The Necessary Qualities Of A Good Democratic Citizen Essay

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).

William Golding, the author of “The Lord of the Flies” believes that everyone is born in which way they are able to do evil, as opposed to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th century, who believes that people are influenced by their environment shapes us to be good or evil. I believe that Rousseau is correct, humans are influenced by their surroundings and are shaped to be good or evil depending on who they are and what is around them. “Rousseau believed that all citizens should participate in government or the contract - and should be committed to the general good - even if it means acting against their private or personal interests.” People can be put in bad situations and want to do one thing that may not

Rousseau argued that the general will of the citizens could not be decided by a monarch. He stated that the best form of government was a direct democracy “ . . . in which everyone voted to express the general will and to make the laws of the land” (CITATION ROUSSEAU). Rousseau claimed that all political power should reside with the people, who exercise their general will by deliberating on laws, voting, and making decisions by majority. Rousseau’s claim that citizens had political power encouraged the French public to break away from restrictions and revolt against their absolute

Rousseau: Good citizens are equally committed to both the state and their fellow citizens. “The act of association consists of a reciprocal commitment between society and the individual, [man] finds himself doubly committed, first, as a member of a sovereign body in relation to individuals, and secondly as a member of the state in relation to the sovereign” (62). HOWEVER: “for every individual as a man may have private will contrary to, or different from, the general will that he has as a citizen. His private interest may speak with a very different voice from that of his public

Rousseau stated that the only way one has a right to anything in the state of nature is by “being the first occupier of it, and being the strongest” (Social Contract, pg. 10). In Locke’s work, private properly solely belonged to the individual and the sovereign’s main goal was to protect one’s private property. This need for protection created the social contract between man and the sovereign. Contrary to Locke, Rousseau conjectured that this process is inversely related to Locke’s, with private property being the result of the social contract. For Rousseau, “the state is the maser of all their goods by the social contract" giving it legitimate political authority over all its citizens (Social Contract, pg. 10). On top of that he state “each individual’s right to his own estate is always subordinate to the community’s right over everyone’s estate; without this, the social tie would be fragile and the exercise of sovereignty would be feeble” (Social Contract, pg. 11). This shows that Rousseau believed that the will of the sovereign usurps the will of the individual, when pertaining to the common good of the

Rousseau argued that the source of authority in the government is the people and that the purpose of the political

Though the civil society and social contract do exist in today’s society, Rousseau’s state of nature could never be in existence. In reality, it is impossible to have ever been in a state of nature. This is supported by Rousseau’s idea that at birth, one is born into a society called “family.” This society is eventually dissolved but children eventually build a social contract with individuals as they grow up and mature. Furthermore, this supports the fact that social contracts and civil societies do exist, even when the state of nature never did. Each day, this is immanent when one forms social bounds with the people around them. Rousseau’s ideas developed from his time period and his life. He was writing this essay during the French Revolution which is in itself a perfect example of the destruction of a social contract between a society and its king and turning into a social contract of the general will of the population to form a new society. Though our time period may be different then those of Rousseau’s, his message will still have a

Since Rousseau made it clear that it wasn’t possible for society to return to the state of nature, he created a general will which outlines how to solve some of society’s major problems. This will serves to showcase the common wishes of society through laws that all people help to contribute to. For Rousseau, general inequality, brought upon by the ownership of property and the division of labor, is one of the greatest evils among people. In order to combat this, the general will must be employed. The problem of the ownership of property and the division of labor identified by Rousseau are just some of the problems that can be solved through the general will. Seeing as the will is, overall, the will of the people, laws under the general will wouldn’t allow for the inequalities that ultimately stem from these societal problems. In a perfect society, Rousseau assumes that people would try to aim towards the common good; this would mean that laws would express the will of all people, not just the rich. If the rich are unable to prey upon the poor through the laws put in place, as Rousseau suggests, then one can attempt the reverse the effects of greed that stem from property ownership and the division of

The majority first gains its right to rule over the minority, Rousseau believes, because “the nature order that the majority should govern and the minority should be governed.”. This principle of the natural order stems from the necessity for a society to identify and carry out the general will. It from this need to identify the common good, or general will, that the legislative body arises. Men are bound to obey the majority when they first enter into a society. To Rousseau, entering into a social contract, “by its nature, requires unanimous consent, that is, the social compact”.

In all of the “general will’s” different manifestations, it is what governs and preserves a society. One problem may be that people are simply unable to say what they really desire, or what they ought to desire, despite Rousseau’s distinctions between private and public will. Any group of people in its natural state, before the organization of society, will find itself caught up in disagreements between the general and the private will. No agreement appears to exist between the two in a "state of nature”. However, in the state of social order the private will and general will seem to collide, and I say they even become each other leaving us no worries that our private will is to be ignored.

Lastly, Rousseau and Mill think of different features as the essential components of freedom. For Rousseau, it is the idea of general will and for Mill, it is the harm principle. They argue for completely different ideas as Rousseau's general will emphasizes the collective good of a society while Mill's harm principle values individual freedom more. According to Rousseau, the general will is defined as the will that aims to achieve the common good, which would bring the best outcome for the community as a whole. He states that general will is determined by a consensus made among the members of the society. Furthermore, Rousseau argues that each member of the society is an indivisible part of the whole community when they follow the general

When political organisms work towards a common aim, the general will is present. He says that “that might does not make right, and that we are bound to obey none but lawful authorities” (ROUSSEAU). Which shows his belief that the political authorities be followed as he claimed that they had ‘General Will’. The general will is different from all wills because Rousseau believed that all men are born well, so if they were raised properly, they will work towards a common goal for the good of the society. He argued that the general will exist, but the will of the individual man comes in the way of destroying the general will. He said that obedience of the men disappeared if the might was removed and if he had no other obligation; he forgets his duty to work. When the men don’t have any kind of pressure he gets idle. That is why Rousseau believed that the men should be kept under the authorities as they have the general will to work towards the good goal. So basically the general will is the GOOD will which Rousseau believed was in the good political organisms, and he argued that it is different from the other kinds of wills because this will not have any external pressure just the common aim towards the betterment of the society in

He believed in natural freedom and social freedoms “A government for the people, for the people, and by the people.” He cared about other peoples opinions for the government to make the people

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

Rousseau’s first strand of the general will is described as the will of the assembled people, which means that it is the