Analysis of Rousseau's Social Contract - Paper Example

What is the general will and against what ideas or notions of contractual sovereignty is Rousseau positing it? (Example: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke) How does it differ from these earlier theories of social contract?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The general will is an independent will that is aimed at to bring a common good to all. Persons have different interests and will be happy to express them at their best. This brings a common good for the state as whole. In Rousseau context, we see several forms of government in which democracy is exercised. These governments are not exercising democracy at their best but Rousseau major concern was to ensure and figure out that the peoples will could be expressed freely and truly in their states. Rousseau major aim was to figure how the society will remain democratic without any hindrances. ( Roger, 2015) In his context, The Social Contract, Rousseau admiringly cited a city (Rome) that held assemblies for the large number of its citizen to attend.

Rousseau regards everybody as an equal unlike some political philosophers. However, he had borrowed several ideas from their contexts; Rousseau usually came to a diverse conclusion. Rousseau idea about the sovereign departs from that of Thomas Hobbes. Rousseau belief was, of course that the people were the sovereign and they were to be treated equally by being allowed to express their will. In Thomas Hobbes theory, he acknowledges the central government to have powers that will rule all the people.

Rousseau is considered an example of the radical strand of Enlightenment in contrast to a more moderate Enlightenment thinker like Voltaire (or Locke). Why? Do you agree?

John Locke as a political theorist bases his primary focus on a workable and justifiable government. He would later explain other ideas that related to humans through the government. The other establishments that he had were of concern to the daily virtues. It is indeed a fact that almost all the intellects that were of the 18th century derived their activities from Locke. Lockes belief of honoring the Enlightened was directed towards the middle class. He described his goodness in humanity, his Science faith, freedom of conscience and entitlement to own property. He had an immense influence upon the philosophies of political theories. On the other hand, Jean Jacques Rousseau who was born in Switzerland but spent his Life in France stressed his idea of social contract to having its basis in the society. Yes, this man advocated for change. He is quite different with Lockes version that emphasized the contracts to be between the governed and the governors. Rousseau was on the other hand insightful- he stated that the social contract is to be between each person in the society and it should replace the natural rights( Roger, 2015) .

What is his definition of freedom and how is it different from other Enlightenment figures'?

Rousseau had a distinct explanation of freedom from the other Enlightened philosophers. In his works, he takes much time to explain freedom than any other thing in politics. His explanations is mainly based on mans state of nature and his further blessing to have a desirable total freedom. The freedom is inevitable because of the following reasons. First, a man who is natural has the ability to be physically free since he is not constrained by a brutal tool or subjugated by a fellow man. Second, a man is spiritually and mentally free as long as there are no artificial goods from the modern society that enslaves him. In his second reasoning on freedom, he states that man can, however, be subjected to enslavement with regards to his own material needs, societal ills, depression, exploitation and poor self esteem.

Other political philosophers had a different view of freedom. Lockes definition of freedom is based on the entitlement of rights an individual has within a nation; the specific rights were rights to health, life, property and liberty. Hobbes states that freedom happens when there are no obstacles in mans life . He says that the ability of man to move well physically defines his freedom. Hobbes says that mans only right is self-preservation.

How would a society based on Rousseaus social contract look different from one based on Lockes? Why?

The Social Contract is significant in the history of Western politics because of its declarations on mans natural rights. Its existence came in with powerful ideas regarding contract of the governed and an absolute sovereignty of the people that is opposed to the sovereignty of the ruler. It is the core for foundation and development of human rights and the modern ideologies that motivate the modern democracy conceptions( Roger, 2015) .

In Rousseau society, everyman is considered as noble and happy. They are grouped as equal and would express their grievances willingly. The society will either influence man negatively or positively. In mans state of nature, he is good, and good people can be made to be unhappy with the evils of society such as corruption.

In Lockes societal perspective, we view a society that is greedy. Man can do anything that he wants when he is alive to attain property. Lockes argument is not good because people would mostly fight for wealth. The society does not appear to accumulate much wealth merely because of unequal distribution of property. The governments could be overthrown easily and wealth maintained and accumulated in the same hands.

Rousseau government is different from Lockes because on Lockes side, only those who are capable will benefit from the society while in Rousseau, each and every individual will contribute to the common good of the

REFERENCE

Masters, Roger D. The political philosophy of Rousseau. Princeton University Press, 2015.