Jean Jacques Rousseau Social Contract

The First example of how The Social Contract is more similar than different to The Declaration of Independence is how both documents express the responsibility of liberalism to the people. Rousseau believed that the government’s power should come from the people. He

Rousseau believes that even when one votes in the minority they can obey the law and still be free. But, “how can the opposing minority be both free and subject to laws to which they have not consented?” (Rousseau, pg. 153) Rousseau’s response is that citizens must consent to all the laws because “ to inhabit the territory is to submit to the sovereign.”(Rousseau, p.153) In accordance with the social contract, when a citizen votes they should completely surrender their personal interest and vote for what they believe to be the general will. The general will of each individual is considered to be their real will when it comes to social policy. The majority vote will depict the general will, and the

Personally, if feel as if this was the major beginning of the modern day democracy in which people have a say so in government. Immanuel Kant went in depth as far as explaining why a democracy was important while Rousseau spoke his mind, he seemed to do it not enough to upset the French. Personally, I feel as if Kant’s efforts along with his actual push for democracy made him the more effective

In The Social Contract by Rousseau the question that is asked is how can man surrender his natural liberties to the body politic or community and yet still have a level of primitive or natural right where he may preserve himself? Rousseau goes into this complicated question and tries to answer this question in his essay. Rousseau argues that there is a need for a social contract because of how we as a society have evolved. He goes into the concept of the primitive man, which says one is concerned with him or herself or the sole purpose of self-preservation. Rousseau argues, that this is the true state of nature.In the state of nature, we are free to do whatever we want, but our wishes and actions are not affected by reason and logic. We have physical freedom but we lack morality. Although the natural state can be perceived as a chaotic way of living , Rousseau believed that this state of nature was better than the slavery of contemporary society. But as humans developed as time went , we began to move further away from this natural state. He describes the civil society which is basically the opposite of the

Within “A Discourse on Inequality”, Rousseau reveals a core trait of his philosophy that wasn’t present in any of his predecessors; his faith and trust in the inherent goodness of man. Many of the negative, evil aspects of humanity that he devotes so much of his time to arguing against do not arise from men, but rather from various socio-political institutions. Rousseau was a strong writer, and like any strong writer he used many different rhetorical tactics in his arguments. Rousseau’s strongest rhetorical device was his definition of mankind’s nature, and the ways in which he relied upon this “true state of nature” to continually enforce his argument that man is a naturally good and compassionate being. In his demonstration of a state of nature that “no longer exists, which has, perhaps, never existed,” Rousseau shows his audience what a world where people lived within a pure state of nature would be like. In attempting to define what human nature would be like without any social establishments, Rousseau strengthens his idea that without these institutions, mankind would be truly free and living without any type of dissension or conflict.

Written in 1762, The Social Contract was made by Rousseau to share his ideas and opinions about government and society. Throughout the book Rousseau theorizes ideas on how to form a political community, how to minimize limitations on people’s behavior, and how only freely elected governments should impose control on the behavior of citizens. Rousseau, unlike most people, believed that the good of the country should be put above all individual interests, and that everybody has a natural innocence. However, he also believed that the natural innocence was corrupted by the society, and put his faith in the general will of the people

that has a clear purpose to serve the people and protect their individual liberties and property

The problem with Rousseau’s approach is that it completely rejects the claim that minorities or small groups may have on the society. If the masses chose to, they can quite literally annihilate any small

In our reading of Rousseau's most renowned work, The Social Contract, we are faced with a wide variety of ideas, discoveries, explanations, and in general “thought-provokers” on society and government regimes. An interesting thought by Rousseau says this: “Man’s first law is to watch over his own preservation; his first care he owes to himself; and as soon as he reaches the age of reason, he becomes the only judge of the best means to preserve himself; he becomes his own master.” In essence you become your own moral judge. The difficulty is getting each person to relinquish their own morals. In an attempt to bridge this ideological gap, Rousseau suggests the Social Contract. The “Social Contract”, is a covenant made by a group of people whereby

The following texts, Rousseau 's The Social Contract, Marx’s Private Property and Communism, Estranged Labor and Money, all differentiate between a general will, and a more personal, individual will. However, Rousseau’s and Marx’s theories of a general will, or collective being have discrepancies in both the origin and implications of general will and individual will. Rousseau defines general will as a collective desire to advance society towards a common goal. However, Rousseau warns that ignoring the general will and pursuing one’s own selfish personal will is dangerous not only for an individual, but can also ultimately lead to the destruction of the body politic. Marx also discusses a concept similar to Rousseau’s general will, however

Hobbes and Thomas, for example, argued that humans became much better-off and peaceful after getting rid of its natural state. For Rousseau, leaving the state or nature resulted in inequality and gave rise to greedy and power-hungry societal ideologies. Rousseau states the “the most powerful or the most miserable made of their strength or their needs a sort of right to another’s goods, equivalent, according to them, to the right of property, the destruction of equality was followed by the most frightful disorder” (Rousseau, 68). One can easily see that Rousseau was not fond with the social institutions which followed man’s state of nature. He believes his way of thinking is a more accurate representation since it leads into a Hobbesian society or in other words, Rousseau’s state of nature predates the previous philosopher’s

In Rousseau's Social Construct, he theorized about his opinion on the best ways to a political government and was the inspiration of many political reforms in Europe during the late 1700's. Throughout this book he had many key points that he talked about that are important to understanding if you want to completely appreciate what Rousseau was trying to express.

Rousseau’s claim that people can be ‘’forced to be free’’ (Rousseau, 2012, pg. 30) means that people can be forced to obey the general will for the common good of everybody. Jacques is arguably one of the most influential philosopher and thinkers not only during the Enlightenment era in France and across Europe but also through the development of modern political and educational work where many have been inspired by his writings. His ideas result from his belief that every state has its origin in people that gave birth to its political structure, fundamental laws and civil liberties. (Rousseau lecture1) Moreover Rousseau paid great attention to nature and human feelings. He claimed that humans are naturally independent and held a belief that ‘’man is born free and everywhere he is in chains’’ (Rousseau, 2012, pg. 12 ) arguing that people in the state of nature were fundamentally good and pure but became corrupt and evil through the institution of civilised society (Bertram, 2010). On the contrary, Rousseau remains as a huge supporter of the social contract theory, which is considered by him as the source of states legitimacy, criticises social inequality, authoritarianism and feudalism. Rousseau, as an important social contract theorist, states that people are the creators of law as well as the subject of law and because they will provide themselves with the laws they wish to live by, the

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s statement in The Social Contract reflects the way Romantics think about human nature. Romantics believe that humans are good, and only become bad when they enter society. Also, Romantics believe that children are holy, and lift them up because of their believed innocents. Jean Jacques Rousseau’s statement reflects the Romantics view on human nature by using her opening line, “Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” as the forefront in agreeing that humans are good before entering society, and that once man enters society, he is in chains.

One thing is sure, the kind of governance Rousseau described is not reality now. Looking at us he might say we are not free at all, that we have lost the community spirit that makes people want to be together. I would personally doubt about which has more freedom, our life or Rousseau´s book. I think the phrase “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains” fits perfectly to us. Maybe we do not enter in the community to be a whole but community affect us in everyday life, and not only. Government , social life, community and everything around us affects our personality and our thinking way. It might be a good thing but also something that keeps you in