Rousseau's Social Contract

Improved Essays
Rousseau begins his argument on the conception of freedom that goes contradictory to that of Mill. In this sense, he suggests that society must undergo a transformation or transition from the natural state to the civil state society, and that this society may be considered both free and subject to some legitimate form of political authority. Rousseau believes that this political authority is not found in the natural state, which he considers limited only by the power of natural superiority or the private interests of individuals, proving it to be illegitimate, and therefore leaving the natural state as unacceptable.

Mill refutes this transitioning process on the basis that he does not consider, that the two forms of social freedom (the natural
…show more content…
Rousseau believes that, in order to achieve such, unity of the people must be of complete whole, and that all must comply with the social contract. Mill, on the other hand may argue in advantage to the individual or particular will (the good of the individual), that not all in society will conform to the social contract, and would prefer their private interests and individuality instead of the public good. Therefore, proposing individualism as a threat to Rousseau’s social contract in regards to “the problem to find form of association”.
Rousseau agrees coherently with Mill’s supposition that individuals within society may have conflicting views from that of the whole. He consequently does not accept that privatised interests (particular will) of the individual needs any sort of acknowledgment. He also encourages such on the basis that particular will is realized as a notion to that of individualism, and must therefore be
…show more content…
Rousseau believes that if an individual (the minority) refuse to obey the social compact or general will (the majority) by means of the particular will, it must then mean that these individuals cannot make the righteous decisions for themselves and would need the guidance of the collective in order to join the social compact and conform to the general will, as the general will represents the meaning of what is good for all, hence; ‘to be forced to be free’. In other words, Rousseau fully entrust his notion on the general will as he believes that the common good does not fall in one particular aspect of an individual, but rather that of the whole society. If these individuals refute, and do not conform to the contract, it must be the responsibility of society or general will to force them to be free, and to therefore conform to the

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    Rousseau places a great deal of importance on the common good and therefore somewhat rejects personal freedoms. He believes that in order to be a part of the Social Contract, in which he believes man is free, personal freedom must be ignored. In the state of nature, man is free to indulge in their personal needs and freedoms and therefore must be disregarded in order to unsure the common good. If an individual disagrees with the majority, they are inherently wrong and should be forced to obey the general will. Rousseau states, “whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire community” (Rousseau, 150).…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Disobedience In Society

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Society are formed for the “mutual preservation of [citizen’s] lives, liberties and estate.”. To act against a law, a person must value their moral integrity as more valuable than the preservation of their property. The societal laws should not be based solely on majority values, instead those values which everyone may compromise to and not be restricted or have their consciences in contention should be upheld. Once an individual has determined that they cannot adapt their view for the protection society provides their property, then that individual has a duty to act on their morals or to leave that…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes Vs Rousseau Essay

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages

    If someone disobeys the law it is best solved by the popular opinion and believes in the direct interaction of the people with the laws they must obey. Rousseau uses collectivism as a way for people to actively present their own views while also using This collectivism is best exemplified in his definition of the “general will”. He calls for all members of society to subordinate their own will for the general goal set forth by society. Rousseau does not believe that surrendering freedom to a leader provides any benefit and encourages intervention by the individual on a political level. With Rousseau believes that these goals can only be realized with the assumption of a great leader into the seat of power.…

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    With this famous expression, Rousseau asserts that modern states repress the physical freedom that is our birthright and do very little to secure our civil freedom. It should be stated that there’s a difference between natural and civil liberty: natural liberty is the freedom to pursue one’s own desires whereas civil liberty is the freedom to pursue the general will. In Rousseau’s Social Contract, the general will is an important concept and it is defined as the will of the people as a whole. It cannot be transmitted and it is always right. To put the general will in context, human beings would act according to the general will if we were not depraved by society.…

    • 1793 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Freedom is a concept that cannot be mutually defined by all. This is because of the various aspects that impact one perception on what freedom is and how it should be achieved. Through the text Introduction to Social and Political Society by Omid Payrow Shabani and Monique Deveaux, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill provide their unique philosophies on the concept on freedom and liberty. Kant stands behind positive liberty and advocates that the government can act as an institutionalized version of the best parts of ourselves meaning that freedom does not mean an absence of government but one that helps everyone become more reasonable. Mill, on the other hand, supports negative freedom and believes that the state should only intervene when…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Holbach’s View on Free Will Paul Holbach was a French philosopher who is a hard determinist meaning that he believes determinism is true, and if determinism is true then you cannot have free will, therefore free will does not exist. In Paul Holbach 's “The Illusion of Free Will,” he argues that people don’t have any free will and that nature determines every human’s actions and will. Free will is the ability for one to perform an action without any outside force influencing them and to be able to be morally responsible for that action. Determinism is the belief where people’s actions and wills are caused by an external force rather their own will meaning no one can be held morally responsible for the outcome for that action. The dilemma of…

    • 1285 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The social contract was then put in place to secure man’s need for protection. Hobbes believed that the social contract was a “compact between the subject to obey the sovereign” (Montmorency 53). The problem with Hobbes’ theory starts with his belief that all humans are inherently selfish. He believes that people only work for their best interests, however, he also says that they have the rational capacity to create the best means to the end they want (Friend). He argues that man would choose to give up all of their natural rights because they believe that it is their best option for self-preservation.…

    • 1276 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although these two sound similar, they are much different. The “general will” is Rousseau’s idea of how society should function. He theorizes that the “general will” is the community as a whole, that people would surrender their rights to; Rousseau expects that the people will obey it blindly. The purpose of the “general will” is to protect what is good for the whole of society and to perfect the idea of freedom in the state of nature. Even though that sounds similar to the majority, the two are not the same; however, the “general will” should reflect the majority in practice.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hobbes believes that if we were left without civilization to guide and control our selfish desires, humans would stop at no end to achieve them. In difference, Rousseau believes that the only reason humans act selfish is because society has made us this way, and he believes that without civilization, humans would act peacefully and freely. To add, Hobbes feels that humans should give up their rights and liberties to a higher power who rules their interest whereas Rousseau feels that sovereignty should be in the hands of the people and governments should just be enforcers. It is obvious that the differences between the two are dominant regarding the matter, in fact, they have nearly opposite…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    In order to be a citizen of the state, one must forgo ‘natural freedom’, for example any human being can with their ‘natural freedom’ hit another, it is completely within their ability to do so. But with ‘civil freedom and property’ one cannot act in this way as it harms another person and thus falls within the public realm. Furthermore one is expected to participate within society and take citizenship seriously under the social contract - one has a duty to the sovereign and thus every other citizen (as they are all part of the sovereign). According to Rousseau ‘civil freedom and property’ means that one’s “faculties are exercised and developed, one’s ideas are enlarged, one’s sentiments ennobled…” Rousseau clearly sees ‘civil freedom and property’ superior to ‘natural freedom’ as it enables one to be more enlightened - but this ‘civil freedom and property’ is entirely dependent on every citizen agreeing to the social…

    • 2188 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays