- Limited desires focused only on physical needs; lacking long-term planning and language.
- Despite this simplicity, Rousseau argues for a "faculty of self-perfection” available to all human beings.

Pure State of Nature: Individuals are independent, without social interaction or moral concepts, driven solely by self-preservation and pity.
Elementary Cooperation: Individuals start to recognize the benefits of coordinating actions, albeit without established families or structured interactions.
Family Period: Introduction of families and division of labor due to advancements in technology.
Complex Cooperation: Organizations of greater complexity emerge, resulting in inequality through property and further social conflict.
State of War: Rising tensions between the rich and poor lead to conflict and social structure degradation.
Political Society: Rich individuals band together under social contracts to maintain control but risk creating oppressive systems that ultimately diminish true freedom.

Is natural inequality justified by natural law?
- Rousseau asserts it is a predictable outcome of social interaction but not an inherent condition.
Is good governance achievable?
- He implies human nature has flexibility in contrast to Hobbes and Locke’s views.
Inequality's depiction in modern contexts:
- Consider statistical data on income disparities in recent decades to evaluate relevance in contemporary society.