Rousseau

Question 1

What does Rousseau (1762) say about the existence of legitimate political authority in Book 1 of ‘The Social Contract’?

Answer 1

‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’

Asks whether there can be any legitimate rule of administration with men as they are and laws as they could be

Rejects idea that there is any legitimate political authority found in nature; relationship between rulers and rule is not natural but perpetuated by force

Legitimate political authority is not founded on force.

Legitimate political authority rests on a “social contract” forged between members of society

Impossible to surrender freedom in a fair exchange

Question 2

What is the Social Contract which Rousseau (1762) describes in Book 1 of ‘The Social Contract’ and what are it’s implications?

Answer 2

Social contract states that each individual needs to surrender himself unconditionally to the community as a whole, but this needs to be done in a way that everyone still obeys only himself and remains as free as before.

Implications of Social Contract:
- Conditions same for everyone, so everyone will want to make it best for all
- Individual has no rights that can stand in opposition to the state because people surrender themselves unconditionally
- People are trading their natural freedom for civil and moral freedom

Community formed by social contract is a distinct and unified entity with a life and will of its own

The sovereign is not bound by the social contract but cannot do anything that would violate the social contract as it owes its existence to it and the sovereign will act in the best interests of its subjects because in hurting its subjects it would be hurting itself.

Individuals need the incentive of law to remain loyal to the sovereign. Unwilling subjects will be forced to obey the general will: “forced to be free”

Question 3

What does Rousseau say about the Common Good and the law in Book 2 of ‘The Social Contract’?

Answer 3

The end goal of any state is the common good.

The common good can only be achieved by heeding the general will as expressed by the sovereign.

Sovereign is not divisible; always expresses the will of the people as a whole. No single person’s will should coincide with the general will.

Sovereign is only authorised to speak in cases that affect the body politic as a whole.

Law is an abstract expression of the general will that is universally applicable; law does not deal with particularities. It is a record of what people collectively desire

To establish laws a state must be early in its existence, must be of moderate size, must have the correct balance between population and extent of territory, and must be enjoying a period of peace and prosperity

All laws should pursue the principles of freedom and equality

Four classes of law: political, civil, criminal, and moral

Question 4

How does Rousseau think the government should work, as described in Book 3 of ‘The Social Contract’?

Answer 4

Actions of a state analysed into will and strength; the will of the body politic is expressed in laws and the strength that put them into practice is found in the executive power of the government. Government deals with particular acts whilst sovereign doesn’t

People don’t surrender power or will to the government in the way they do to the sovereign.

The government is a separate institution elected by the Sovereign. Its function is to apply and uphold the laws, made by the Sovereign, through policy.

Question 5

What is the general will, according to Rousseau?

Answer 5

Insofar as Rousseau treats the sovereign as one collective individual, the general will is the particular will of this sovereign. the general will aims toward the best advantage of the sovereign.

General will demands that the policy is equally in the interest of all members

General will must apply equally to all citizens to ensure it expresses a common interest

The general will will always exist and cannot be changed, but it can be subordinated to other wills.

Distinction between general will and will of all

Question 6

How does Rousseau (1762) say that the General Will, and therefore the law, should be decided on in Book 4 of ‘The Social Contract’?

Answer 6

Rousseau’s citizens trained to will nothing contrary to will of state

Laws will be made in popular assemblies

If a citizen votes for a losing cause, this should not reflect that his desires are unpopular so much as it reflects that he was mistaken. If he, just like everyone else, votes in accordance with what he believes the general will to be, he will simply have made a mistake and thought that the general will was other than what it is.

Unanimity in popular decisions is a sign of a healthy state and a sign that the general will is agreed upon by all.

Question 7

What does Rousseau (1755) believe the origins of inequality to be, which he explains in ‘Discourse on the Origins of Inequality Among Men’?

Answer 7

Inequality scarcely perceptible in the state of nature

Men stopped being free and equality disappeared when they needed the help of one another and what one man wanted was enough for two

The division of land that resulted from agriculture caused the division of labour and property, bringing the first rules of justice. As talents and use of resources did not remain equal, inequality arose and the differences between men became more obvious and started to influence events.

Man was now subjugated by a multitude of new needs, but especially by his need for other men. In fact, man became a slave to men when he tried to be their master. Domination became the only pleasure of the rich. When the powerful claimed a kind of right to another person’s goods, equivalent to the right of property, the breakdown of equality led to a state of war. In response, the rich developed the best trick ever invented: to persuade the weak to unite with them into a supreme power to institute rules of justice and peace. Little was needed to convince such crude and easily seduced men. All ran towards their chains in the belief that they were securing their freedom. Those who did realize the nature of the trick thought that they could trade part of their freedom for security.

This was the origin of society which irreversibly destroyed natural freedom, fixed the laws of inequality and property and turned usurpation into right. All men were subjugated to servitude and labour for the profit of the few.

Inequality has its origins in the rise of reason and enlightenment; it is legitimated by laws and property; and it is against natural law unless it is related to physical inequality

The institution of private property, the division of labour and the exchange of commodities resulted in ever-increasing inequalities between men because they meant that some men possessed what others needed. This political inequality became institutionalised as the poor were seduced by the rich into a false pseudo mutual contract. So, all existing governments are based on fraud

Question 8

What are some arguments given by Wolff (2016) for Rousseau’s polity being expressive of equality?

Answer 8

Rousseau’s polity presupposes a classless society with rough equality of wealth.

The idea of general will is itself strongly egalitarian as the correct policy is one that benefits all citizens equally

Question 9

What are some arguments given by Wolff (2016) for Rousseau’s polity not being expressive of equality?

Answer 9

Privilege only extended to men; no good reason for this exclusion

Domestic servants also not seen as citizens as people who are active as citizens do not have time to cook, wash their own clothes etc.

Black people also not seen by Rousseau as needing the same freedom in social and political domains because he believed they were in a biologically more primitive state. Therefore, to him, the slave trade was justified.

If society needs to already be equal for general will to work, the general will cannot itself bring equality to society.

Question 10

What are some arguments given by Wolff that Rousseau’s polity is expressive of freedom?

Answer 10

Rousseau holds a positive notion of freedom, in which freedom is living the life that the rational person would choose to live, people are free from their physical/sensual impulse. Free to self-actualise

One can be forced to be free if they believe the general will requires a different policy to the majority, then they will be forced to act within the other policy, as freedom is acting on the general will. Rousseau would say that doing anything else is slavery to one’s impulses, not freedom.

Rousseau: “obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom” - the citizens have decided and agreed to the general will and the body that imposes it so cannot be constrained by it - moral freedom

civil freedom - the freedom from interference by others that we get through laws: “the worst thing that can happen in human relationships is to find oneself living at the mercy of another.”

Question 11

What are some arguments given by Wolff that Rousseau’s polity is not expressive of freedom?

Answer 11

Significant limitations on freedom

No natural freedom (‘civil and moral freedom’ instead)

Freedom of thought restricted: atheism and intolerant religions barred, all must affirm the civil religion

The office of censor to enforce public or customary morality – no freedom to be unconventional

Freedom shouldn’t be equated to obedience, even to a law you ‘made yourself’

Question 12

What is Rousseau’s approach to women, and how, according to Okin does this undermine the idea that his theory would cause equality?

Answer 12

Rousseau denied relevance of freedom and equality for women

Rousseau argues that greater strength or wealth can never create legitimate right, but he violates this belief with respect to women

Rousseau’s ideal republic of free and equal heads of patriarchal families is necessarily built on the political exclusion, total confinement and repression of women

The principle of political equality, as a means to self-government is not applied to women

There is no contract-based civic equality to replace the natural differences bestowed upon women.

Within the sphere of the family, Rousseau was most explicit in denying women equal partnership with men. The family is consistently referred to in his works as a natural institution. Thus, the rule of husbands over their wives is claimed to be a natural order in no way comparable with the requirements of equality in the political realm. For “the law of nature bids the woman obey the man” and a wife must “keep her person always under the absolute law of her husband.”

When Rousseau actually enumerates the three reasons for this immense violation of his dearly held principle of equality, however, we can see clearly that they owe far more to the requirements of an orderly, property-based, patriarchal society, than to any state of affairs that could reasonably be construed as natural

Women need to be disadvantaged, dependent and constrained because of the extent of man’s sexual and emotional dependence on them.

Women are not seen by Rousseau as autonomous or distinct people

All the reasons given for why women should not be equal to men within the family, are not because that is ‘natural’ as Rousseau claims, but because they are the requirements of an orderly and property-based society, the very thing Rousseau claims puts people in ‘chains’. Rousseau also claims that it is possible that for some to enjoy true self government, others must be enslaved, further undermining his claim that his proposals would lead to equality

Question 13

What reasons does Rousseau give for not having women count as citizens in his polity and what is Okin’s response?

Answer 13

First, he claims authority in the family cannot be divided between the father and the mother, because in every division of opinion there must be a singular person to decide.
- This is contradictory to the whole idea and logic behind the general will.

The second reason is that women have ‘periods of inactivity’ due to their reproductive function, which according to Rousseau is a ‘sufficient’ reason for excluding women from authority.
- He does not, however, exclude men from sharing in decision making if this is inconvenient for them.]

The third reason given is that the husband must be able to supervise his wife’s conduct to ensure his children are his.
- It is strange, and contradictory, that Rousseau assigns such importance to paternity when this is a clear sign of a society he is so against, which promotes inheritance and private property.

Question 14

What does Cohen (2010) claim the aim of the social contract to be?

Answer 14

The aim of the social contract is to show that a certain form of political association is legitimate by showing that individuals would themselves agree to that form, where those individuals are understood to be interdependent, aware of their interdependence, endowed with the capacity to distinguish just from unjust arrangements, and endowed with a capacity for freedom.

Aim is to show that legitimate authority is compatible with human freedom, and to indicate the conditions that political authority must meet if it is to be legitimate

Since everyone is motivated by self-love, individuals are interdependent, and individuals have views about the claims that they can legitimately make on one another and these views tend to conflict, coordination is required for mutual advantage.

The social contract aims to identify norms of social cooperation that are reasonable, given these conditions and given he fundamental human capacity for freedom.

Question 15

What is Cohen’s (2010) opinion about whether the general will preserves rights and liberties?

Answer 15

The general will preserves individual rights and liberties. Individuals will alienate their rights to the community only insofar as necessary for the community’s wellbeing. Since the general will can “only advance the common good” (to which private interests are subordinate), negative liberties cannot be infringed.

The general will enables individuals in the social contract to “give the laws to themselves, guided in those lawgiving judgments by a conception of their common good”

Question 16

What is Condorcet’s argument in favour of the type of majority rule consistent with Rousseau’s thinking?

Answer 16

If voters are individually addressing a question that is susceptible to a right and a wrong answer, and if the average probability of each voting for the right answer is greater than 0.5, then the probability than the answer determined for the group by a majority procedure will be correct tends to certainty as group size increases.

However
- the application of the theorem must be tempered by Condorcet’s own view that, independently, as group size increase, the average individual competence is likely to decline and fall below 0.5 before one reaches even the size of a citizen assembly in a small Rousseauian polis.
- Even if the probability is extremely high, it would only take one instance of a minority, in the right, being suppressed, for the legitimacy of Rousseau’s Sovereign to collapse. But since the actuality of such an instance is an arbitrary matter of chance, surely the very possibility of that instance has the same effect.

If a debate ensues, and the issue is one where one rational argument is possible, and the people in the debate are susceptible to rational argument and immune to rhetoric and not motivated by particular interest, then at the end of the debate we would expect the chance of an individual arriving at a correct answer to be enhanced.

Question 17

According to Waldron (1993), how will minority views be treated in a Rousseauian style polity?

Answer 17

In the Rousseauian case, minorities and individuals should not suffer oppression at the hands of the majority. Each vote represents an individual opinion on a matter of common concern including an opinion on the proper balance to be maintained among the various individual and minority interests. Provided that the opinion that is acted on takes my interests along with everyone else’s properly into account, the fact that the opinion is not mine is not in itself a threat to my freedom or wellbeing.

If I disagree with the majority, I will think that not all interest has been properly considered, or that the general good is being correctly discerned. They may think that those in the majority have not given sufficient regard to their own interest in freedom and well-being.

The majority is not necessarily right, but on a matter concerning the rights of minorities, it is not necessarily wrong either.

In Rousseauian democracy there is no case for allowing minority opinions to prevail, though individual opinions may and probably will make a case for allowing certain types of minority interests to prevail.

Question 18

What are Rousseau’s voters supposed to vote based on and how reasonable does Waldron think this is in ‘Rights and Majorities: Rousseau revisited’?

Answer 18

The fact that the majority approves of something is not a good reason for someone to vote in its favour; if everyone voted on the basis of reasons like that, voting would collapse as a practice

Rousseau’s voter is not supposed to express his personal preference; rather he affirms his personal belief about the best way to promote the general good.

People often vote based on what they think is the general good of society. It is certain that voters vote sometimes in a Rousseauian fashion and sometimes in a Benthamite fashion

Voters are likely to disagree about individual rights, even if they all take them seriously

Question 19

What is the argument, explained by Wolff (2016) that there is not a general will at all or one common interest? And how would Rousseau respond to this?

Answer 19

Class differences lead to distinct, even opposed, interests

Unlikely that everyone will be equally affected by or treated the same way by the law

Contemporary societies do not conform to the ideal that there is a general will that can be formed and perceived; people desire different things and have different backgrounds; on many issues it would be unlikely that there would be one policy equally in the interests of all

Response: Rousseau asserts that if his system is practicable then large inequalities must already by absent – if class differences make the formation of the general will possible they should be eliminated

Question 20

What is the argument that even if there is a general will it will be hard to determine what it is, and how would Rousseau respond to this?

Answer 20

• How will the citizens know what the general will is. In Rousseau’s system, people don’t vote for what they want, but for what they think is best for all. If they can be deceived into thinking that an unpopular and unhealthy choice is in fact in the interests of all, they will be duty-bound to vote for that choice even if it is against their interests.
• How to distinguish between the general will and the will of all. In a healthy republic they will be identical but when people’s particular wills start taking precedence over the general will, there will be a great disparity between the two
• What Justifies the assumption that if people are voting on their view of the general will, they are likely to be right

Response: Good states need to pass only few laws – people can use their powers to learn what is required when they are called upon to vote

Question 21

What is the argument explained by Wolff that citizens in Rousseau’s polity will not be sufficiently motivated to act on the general will rather than their own interests? And how would Rousseau respond?

Answer 21

People may not be sufficiently motivated to act on the general will when factions arise.
- Response: There should be no political parties or factions

Citizens may just vote for their own interests rather than the general will
- Responses: Individuals will be made to strongly identify with the group as a whole through education for civic virtue, Rousseau advocates an ‘official censor’ whose role it is to encourage people to act with popular morality, Proposes each state should be regulated by a ‘civil religion’ to ensure social unity

Question 22

What criticisms of Rousseau’s ideas does Wolff give on the basis of views of minorities and of how well they advance prosperity?

Answer 22

Rousseau’s treatment of those with a minority view is hard to admire; dissenters are forced to be free and those who affirm then disobey principles of civil religion are put to death

Even if participatory democracy is best from the point of view of preserving freedom and equality, it seems to do less well from the point of view of advancing prosperity and allowing the fulfilment of life plans.

Question 23

What are the citations for Rousseau?

Answer 23

Rousseau, 1762, The Social Contract

Rousseau, 1755, ‘Discourse on the Origins of Inequality Among Men’

Wolff, 2016, An Introduction to Political Philosophy

Okin, 2013, Women in Western Political Thought

Cohen, 2010, A Free Community of Equals

Waldron, 1993, Rights and Majorities: Rousseau revisited

Question 24

What is the no-rights objection to Rousseau’s political system?

Answer 24

Rousseau’s political system fails to protect freedom - in fact, it endangers it - because there is no place in Rousseau’s philosophy for individual rights.

Evidence:
- The contract involves “the complete transfer of each associate, with all his rights, to the whole community.”
- There can be no guaranteed rights, since “it is contrary to the nature of the body politic that the sovereign should impose on itself a law that it cannot infringe.”
- “The right that each individual has over his property is always subordinate to the right that the community has over everyone.”

Question 25

What are responses to the no-rights objection to Rousseau’s political system?

Answer 25

a) Moral rights: Rousseau does think that citizens have rights which the community must respect. To reflect a genuine GW, the laws must secure each associate’s basic interests in life, liberty and property. Each associate therefore has a fundamental moral right, held against the community, that the laws protect his basic interests in life, liberty and property. (A moral right here is a claim of justice that others are under a duty to respect.)

b) Popular constitutionalism: Rousseau is not against the state having a constitution in which basic rights against the government are defined. Indeed, the basic job of the Sovereign is precisely to define such a constitution. But no constitution can itself be elevated above the Sovereign because this would be inconsistent with the people retaining the power to will all laws they are required to obey.

Question 26

What role does the censor play in Rousseau’s political system and what are problems with this?

Answer 26

The censor, rather than being an arbiter of public opinion, merely declares it. Rousseau argues that we need more than good laws to make a good society; we need the right cultural sentiment, and this sentiment can be reinforced by a censorial figure. For example, a well-respected person, who voices the core values of the population, can cause those values to be better adhered to, without either changing those values or forcing their adherence.

Objection: the censor can only bring about these proposed benefits if he has a strong grasp of the GW. But the very purpose of the Sovereign’s vote is that it is the only way to reveal the GW. If the censor has this grasp, the need for the accuracy of the Sovereign’s vote, and thus the need for the censor, collapses.

Question 27

What role does the legislator play in Rousseau’s polity?

Answer 27

• The legislator proposes laws which the Sovereign must then vote on.
• Citizens respect the legislator because of his charisma and command of respect.
• Who educates the educator (legislator)? -Rousseau does not justify sufficiently the mechanism by which effective legislative figures are trained.
• Rousseau rejects the view that some are born with more authority to rule over others. In his discussion of the character of the legislator, he comes dangerously close to contradicting this.

Question 28

What is the no-checks-and-balances objection to Rousseau’s political system?

Answer 28

Although Rousseau acknowledges that citizens have moral rights that the citizen assembly is obliged to respect in making the laws, the political system he envisages lacks the checks and balances needed to secure these rights against rapid shifts in public mood.

Question 29

What are responses to the no-checks-and-balances objection to Rousseau’s political system?

Answer 29

a) Checks and balances are unnecessary because the Sovereign, by its nature, cannot will tyrannical laws. The people will not make laws that burden some citizens heavily, because all laws apply equally to all, and no person will vote for a law that is burdensome to himself. However, this relies on the assumption that, because laws apply equally to all, any burdens they place on people will be experienced equally by all. This is simply not true; e.g. the prohibition of theft will burden kleptomaniacs more than other citizens.

b) Checks and balances are necessary, but Rousseau does have them by virtue of his Sovereign-government model. The sovereign exercises a check on the government by the latter’s elective responsibility to the former. But the objection in question demands a check on the Sovereign, not the government – does Rousseau accommodate this? In Letters from the Mountain, Rousseau suggests that the power to propose laws may lie primarily with the government, with the Sovereign holding the power of final decision over whether proposed laws are accepted. By reserving the power of proposal to the government, we reduce the risk that law-making will reflect fickle swings in public mood. However, this solution erodes a much greater portion of the Sovereign’s power than the majority of Rousseau’s writing would deem reasonable.

Question 30

What is the lack of lifestyle choice objection to Rousseau’s political system?

Answer 30

Rousseau’s political system works only if citizens are public-spirited enough. In order to ensure that they are sufficiently public-spirited, the state must actively shape its citizens’ characters, through the civil religion and patriotic education. This denies them adequate freedom of life-style choice.

Question 31

What are responses to the lack of lifestyle choice objection to Rousseau’s political system?

Answer 31

a) Rousseau rejects ‘moralistic’ legislation. Rousseau explicitly tells us that the Sovereign may legislate to regulate behaviour only where this is necessary for the common good, not to promote behaviour that is judged to be good or virtuous independently of how it affects the security of such interests. Rousseau invokes the harm principle: everyone is perfectly free to do any act that is not harmful to others.

b) The drastic extent of the character-influence of Rousseau’s measures implied by this objection is not justified. Neither the civil religion nor patriotic education need dominate every sphere of belief; indeed, Rousseau explicitly holds the civil religion to be compatible with any of the main deontic religions. At the same time, the stability of a free society arguably depends on its members understanding and having allegiance to some basic shared notions of fairness and mutual respect. Rousseau’s measures amount only to the reasonable notion that there is a balance to be struck. That said, Rousseau does allude to quite a heavy burden placed on citizens: “as soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens…the state is not far from its fall”; “if each citizen is nothing and can do nothing without the rest…legislation is at the highest possible point of perfection.”

Question 32

What is the disagreement objection to Rousseau’s political system?

Answer 32

Rousseau’s political system only reconciles freedom with authority on the assumption that public-spirited citizens support every law unanimously; but usually, they will disagree about which law best serves the common good, and some citizens will then be required to obey laws that they have not themselves willed, and so they will be unfree.

Question 33

What is Rousseau’s response to the disagreement objection?

Answer 33

When citizens vote, they should express a judgment as to what best promotes the common good; if I am in the minority, then this shows I made a mistaken judgment; but in following the will of the majority I still follow my own will, because what I most deeply will is whatever law happens best to promote the common good (and this is the law the majority has identified).
Rousseau rejects the common response that, by agreeing to the social contract, each citizen wills for every citizen to be bound by the Sovereign’s decision. Thus, even when one opposes a majority, one still wills, over and above the particular law at hand, that everyone, including themselves, be bound by the majority. According to Rousseau, the Sovereign “cannot say ‘what he wills tomorrow, I too shall will’…If then the people promises simply to obey, by that very act it dissolves itself.”

Question 34

What is Rousseau’s notion of being “forced to be free” and how does he defend this?

Answer 34

Rousseau adopts a positive notion of freedom: one makes a free choice by choosing as a perfectly rational agent would. A perfectly rational agent would always choose that which is in accordance with the GW. The majority reveals the GW. Therefore, those in the minority have not made a free choice. By compelling them to act as they would have done had they possessed positive freedom, the contract forces them to be free.

Question 35

What is the issue with Rousseau’s notion of being “forced to be free”?

Answer 35

positive freedom is not freedom. The concept of a perfectly rational agent is inherently consequentialist. If freedom lies in being a perfectly rational agent, and that which makes an agent perfectly rational is the goodness of the consequences of the choices he makes, then Rousseau seems unavoidably to equate freedom with good consequences. But this is not what we mean by freedom. Put another way, Rousseau’s logic implies that it impossible for a choice to be both freely made and wrong – this is ridiculous.