JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU

Brief Background

 born June 28, 1712 in Geneva and died July 2, 1778 in Ermenonville, France just as the turmoil in
France was erupting
 one of the most important philosophers of the French enlightenment.
 born to Isaac Rousseau, a clock maker, and Suzanne Bernard, who tragically died only a few days
after his birth
 moved to Paris, in 1742. There he met Denis Diderot and served as a contributor for his
Encyclopédie, a radical magazine
 his first major philosophical work, Discourse on Arts and Sciences, 1750. Followed by Discourse on
the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, 1754, he finished Of the Social Contract, Principles
of Political Right, 1762, one month after, Rousseau’s next book appeared, Èmile, or on education
 Given their radical and innovative nature, both the Contrat and Èmile caused major scandals and
were burned in public.
 In 1772, he finished his last political work, Considerations on the Government of Poland, published
1782.

The Nature of the Primitive Man

Rousseau stated in Discourse of Arts and Sciences that man is guided by two sentiments: self-
interest and pity. He could not be good or bad, virtuous or vicious since he has no moral obligations
with others. Man’s sense of compassion is the original sentiment from which all latter virtues flow.
Reason and thinking come afterward and isolate man from his fellows, whereas compassion unites him
with others.
In the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, he stated that without property to quarrel over and a
government to enforce inequality, man’s fundamental human nature is compassionate and free of strife.
Political associations we participate in shape our thoughts and behaviour to a great extent.
Rousseau’s hypothetical state of nature is pre-societal, before man was corrupted by politics, man
had none of the unpleasant characteristics stated by Hobbes. In the state of nature, man is free to do
whatever he wants, but his desires and impulses are not tempered by reason. Man has physical
freedom but lacks morality and rationality.
In The Social Contract, there is a much greater appreciation of civil society as compared with the
state of nature stated in his previous writings. He said that, in the state of nature, man is guided by
instinct only, whereas in society he is inspired by justice and morality.

The Origin of the Civil Society

The origin of the civil society can be traced from the formation of a social compact up to the
need for making justice effective to men the need for a union of understanding and will in the social
body.
The Social Compact

Rousseau assumes that man will reach to a point at which the obstacles, such as the shortage
of resources which could lead to a greater resistance that would hinder man’s preservation in the state.
According to Rousseau, when this happens, eventually it would result to the disposal of another
individual for the other’s maintenance in the state. Rousseau asserts that man, even if he is seen to be
in an aggregation, he is still only an individual whose interest is apart from the others. Without common
interest, the members of the aggregation remains scattered and of no unity. As a result, there is as yet
neither public good nor body politic.
But in order to overcome the resistance and continue to preserve life, Rousseau states that men
should form a sum of forces (which men cannot be created but only unite and direct the existing ones)
that can arise only when several persons come together. Therefore, the formation of a civil society
originates from the creation of the social compact which emerged from the problem of man seeking a
form of association that will defend and protect each person and his goods and while uniting himself
with the others may still obey himself and remain as free as before.
In the social compact of Rousseau, there are laws or conditions to be followed.
1. There is no common superior to decide between the associates
2. No associate has any right to make himself burdensome to others therefore, he
should not demand more than what the compact could provide

Man in the Civil Society and the Civil Liberty

In the formation of social compact where social conditions and laws exist comes a civil society
where man is inspired by justice and morality and is forced to act different principles and to
consult his reason before listening. Through this, man, instead of a stupid and unimaginable animal,
has become an intelligent being and a man. As a result, man gains in return abilities that are so
stimulated and developed, ideas that have become more extended, feelings that are more outstanding
and his whole soul so uplifted.
Moreover, in exchange for the deprivation of the “unlimited right for everything” or natural liberty
that man acquired from nature is his civil liberty and property rights in all he possesses. Civil
liberty, unlike natural liberty, has a stronger and more reasonable and sensible foundation which are
the laws and rules of the political community. This foundation of the civil liberty determines what each
member may and may not do in relation to other members.

Law

The very concept of a civil society requires laws. To achieve justice in the society, conventions
and laws are needed. Laws, according to Rousseau, are the conditions of civil association, where the
people, being subject to the laws, should be their author. The conditions of the civil society must be
regulated solely by those who come together to form it.
The Legislator

Rousseau’s definition of a civil society involves the presence of a legislator. The need for a
legislator can be rooted from:
1. Individuals must be compelled to bring their wills in accordance with their reason
2. The public must be taught to know what it wills

If the two are accomplished, public enlightenment will yield to the union of understanding and
will in the social body and both the individual and public can work exactly together. Also the whole
social body is raised to its highest power.
The legislator or the lawmaker is defined by Rousseau as a superior intelligence witnessing all
the desires of men without experiencing any of them. The legislator must be
capable of:
1. changing human nature
2. transforming each individual,
3. altering man’s constitution to strengthen it,and
4. substituting an incomplete and moral existence for the physical and independent existence that
put all people together.

Therefore, according to Rousseau, the legislator must take away man’s own resources and give
him new ones that are alien to him and cannot be utilized without the help of other men.

Sovereignty and the General Will

The Sovereign

Sovereign is the voice of the law and the absolute authority within a given state. In Rousseau’s
sovereign, all the citizens are acting collectively through a social contract. Together, they voice the
general will and the laws of the state. The Sovereign, being composed of the people, does not have or
can have any interest contrary to theirs.
As a sovereign who is above the law, each citizen is required to do something in relation to the
whole. He should not be selfish of his own interests. Being above the law, the sovereign is the one who
employs the government as a representative of the people in charge of carrying out the general will.
And since it is the sovereign that appointed the government, thus it can always alter the form of
government and replace its leaders as it chooses.
Yet, people can have their own particular interests. This nature of the citizen as a subject gives no
security of the sovereign to be able to fulfil its undertakings unless given by the subject’s loyalty.
Obeying the General Will is the expression of moral freedom of the individual. What it wills is the
true interest of what everyone wants whether they realize it or not. When an individual is forced to obey
it, he is really obeying himself, the true and free individual.
Inalienability and Indivisibility of Sovereignty

The sovereign is inalienable and indivisible, it cannot be represented, divided, or broken up in any
way: only all the people speaking collectively can be sovereign. Power may be transmitted but not the
will
It is inalienable since it is nothing less than the exercise of general will and who is no less than a
collective being, cannot be represented except by himself. If people simply obey, by that very act it
dissolves itself and loses what makes it a people; the moment a master exists, there is no longer a
sovereign.
It is indivisible for either the will is general or not, it is the will of the body of the people which is an
act of sovereignty and constitutes law; or a will of only a part of it when it is merely a particular will
which is an act of magistracy at most a decree.

General Will

General will aims at the common good and should come from all and apply to all. It is always
right and is geared for public advantage. The general will is not the will of the majority since, for it to be
general it does not necessarily mean that it is unanimous; rather, every vote must be counted. Yet, it
does not necessarily mean that the people are always correct since the will of the people is leaned for
our own good. At times, people seem to will what is bad; this is because of deceptions rather than
corruption of the mind.
The general will is an additional will, somehow distinct from any particular will or will of all. Society
is coordinated and unified by the general will.
General will expresses what is best for the state as a whole. The general will reflects the real will
of each member of society. The general will is the overriding good to which each person is willing to
sacrifice all other goods, including all particular private wills.
In small groups, will of the group is general in relation to themselves, but in relation to the
sovereign, the will that they have is already called the particular will. The sum of these particular wills
is called the will of all.

Infallibility of the General Will

The general will becomes the sum of the differences.

1. If, when the people, with adequate information held its deliberations and given that the
citizens had no communication with one another, the grand total of the small differences
would be the general will. This decision will always be good.
2. When there are associations with particular will, there are no longer as many votes as
there are men, but only as there are associations. The difference becomes less numerous
and give a less general result.
3. When one of the associations is so great that it prevails over the others, the result is no
longer a small difference but a single difference. It is no longer a general will but purely
particular.
 Therefore, for the general will to be able to express itself, there shall be no partial society within
the state and that each citizen should think only of his own thoughts.

Limits of the Sovereign Power

As soon as the Sovereign demands, a citizen ought to render the State, but the Sovereign
cannot impose nor wish upon its subjects any chains that are useless for the community.
What is an act of sovereignty? It is a conviction between the body and each of its members. It is
legitimate, (social contract), equitable (common to all), useful (can have no other object than the
general good) and stable (guaranteed by the public force and the supreme power.
As long as the subjects submit only to the agreements, they obey no one but their own will. The
limit of the sovereign power depends upon the citizen’s undertakings. So, the sovereign power being
absolute, sacred and inviolable does not and cannot exceed the limits of general agreements.

Government: The Agent of the General Will

Every action is produced by the concurrence of two causes: (1) moral, that is the will which
determines the act; and (2) physical, that is the power which executes it. For example, when a man
walks toward an object, he must first, have the will to go to the object and second, that his feet should
carry him.
The definition of the government by Rousseau is comparable to the example on the production
of action wherein for the general will to be visible, implemented and practiced, the concurrence of the
legislative and executive power is needed. The sovereign employs the government as a
representative of the people in charge of carrying out the general will. This symbolizes that the
government is itself an agent of the general will. Morever, since it is the sovereign that appointed the
government, it can always alter the form of government and replace its leaders as it chooses.
The body politic, like every action, needs the correspondence of force and will to be able to do
and acquire a thing. The body politic distinguishes the two by considering will under the legislative
power and force under the executive power. According to Rousseau, unlike the legislative power which
belongs to the people and can belong to it alone, the executive power cannot belong to the generality.
This is because the executive power consists wholly with particular act, which fall outside the ability of
the law, and therefore of the Sovereign whose acts must always be laws. The executive functions
should be exercised by special organs in the government but they are completely subordinated to the
sovereign people. There is no hint or suggestion of separation, or balance of powers.
Government, as described by Rousseau, is the supreme administration and the legitimate
exercise of the executive power.
For the government to carry out the general will, it must have its own life and will and be able to
distinguish itself from the sovereign. The members of the government, entrusted with the supreme
administration, are called magistrates or kings while the whole body or the people themselves
are called the prince. However, if the Sovereign desires to govern, or the magistrate to give laws of if
the subjects refuse to obey, disorder takes the place of regularity, force and will no longer act together,
and the State is dissolved and falls into a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power.
 Since the sovereign, is described by Rousseau as inalienable and indivisible, the government is
only an intermediate body created between the subjects and the Sovereign with the purpose of
securing mutual correspondence of the subjects and the sovereign by the execution of the laws.
Moreover, the government gets from the Sovereign the orders it gives the people.

Moral Liberty as the End of Civil Society

When the rules and laws of a political community are created by all its members, civil liberty
now becomes moral liberty. Man solely acquires moral liberty only through the civil society. Man
becomes a master of himself because he is abiding the laws that he prescribed himself, with this, man
becomes free.
Natural Liberty Civil Liberty Moral Liberty
Devoid of any reflective or rational Firmer and more rational
elements
From the laws and rules of the
political community which
Boundary is simply the strength of Laws and rules are created by all
determine what each member may
the individual to assert himself the members of the society
or may not do in relation to other
members

Man is free in relation to others Man is free in relation to himself

Law limits freedom but there cannot be freedom without law. If man abides the laws set by other
people, he becomes morally unfree. Self-imposed law is the closest approximation to freedom that man
can attain in civil society.

The Right and Obligations of Citizens

Every citizen can render service to the State he ought to render as soon as the Sovereign
demands it. But the sovereign cannot impose upon its subjects any fetters that are useless to the
community.
Man cannot employ representatives to articulate the general will because sovereignty cannot
be transferred. They also cannot use money to avoid their responsibilities, because this corrupts the
state and destroys civil liberty.
The citizen gives his consent to all the laws, including those which are passed in spite of his
opposition, and even those which punish him when he dares to break any of them.
When voting, each person must assess whether a law is in accordance with the general will
- not whether it supports his private interests. Thus, he has an obligation to follow even those laws
to which he does not give his consent. In a healthy state, people share common sentiment and
show unanimity in the assemblies.
Lastly, in order to constrain those whom human prudence could not be moved, the sovereign
recourses to divine authority and credit the gods. This choice of the sovereign also make man obey
freely, and ready and willing to be taught the yoke of the public happiness. The sovereign to the point
imposes a set of values that are necessary to being a good citizen. This system of beliefs, which
Rousseau calls "civil religion," consists of belief in a God and the afterlife, universal justice, and respect
for the sanctity of the social contract. The state has the power to banish from the state anyone who
opposes the tenets of civil religion.

Critique

- Rousseau’s general will, in which it comes from the common interest, is good and speaks for the
people since it is for the common good of the sovereign.
- Rousseau’s idea on man having obligation to follow even those laws to which he does not give his
consent is unfair and contradictory because we believe that the main purpose of man is to survive
and in order to one must save himself of the things that may harm him.
- Although Rousseau promotes democracy, there should be the presence of all the people which
only applies to a small country wherein all people can be easily called.
- Rousseau’s work comes out to be vague since he does not describe the people negatively since
we believe that he truly sees man to be good.

Reporters:
Bercero, Raye Cielo R., Pocong, Milagros B. (BS Biology – IV)