Rousseau

Question 1

SC 1.1 (intro)

Answer 1

Pref.: “I want to inquire whether in the civil order there can be a legitimate and dependable rule of administration, taking men as they are and the laws as they can be”

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One believes himself the others’ master, and yet is more a slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? I believe I can solve this question.”

If I took into account only the effects of force, I should say: “When a people is compelled to obey, and obeys, it does well; but when it can shake off the yoke, and shakes it off, it does still better.” “But the social order is a sacred right that serves as the basis for all the others. Yet this right does not come from nature; it is therefore founded on conventions.

Question 2

SC 1.2 (the first societies, slavery)

Answer 2

Family as the first, and only natural, model of political societies. There too “all, being born free and equal, they alienate their liberty only for their own advantage”

[Hobbes, Grotius, and Caligula], and Aristotle before them, say that men are not equal naturally; some are born for slavery, and others for dominion. Aristotle was right; but he took the effect for the cause. Nothing can be more certain than that slaves lose everything in their chains, even the will to escape from them.

“Hence, if there are slaves by nature, it is because there were slaves contrary to nature. Force made the first slaves, their cowardice perpetuated them”

Question 3

SC 1.3-4 (the right of the stronger, slavery)

Answer 3

1.3: “The stronger is never strong enough to be forever master unless he transforms his force into right and obedience into duty”

On ideas about ‘the right of the strongest’: “But what is a right that perishes when force ceases?” Nothing- this is just force.

1.4: “Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow-man [semblable], and since force does not make right, conventions remain as the basis of all legitimate authority among men.”

Could a whole people make itself subject to a king, just as an individual can alienate their liberty? Even if a man could alienate himself, he could not alienate his children.

Moreover, there could be no contract which sold a person into slavery- “To renounce one’s freedom is to renounce one’s quality as a man, the rights of humanity, even its duties. There can be no possible compensation for someone who renounces everything.”

There is no right of conquest that legitimates taking slaves- one can only kill those that bear arms against one, so long as they bear arms. And who one has no right to kill one has no right to take as a slave.

Question 4

SC 1.5-6 (the need for a first convention, and the social contract)

Answer 4

1.5 Even if R’s arguments so far were false, despots would be no better off- “There will always be a great difference between subjugating a multitude and ruling a society”. Scattered individuals ruled by one man is not a society, and will not stay together after his death.

“Hence before examining the act by which a people elects a king, it would be well to examine the act by which a people is a people.”

“The law of majority rule is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity at least once.”

1.6 The problem then is “To find a form of association that will defend and protect the person and the goods of each associate with the full common force, and by means of which each, uniting with all, nevertheless obey only himself and remain as free as before.”

“These clauses, rightly understood, all come down to just one, namely the total alienation of each associate with all of his rights to the whole community: For, in the first place, since each gives himself entirely, the condition is [361] equal for all, and since the condition is equal for all, no one has an interest in making it burdensome to the rest”

Such an association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the people assembled.

Question 5

SC 1.7-8 (the sovereign, and the civil state)

Answer 5

1.7 IN making this contract, each member, as part of the Sovereign Power, is bound to all the individuals. The sovereign, being the individuals that compose it, doesn’t and can’t have any interest separate to them.

But each individual may yet have a particular interest distinct from the common interest, and where they conflict this could be the undoing of the body politic.

Thus whoever refuses to obey the GW will be constrained to do so by the entire body- he will “be forced to be free”

1.8 “This transition from the state of nature to the civil state produces a most remarkable change in man by substituting justice for instinct [esp appetite] in his conduct, and endowing his actions with the morality they previously lacked. […] Although in this state he deprives himself of several advantages he has from nature, he gains such great advantages in return, his faculties are exercised and developed, his ideas enlarged, his sentiments ennobled, his entire soul is elevated to such an extent, that if the abuses of this new condition did not often degrade him to beneath the condition he has left, he should ceaselessly bless the happy moment that wrested him from it forever”

Man gives up natural freedom for civil freedom and “property in everything he possesses”. He also gains moral freedom, as “obedience to the law one has prescribed to oneself”.

Question 6

SC 1.9 (real property)

Answer 6

“Every man naturally has the right to everything he needs”- he must limit himself to this and therefore respect not so much what is another’s as what is not one’s own.

To establish right of first occupation over land it is necessary, that the land be not inhabited; that the occupier take only what he needs; and that possession be taken by actual labour and cultivation, rather than vain ceremony (thus the Catholic king could not take possession from his apartment of the whole universe, minus what others own)

Question 7

SC 2.1-2 (That sovereignty is inalienable, and indivisible)

Answer 7

I hold then, that Sovereignty, being the exercise of the General Will, can never be alienated, and that the Sovereign, who is actually a collective being, cannot be represented except by himself.

This does not mean that the commands of the rulers cannot pass for General Wills, so long as the Sovereign offers no opposition.

2.2. Contra the separation of powers: he compares this to Japanese conjurers dismembering a body and sewing it back together. The General Will, the will of the body of the people, is an act of Sovereignty and constitutes law, while the will of only a part is merely an act of magistracy, at most a decree.

Question 8

SC 2.3-4 (whether the GW can err, the limits of sovereign power))

Answer 8

2.3 The General Will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always correct.

The ‘General Will’ considers only the common interest, while the ‘Will of All’ takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of individual wills; but take away from these same wills the conflicting desires that cancel one another, and the General Will remains as the sum of the differences.

It is therefore essential, if the General Will is to express itself, that there should be no partial factions within the State.

2.4 EACH man alienates, by the Social Contract, only such of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but the Sovereign, under the direction of the General Will, is sole judge of what is important.

Why, then, is it that the General Will is always in the right? Because every man thinks of “each” as meaning him, and considers himself when voting for all- this is how acts of sovereignty bind all citizens equally.

Since we are discussing a convention of the body with every one of its members, the SC doesn’t involve any real renunciation by individuals.

Question 9

SC 2.5 (the right of life and death)

Answer 9

Every man has a right to risk his life in order to preserve it (e.g. to jump out a window to escape a fire isn’t to be guilty of suicide). This is how individuals, who have no right to kill themselves, can transfer such a right to the sovereign.

The prince is the judge of when his death is necessary: When a Prince says “The State requires that you die,” he ought to die

Yet there is not a single ill-doer who could not be turned to some good. The State has no right to put to death, even for the sake of making an example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger.

Question 10

SC 2.6 (the laws)

Answer 10

Laws must be general, not picking out particular people or ascertaining who belongs to which class.

Thus laws are acts of the GW, and so cannot be unjust- for no one is unjust to oneself.

“I therefore call Republic any State ruled by laws, whatever may be the form of administration: for then the public interest alone governs”

How can an ignorant public make laws? For this we need the lawgiver, so that they can see things aright.

Question 11

SC 2.7 (the first legislator)

Answer 11

“It would take gods to give men laws.” He who dares to undertake the making anew of a people’s institutions must, in a word, take away men’s own resources and give them fresh ones; so that when each citizen can do nothing without the rest

Wise men cannot possibly make themselves understood by the common herd. There are conceptions too general and objects too remote for popular language. Legislators may, then, claim divine backing. We should not conclude that politics and religion have the same purpose, but that, when nations arise, the one is used as an instrument for the other.

Question 12

SC 2.8-10 (the people)

Answer 12

Qualities needed for the people: not too much wealth, as such would get in the way of equality. Customs must not have become inveterate (so that the people are like barbarians).

The state must not be too small or large. It must be large enough for self-maintenance. But the people has little affection for rulers it never sees, for a homeland which seems as big as the world, and for fellow-citizens who are mostly strangers. Talent is buried, leaders are overwhelmed, and the State comes to be governed by clerks.

Question 13

SC 2.11-12 (the various systems of law, the various forms of law)

Answer 13

IF we ask what great good should be the end of legislation, we shall answer liberty and equality.

By equality, we should understand, not that power and riches are to be identical for everybody; but that power shall be exercised by virtue of rank and law, and never be great enough for violence, that no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, nor any poor enough to be forced to sell himself:

every good legislative system need modifying to local situations. If, for instance, the soil is unproductive, or the land crowded, the people should turn to crafts

Distinction between political, civil, and criminal law (actions of the body politic on itself, of the members one to another, or of disobedience to penalty respectively)

A fourth kind of law: the moral law, which is given in the hearts of the citizens, and on which everything else depends.

Question 14

SC 3.1-2 (govt in general, and magistrates)

Answer 14

EVERY free action is produced by two causes; one of moral will and the other physical. When I walk towards an object, it is first necessary that I should will to go there, and, second, that my feet carry me there. The Body Politic has the same two motive powers; legislative power being the will and executive power the force.

Govt is an intermediate body set up between the people and sovereign. It exists only through the sovereign.

3.2 Magistrates ought to have zero individual will and minimal will according to the corporate interests of the magistrates, so that the sovereign will dominates.

Govts become weaker the more people compose it- so as the state gets larger, the govt should get smaller.

Question 15

SC 3.3-4 (the division of govts, democracy)

Answer 15

The sovereign can choose to create a democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy, for its govt. Each is in some cases the best, and in others the worst- democracy is better suited to small states; monarchy to great ones, with exceptions.

3.4 Strictly, there never has been a real democracy, and never will be. It is against nature for the many to govern the few, and it is unimaginable that the whole people should be forever assembled to consider public affairs.

A true democratic government requires a very small, simple, State, where the people can readily be got together, where each citizen can know all the rest, and where there are few inequalities

Were there a nation of gods, their government would be democratic. Such perfect government is not for men.

Question 16

SC 3.5-7 (aristocracy, monarchy, mixed govts)

Answer 16

3.5 The first societies governed themselves aristocratically. The heads of families took counsel together on public affairs, while the young bowed without question to experience

Hereditary aristocracy is the worst of all governments; but elective aristocracy is the best, and is an aristocracy properly so called- for the wise there govern for the sake of the state as a whole.

3.6 Kings’ interests are often opposed to the people’s- so that the people should be weak, wretched, and powerless as Machiavelli showed.

Monarchy is only suitable for great states, but its great disadvantage is succession- dangerous intervals when kings die, and poor rulers that often replace them. But the people is far less often mistaken in its choice than the king. Heredity principles were often implemented to avoid succession crises.

3.7 STRICTLY speaking, there is no simple form of government. A single ruler must have subordinates; a popular government must have a head.

Question 17

SC 3.8-9 (that all forms of government don’t suit all countries, the marks of a good govt)

Answer 17

Monarchy therefore suits only wealthy nations; aristocracy, States of middling size and wealth; and democracy, States that are small and poor.

Importance of climate (in hot countries people need less food, and can easily grow more)

3.9 The rest being equal, the government under which, without external aids, naturalisation or colonies, the citizens multiply most, is beyond question the best. This is bc govt exists for the preservation and prosperity of its members- which translates to the size of their population.

Question 18

SC 3.10-11 (the abuse of govt and its tendency to degenerate, the death of the body politic)

Answer 18

AS the individual will acts against the General Will, so government continually opposes Sovereignty.

Generally, a government degenerates either when it diminishes, or when the State is dissolved. Government diminishes when it passes from the many to the few (as it is naturally inclined to do). The dissolution of the State may happen when the Prince ceases to administer the State in accordance with the laws, and usurps the Sovereign power.

I will call him a tyrant who thrusts himself in contrary to the laws to govern in accordance with the laws; the despot is he who sets himself above the laws themselves.

3.11 Why then are old laws so respected? Because we feel that it must be the excellence of old acts that has preserved them. Wherever the laws grow weak as they become old, this proves that there is no longer a legislative power, and that the State is dead.

Question 19

SC 3.12-14 (how the sovereign authority maintains itself)

Answer 19

3.12 the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled.

The people in assembly, I shall be told, is a mere chimera. But two thousand years ago it was not. few weeks passed without the Roman people being in assembly, and there exercising, not only Sovereignty, but part of government too.

3. 13 This, I shall be told, may do for a single town, but what of a whole country? Is Sovereign authority to be divided, or to be concentrated in one town to which all others are made subject? Neither. Solution: if the state can’t be reduced to the right limits, ‘have the seat of government move from town to town.’
4. 14 THE moment the people is legitimately assembled as a Sovereign body, the jurisdiction of the government lapses, executive power is suspended. Such assemblies, which are the aegis of the Body Politic and the curb on government, terrify rulers, who take any chance they can to stop them.

Question 20

SC 3.15 (deputies or representatives)

Answer 20

Under a bad government no one cares about the assemblies, because no one expects the General Will to prevail.

This is why some suggest deputies. But Sovereignty cannot be represented; it lies in the General Will alone, there is no intermediate possibility. The deputies of the people, therefore, are not and cannot be its representatives: they are merely its stewards. Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void.

The people of England thinks itself free; but it is free only during the parliamentary elections.

Does this mean that true sovereignty requires a state so small that it will inevitably be conquered? No- R will say why later.

Question 21

SC 3.16-17 (that the institution of govt is not a contract, the institution of govt)

Answer 21

”. If the Sovereign, considered as such, could exercise the executive power, right and fact would be so utterly confounded that it would no longer be possible to tell what is and what is not law,””

“Some have claimed that this act of establishing Government is a contract between the People and the chiefs it gives itself; a contract stipulating for the two parties the conditions under which the one obligated itself to command, and the other to obey. Everyone will agree, I am sure, that this is a strange way of contracting!”

The sovereign can’t give itself to a superior in this way.

3.17 the institution of govt is really two acts: first, the sovereign establishes law by decreeing that there will be a governing body, and second, the people nominate its rulers.

The difficulty is to understand how there can be a governmental act before government exists, and how the people, which is only Sovereign or subject, can ever become a Prince or magistrate. Democracies have an advantage in this respect, as they can simply report to themselves and thereby set themselves up.

[seems to suggest that govts must always initially form in this way, but could then change their form into an aristocracy/monarchy]

Question 22

SC 3.18 (how to check the usurpations of govt)

Answer 22

THE institution of government is a law, not a contract.

On changing the govt: changes are always dangerous, established government should be touched only when it fails the public good.

The opening of these assemblies should always involve voting on two essential propositions; “Does it please the Sovereign to preserve the present form of government?” and “Does it please the people to leave its administration with those who now have it?”

“I assume here what I believe I have demonstrated, namely that there is no fundamental law in the State that cannot be revoked, not even the social pact; for if all the Citizens were to assemble in order to break this pact by a common accord, there can be no doubt that it would most legitimately be broken. Grotius even thinks that everyone can renounce the State of which he is a member and recover his natural freedom and his goods on leaving the country.* Now it would be absurd if all the Citizens united could not do what each one of them can do separately”

Question 23

SC 4.1 (That the general will is indestructible)

Answer 23

AS long as men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will concerning their common well-being

A State so governed needs few laws. The first man to propose them merely says what all already know

When social bonds weaken, the State grows weak. When individual interests begin to make themselves felt, opinion is no longer unanimous; the General Will ceases to be the Will of All

Does it follow from this that the General Will is exterminated or corrupted? Not at all: it is always constant, unalterable and pure

Question 24

SC 4.2 (voting)

Answer 24

There is but one law which needs unanimous consent. This is the Social Contract; for, every man being born free, no one can make any man subject without his consent. Opponents of the Social Contract do not invalidate the contract, they merely prevent themselves from being included in it.

When the State is instituted, residence constitutes consent; to dwell within its territory is to submit to the Sovereign

The citizen gives his consent to all the laws, including those he despises. […] when an opinion contrary to my own prevails, this proves only than that I was mistaken in my assessment of the General Will.

The more grave and important the questions discussed, the nearer should opinion approach unanimity.. The quicker decisions need to be made, the smaller the majority that is needed (so that when an instant decision is needed, a majority of one is sufficient).

Question 25

SC 4.3 (Elections)

Answer 25

Election by lot would have few disadvantages in a real democracy, but I have already said that real democracy is only an ideal. When choice and lot are combined, positions that require special talents, such as military posts, should be filled by the former; the lottery for cases such as judges, in which good sense, justice, and integrity are enough.

Question 26

SC 4.4-7 (the Roman system of govt)

Answer 26

The formation of Roman tribes.

The Roman people was truly Sovereign both de jure and de facto. The Roman system of voting.

Eventually, ambition triumphed, despite extraordinary expedients such as invoking divine miracles to support the laws. Yet, in the midst of all these abuses, this vast people, with its ancient regulations, never ceased to elect magistrates, pass laws, judge cases, and to carry through public and private business.

4.5 WHEN an exact proportion cannot be maintained between the constituent parts of the State, recourse may be had to an independent magistracy, which I shall call the tribunate. It serves to protect the Sovereign against the government, as the tribunes did at Rome; sometimes to uphold the government against the people, as the Council of Ten does at Venice; and sometimes to maintain the balance between the two.

The tribunate should have no share in legislative or executive power, which makes them more revered and powerful, for, while it can do nothing, it can prevent anything from being done

4. 6 During crises, provision is made for public security by a particular act entrusting it solely to one who is most worthy.
5. 7 Men always love what is good; it is in judging what is good that they go wrong. A Censorship upholds morality by preventing opinion from growing corrupt, by preserving it through wise applications, and sometimes simply by defining it.

Question 27

SC 4.8 (Civil religion)

Answer 27

AT first men had no kings save gods, and no government save priests. It followed that there were as many gods as peoples, and that strangers were usually enemies- though there were no wars of religion because the god of one people had no right over another.

But, when Jesus set up a spiritual kingdom, he separated the theological from the political; the State was no longer one, and thus began the divisions that trouble Christianity still.

In Islam, the religious leader was also the caliph. That govt was good, until the Arabs grew civilised and cowardly and were conquered by barbarians- thus the separation of powers began again. In Britain and Russia the kings have the authority to maintain the Church, but not to change it.

But if Christians were kings, tyranny would likely ensue once a bad ruler came to power. Christianity preaches servitude and dependence, a spirit entirely favourable to tyranny. To drive out the usurper, violence would have to be employed, which accords ill with Christian meekness. If war breaks out, the citizens do their duty; but what does victory matter to one whose kingdom is elsewhere? True Christians are made to be slaves.

But, let us come back to our point. It is important to the community that each citizen should have a religion that will make him love his duty. There is a sort of purely non-religious faith, which the Sovereign should fix.

While it can compel no one to believe, it can banish from the State whoever does not believe- not for impiety, but as an anti-social being. One who claims to be religious but acts differently can be put to death, for they have lied before the law.

The dogmas of this civil religion ought to be few and simple, without explanation or commentary: The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the Social Contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance is to be forbidden

Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizens

Question 28

DPE (rulers vs fathers, the body analogy)

Answer 28

A ruler is not like a father. Fathers are bound by natural feelings, whereas rulers are only bound by the promises they have made.
Rulers must not be guided by their own heart or even their own reason- only the public reason, whereas fathers ought to act according to their natural inclinations.

A rough analogy: the body politic as resembling a man. E.g. sovereign as the head; commerce, industry and agriculture as the mouth and stomach; public income as the blood; a prudent economy as the heart. The body can be killed if these parts don’t work properly

‘The body politic, therefore, is also a moral being possessed of a will; and this general will, which tends always to the preservation and welfare of the whole and of every part,’

Question 29

DPE (First rule of govt)

Answer 29

First rule of govt: to follow everything in the general will

‘ Look into the motives which have induced men, once united by their common needs in a general society, to unite themselves still more intimately by means of civil societies: you will find no other motive than that of assuring the property, life and liberty of each member by the protection of all.’

It’s therefore the first duty of rulers to ensure the following of law and to observe them himself (given the force of his example). The power of the laws derives from the reasons behind them; not the severity of their administrators.

The govt ought to follow the spirit of the laws when new cases arise, and the general will if the laws fail (which they can partly know without assembling all the citizens)

‘Make men, therefore, if you would command men: if you would have them obedient to the laws, make them love the laws’

Question 30

DPE (second rule of govt)

Answer 30

Second rule: ‘If you would have the general will accomplished, bring all the particular wills into conformity with it’- this is the same thing as establishing the reign of virtue.

‘The worst of all abuses is to pay an apparent obedience to the laws, only in order actually to break them with security.’ ‘The reward of virtue soon becomes that of robbery; the vilest of men rise to the greatest credit; […] and their very honours dishonour them’

‘It is not enough to say to the citizens, be good; they must be taught to be so […to this end] patriotism is the most efficacious [means]’

We clearly can’t make people love their country if it does nothing for them, or leaves them worse off than in the SN. Thus the GW couldn’t allow any man to wound or destroy another, and in general the security of people must be protected. If for example someone were wrongly imprisoned, then their convention with the state would already be broken.

Extreme inequality is the source of mutual hatred among citizens and the corruption of the people. It must therefore be limited, ‘not by taking away wealth from its possessors, but by depriving all men of means to accumulate it; not by building hospitals for the poor, but by securing the citizens from becoming poor.’

‘‘There can be no patriotism without liberty, no liberty without virtue, no virtue without citizens; create citizens, and you have everything you need’. We thus need a good public education system.

Question 31

DPE (Third rule of govt)

Answer 31

‘Provision for the public wants [i.e. ensuring subsistence] is an obvious inference from the general will, and the third essential duty of government.’’

‘This duty is not, we should feel, to fill the granaries of individuals and thereby to grant them a dispensation from labour, but to keep plenty so within their reach that labour is always necessary and never useless for its acquisition’

Right of inheritance

Tax must be levied as the result of a majority in accordance with the GW. It makes sense for it not to be taken as a simple ratio to how much one has, but ‘in compound ratio to the difference of their conditions and the superfluity of their possessions’

Question 32

DAS (part 1)

Answer 32

The govt and laws ensure men’s safety and wellbeing, while the sciences, letters and arts, ‘less despotic and perhaps more powerful, spread garlands of flowers over the iron chains with which they are laden […] make them love their slavery, and fashion them into what is called civilized peoples’

Before art fashioned our manners our morals were rustic but natural, and ‘differences in conduct conveyed differences of character at first glance’. But now ‘constantly one follows custom [for politeness’ sake], never one’s own genius. One no longer dares to appear what one is’

A traveller following from a distant land would predict that our morals should be the opposites of what they are, if they guessed on the basis of what the arts and sciences say

S would prefer to be in his own state of self-aware ignorance. R suggests that S spoke in praise of ignorance. S would be entirely scorned today.

Question 33

DAS (Part 2)

Answer 33

The sciences and arts (even that of ethics) didn’t come about from virtuous sentiments, but from vices such as greed, pride, and vain curiosity. And if their origin is suspect, so is their objects- jurisprudence requires the existence of injustice, history of wars and tyrants, and so on.

If their origins and objects are bad, so are their effects. Most dangerous is that of idleness, for who needs to know about forces between objects, obscure insects, how the mind relates to the body, the movement of the planets, and so on?

Not only are they idle, but they (not intentionally) undermine the foundations of faith, of patriotism and of virtue- since they ‘smile disdainfully at such old-fashioned words as fatherland and religion’

They also produce luxury, which is ‘diametrically opposed to good morals’. For ‘what will become of virtue, when one has to get rich at all cost?’

‘Every artist wants to be applauded’. But in an age when people generally have poor taste and are frivolous, he would ‘lower his genius to the level of his century’

Science is even more damaging to morals. ‘Everywhere I see huge establishments, in which young people are brought up at great expense to learn everything except their duties’

When good men see glories so badly distributed (such that talent is valued and virtue disparaged), their virtues wither and die.

Question 34

DOI (Epistle dedicatory)

Answer 34

“What is natural has to be investigated not in beings that are depraved, but in those that are good according to nature”- Aristotle.

[discusses what state he would most have liked to live in- size of the state, rulers who follow the GW, freedom, laws applied equally, an old state, a powerless state that nevertheless wouldn’t be invaded, one where citizens helped legislate]

But if R should have not been so fortunate, ‘I would at least have fostered in my soul these same sentiments which I could not put to use in my country, and, imbued with tender and selfless affection for my distant fellow-citizens, I would from the bottom of my heart have addressed to them approximately the following discourse’

Question 35

DOI (Preface)

Answer 35

Following Delphi’s inscription, R addresses the q: ‘for how can the source of inequality among men be known unless one begins by knowing men themselves?’ and how can man ever see himself in his original constitution, as nature formed him?

‘For it is no light undertaking to disentangle what is original from what is artificial in man’s present Nature, and to know accurately a state which no longer exists, which perhaps never did exist, which probably never will exist’

We must know natural man in order to know natural law.

R perceives in the human soul ‘two principles prior to reason, of which one interests us intensely in our well-being and our self-preservation, and the other inspires in us a natural repugnance to seeing any sentient Being, and especially any being like ourselves, perish or suffer’. From these two principles all the rules of natural right seem to flow.

Question 36

DOI (the question)

Answer 36

Question: What is the origin of inequality among men, and whether it is authorised by the natural law

‘I conceive two sorts of inequality in the human Species; one which I call natural or physical, […] the other, which may be called moral, or political inequality, because it depends on a sort of convention […] consists in the different Privileges which some enjoy to the prejudice of the others, such as to be more wealthy, more honoured’

It wouldn’t be fitting of R’s inquiry to ask what explains natural inequality, or whether natural inequality mirrors moral inequality

R thus seeks to explain ‘by what chain of wonders the strong could resolve to serve the weak’

Philosophers have often sought to go back to a SN, but none have found it. They invoke notions like property, justice, and injustice, without defending them. Most of them don’t appreciate the possibility that man was never in the SN.

Question 37

DOI (main body- SEP)

Answer 37

Instinctive drive towards self-preservation (seeking food, shelter, warmth etc.): amour de soi (self love). This is because we were designed by a benevolent creator.

A further natural passion: pitie (compassion)- which directs us to relieve the suffering of others so long as it doesn’t put ourselves in danger.

1. ‘humans live basically solitary lives in the original state of the human race, since they do not need one another to provide for their material needs. The human race barely subsists in this condition, chance meetings between proto-humans are the occasions for copulation and reproduction, child-care is minimal and brief in duration’

Humans here are distinguished by two characteristics: freedom (the ability not to be solely governed by appetite) and perfectibility (‘the capacity to learn and thereby to find new and better means to satisfy needs’). These give us the potential to achieve self-consciousness, rationality, and morality, but are more likely to lead to a social world of deception, dissimulation, dependence, oppression, and domination

2. ‘As human populations grow, simple but unstable forms of co-operation evolve around activities like hunting. According to Rousseau, the central transitional moment in human history occurs at a stage of society marked by small settled communities. At this point a change, or rather a split, takes place in the natural drive humans have to care for themselves: competition among humans to attract sexual partners leads them to consider their own attractiveness to others and how that attractiveness compares to that of potential rivals’
   In Emile the genesis of amour propre is associated with sexual competition, and this kind of consciousness emerges during puberty
   ‘Amour propre makes a central interest of each human being the need to be recognized by others as having value and to be treated with respect.’
   The DOI presents amour propre as purely negative and the source of all evil.
   In some works R presents amour propre as an outgrowth of amour de soi, in others as an independent force.

One interpretation of DOI: It seems to suggest that amour propre requires not just being recognised, but being recognised as superior to others. People react with anger and resentment when this recognition is denied to them.
Den and Neuhouser push back against this interpretation, such that ‘amour propre is both the cause of humanity’s fall as well as the promise of its redemption because of the way in which it develops humans’ rational capacities and their sense of themselves as social creatures among others’. There are ways of organising society where amour propre is a benign force.

3. ‘In the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau traces the growth of agriculture and metallurgy and the first establishment of private property, together with the emergence of inequality between those who own land and those who do not.’ This is where amour propre acquires its full toxicity- people who need both the social good of recognition and material goods like food and warmth ‘become enmeshed in social relations that are inimical both to their freedom and to their sense of self worth’.

‘ Subordinates need superiors in order to have access to the means of life; superiors need subordinates to work for them and also to give them the recognition they crave.’But even those who receive the apparent love and adulation of their inferiors can’t satisfy their amour propre- [because it is the respect of the losers and so inherently tarnished]

[4.?] ‘Once people have achieved consciousness of themselves as social beings, morality also becomes possible and this relies on the further faculty of conscience’. Unlike pitie, conscience involves the application of reason to our conduct. It causes a quasi-aesthetic appreciation for justice and morality