Morality, Justice, And Legitimacy

Over the length of this course, we have discussed several aspects of politics. We have studied citizenship and obligations to society as a citizen, justice and what it means to us as individuals, and how to go about enacting change within a community and around the world. Some of the most important topics from this class included the characteristics, duties, and obligations of rulers of government. In addition to the concept of rulers, we also studied the notion of authority and the moral and metaphysical implications of authority to individuals ' autonomy. Within each concept of study, we read works from many authors with conflicting ontologies, constructed from their differing views on human nature.

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.

Rousseau describes democracy as a form of government that “has never existed and never will” ; yet twenty-six countries in the world are considered to be full democracies. How can this be possible? Rousseau’s concept of democracy supports the most fundamental and basic premise of democracy – one in which all citizens directly participate. While his idea of democracy cannot be considered an effective indictment of what passes for democracy today, it is not Rousseau’s account which is flawed but that in modern society is would be practically impossible to achieve this idea of democracy.

“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)

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

During the eighteenth century, philosophers began to tackle the question of how to be a good citizen within a secular society without the threat of punishment that had been previously provided by religion. This was based on the multi-faceted inquisition of whether an individual can still be considered a good citizen if they do not follow authority, and consequently engage in rebellion. The question must also examine the extent to which humans have, or do not have, natural rights, and whether or not the government has the potential to breech these ethical liberties. It is these very issues that are faced within The Social Contract by Rousseau, as well as the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke. I will examine these works of Locke and

Jean Jacques Rousseau and Edmond Burke may appear to fall on opposite extremes of political ideology. Credited with having inspired the French Revolution, Rousseau is seen a proponent of liberalism. Denouncing the French revolution on the other hand Burke is seen a strong advocate of conservatism. As far removed from one another as these political ideologies may be, in some key areas, some of the fundamental elements constituting the building blocks of of Rousseau and Burke’s individual political thoughts are to a certain degree comparable. Highlighted in this paper, is their understanding of the freedom and liberty of man.

The question of how much power should the state have over its people and how the people react to that demonstration of power has been a prominent theme throughout history. Limiting power first began with King John’s signing of the Magna Carta which limited his authority as a king creating the first constitutional monarchy. To thoughts of the enlightenment particularly the ideas of John Locke and Jean Jacque Rousseau, ideas such as equality of man in Locke’s Two Treaties on Government or how the general will contribute to the limitation of sovereign power mentioned in Rousseau’s Two Treatises on Government. Ideals which directly or indirectly led to revolutions particularly the French Revolution and the uprising of the third estate and the Declaration

Due to state laws and policies, Marx and Rousseau both agree men are not living in a free society. In western democracies today, both philosophers’ ideas are clear and visible.

Jean Jacque Rousseau was one of the most controversial philosophers from 1712-1778. The first to speak explicitly of human rights. He was a Swiss philosopher who was influenced by the French revolution. He believed that people basically everyone is good but it 's society that corrupts them to do wrong. Each philosopher had their own ideal world, and his was to have people make laws and obey them. However, Rousseau has a different opinion on the theory of a social contract but also did help develop the theory. He believed that people were naturally good but were corrupted by society that was lead to inequalities of people and this would cause war, hate and crime against each other. The only thing that matters is the will of people. Today, Rousseau is looked as a champion of democracy for his idea that political authority lies with the people. He has also influenced political and social change for the last two hundred years and it’s believed that his ideas will encourage revolutions for the next centuries. On the other hand also his ideas of political authority the “general will” has been used by dictators in the past. Rousseau’s social contract theory, based on Thomas Hobbes and John Locke would be one of the foundations of modern democracy.

Within our society, legality versus morally ethical value seem to differ between individuals. The people of this world have various views on certain topics of morality and ethics. On the other hand, the Law is set and stone, everyone must conform to the same regulations. In a major city setting where drugs, violence, and sexual immorality are an everyday way of life for many Bostonians… Patrick Kenzie, and his wife Angie must pursue the investigation to help with the abduction of Amanda McCready. This investigation sparks very tough moral dilemmas, and ethical reason in Patrick throughout the movie. This shows that even in a city with corruption, there are

To better understand Rousseau’s thesis and social contract he proposed, we must first understand why Rousseau felt compelled to write and his main criticism of society during the 18th century. In sum, Rousseau argued that states (specifically France, though never explicitly stated) have not protected man’s right to freedom or equality. Rousseau began The Social Contract in dramatic fashion. He wrote, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (1). This quote is still used today, and is a powerful description of Rousseau’s central issue with society. He believed that every man is “born” naturally free—he has full autonomy and can do what he chooses. However, Rousseau argued that man is bound to the injustices of society.

While one might not go as far as to see them as diametrically opposite, they are at the very least distinctively different. Rousseau, Mill, and Constant exhibit a very different view of the modernizing society. This paper seeks to flash out the distinct visions of liberty that Rousseau, Mill, and Constant articulated by unpacking and discerning the central premises of each argument, pitting them against each other through comparing and contrasting.

Over the course of history this idea of freedom has been developed and defined by many famous political and philosophical thinkers. Many of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas are acknowledged in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and more notably the “The Social Contract”. John Stuart Mill’s major points originate from a book called “On Liberty”. All of these works are still read today and taught in schools around the world. In particular, their ideas on freedom and liberty have drawn a considerable amount of attention. For instance, Rousseau is well known for his idea of “forcing citizens to be free”, while Mill claims that freedom can be found in “pursing our own good in our own way”. Therefore, it is evident that fundamental differences occur between Rousseau’s and Mill’s ideas on liberty and freedom. Rousseau’s rejects this classical liberal idea of freedom of the individual, and instead argues that the highest quality of freedom is achieved through a social contract where collective decisions represent the law and people have a duty to the state, while Mill sees freedom as not being constrained by the government (freedom from laws) and pursuing one’s own good as long as it does no harm to others.