Analyze and evaluate Rousseau’s argument that public discourse is more likely to lead legislation away from the general will than toward it. Do you agree with this argument? If not, why not? If so, under what conditions?
Introduction and Thesis In Rousseau’s On the Social Contract, he makes the argument that public discourse and debate is likely to lead the legislative body away from the general will rather than towards it. This paper makes an agreement with Rousseau’s assertion and argument that public discourse generally has a negative effect on the legislations reaction towards the general will, causing them to divert away from the general will. However, the conditions for this to be true must be particular also, which this analysis will …show more content…
But, in addition to the general will, Rousseau makes use of two other types of will, particular and will-of-all. It is also crucial to understand these two forms of will. Firstly, particular will is the the desire of the individual person. An example in modern society would be a desire to have objects which cause pollution.
Secondly, the will-of-all is simply the aggregate of particular wills. Rousseau states “[the will-of-all] is merely the sum of private wills” (172). Such as, the will stated in the example used to explain the particular will. A law crafted from the will-of-all would be a more libertarian approach in which there is no regulation on allowing persons to obtain and use objects which cause pollution to the …show more content…
Rousseau praises the simple peasant because “upright and simple men are difficult to deceive on account of their simplicity” (224). Rousseau theorized that the general will is more likely to pass legislation if more individuals are simple. This is in contrast to the sophisticated people who argue continuously. This is because persons who argue endlessly do not allow the best advice to pass without disputes. With regards to the size of government, Rousseau states that the power of the individual in relation to the state is proportional to the number of beings in the state.
Suppose the state is composed of ten thousand citizens. The sovereign can only be considered collectively and as a body; but each member, in his role as a subject, is considered individually; so the sovereign is to the subject as ten thousand to one, meaning that each member of the state has as his share only a ten-thousandth part of the sovereign authority, although he is wholly under that authority’s control (193).
According to Rousseau, there is less liberty in a larger state and thereby making the general will more difficult to seize in
Introduction and Thesis In Rousseau’s On the Social Contract, he makes the argument that public discourse and debate is likely to lead the legislative body away from the general will rather than towards it. This paper makes an agreement with Rousseau’s assertion and argument that public discourse generally has a negative effect on the legislations reaction towards the general will, causing them to divert away from the general will. However, the conditions for this to be true must be particular also, which this analysis will …show more content…
But, in addition to the general will, Rousseau makes use of two other types of will, particular and will-of-all. It is also crucial to understand these two forms of will. Firstly, particular will is the the desire of the individual person. An example in modern society would be a desire to have objects which cause pollution.
Secondly, the will-of-all is simply the aggregate of particular wills. Rousseau states “[the will-of-all] is merely the sum of private wills” (172). Such as, the will stated in the example used to explain the particular will. A law crafted from the will-of-all would be a more libertarian approach in which there is no regulation on allowing persons to obtain and use objects which cause pollution to the …show more content…
Rousseau praises the simple peasant because “upright and simple men are difficult to deceive on account of their simplicity” (224). Rousseau theorized that the general will is more likely to pass legislation if more individuals are simple. This is in contrast to the sophisticated people who argue continuously. This is because persons who argue endlessly do not allow the best advice to pass without disputes. With regards to the size of government, Rousseau states that the power of the individual in relation to the state is proportional to the number of beings in the state.
Suppose the state is composed of ten thousand citizens. The sovereign can only be considered collectively and as a body; but each member, in his role as a subject, is considered individually; so the sovereign is to the subject as ten thousand to one, meaning that each member of the state has as his share only a ten-thousandth part of the sovereign authority, although he is wholly under that authority’s control (193).
According to Rousseau, there is less liberty in a larger state and thereby making the general will more difficult to seize in