Download Rousseau, Social Contract, cont.

Rousseau
Social Contract, cont.
PHIL 1003
2008-09
Sovereign (1.7, II.1-2)
• Sovereign = whole people willing GW (like polis)’
• Sovereign cannot alienate part of itself;
• Sovereign is not Government:
– Gov’t is merely agent (executive) of sovereign!
• Sov. cannot be obligated by a law it may not change,
e.g. a Bill of Rights
• Ex: Great Britain: parliamentary supremacy;
• No need to guarantee citizens’ rights:
– Sovereign could never want to hurt part of itself:
– “The Sovereign, by the mere fact that it is, is always everything
that it ought to be”;
– Each wills general will, so no disagreement is possible (1.7.5).
How is sovereignty exercised?
• Legislative power is life force of Sovereign
(III.12.1)
• Exercised by assembled people, not by
representatives:
– “fixed and periodic assemblies” (III.13.1)
– “Sovereignty cannot be represented…”
(III.15.5)
– “The English people thinks that it is free;…it is
free only during the election of members of
Parliament…” (III.15.5).
Two aspects of the General Will
As standard
• Conceptual
• Even hypothetical
– common good;
– public utility,
• As collective decision:
– Not your private
interest or
– sum of private or
partial interests of
some citizens
– Sum of small
differences
– Of each expressing his
own opinion.
Enforcement of GW—Totalitarian?
• Each has a particular will (private interest) as
individual;
• And general will as citizen;
• As an individual he may not want to give what is
required by general will/Sovereign;
• Hence Sovereign needs to enforce compliance:
– “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be
constrained to do so by the entire body”;
– “he shall be forced to be free” (1.7.8).
Death Penalty (II.5)
• enemy of the Sovereign is “forced to be free” (1.7.8);
• “…it is in order not to become the victim of an assassin
that one consents to die if one becomes an assassin
oneself”;
• “Besides every evil-doer who attacks social rights
becomes a rebel and a traitor to the fatherland by his
crimes, by violating its laws he ceases to be a member
of it, and even enters into war with it. Then the
preservation of the State is incompatible with his own,
one of the two has to perish, and when the guilty man is
put to death it is less as a citizen than as an enemy.”
Qualifications to Death penalty
• “…frequent harsh punishments are always
a sign of weakness of laziness in the
Government.
• “There is not a single wicked man who
could not be made good for something..
One only has the right to put to death,
even as an example, someone who
cannot be preserved without danger.”
The GW may err (II.3)
• “…the general will is always upright…but it does
not follow…that the people’s deliberations are
always equally upright”;
• “By itself the people always wills the good, but
by itself it does not always see it”;
• “One always wants one’s good, but one does
not always see it” (II.3.1);
– Perception vs truth;
• “The general will is always upright, but the
judgment which guides it is not always
enlightened” (II.6.10).
Will of all vs general will (II.3.2)
• Will of all does NOT = general will!
• GW = common interest
• But GW can be derived from “sum of small
[private] differences”:
– “…if, from these same wills, one takes away
the pluses and the minuses which cancel
each other out, what is left as the sums of the
differences is the general will” (II.3.2).
Assumptions behind GW
• Perfect information
• No political parties, ‘PACs’, lobbies,
factions:
• “no partial society in the State, and every citizen
state[s] only his own opinion” (II.3.4).
• Example: “troops of peasants seen attending to
affairs of State under an oak tree and always
acting wisely” (IV.1.1).
Public Utility Limitation (II.4.3)
• “It is agreed that each man alienates by
the social pact only that portion of his
power, his goods, his freedom, which it is
important for the community to be able to
use, but it should also be agreed to that
the Sovereign is alone judge of that
importance.”
Why is GW
“indestructible” (IV.1)?
The Social Pact/Sovereign
• An “advantageous exchange” (II.4.10)
• Not permanent:
– Even Sparta and Roman republic perished (III.11.1)
– Usurpations by gov’t may destroy it (III.10.6)
• Unique feature of Rousseau’s SC:
• Each contracts only w/ himself:
– Contracts to obey the universal moral law he
prescribes to himself (Kant follows this);
– Obeying only himself, remains as free as before.
Degeneration of
sovereignty, social pact
•
•
•
•
•
Suspension of assemblies;
Usurpation of sovereign authority by Gov’t;
Increase in wealth, size;
Increase in private diversions;
citizens no longer public-minded:
– Res publica, public thing disregarded;
• mercenaries fight wars (III.15).
Degeneration, cont.
• Social bond loosens
• Officials proliferate
• Factions, parties proliferate
– Esp. when one faction is dominant (II.3.3):
• “the result you have is no longer the sum of small
differences, but one single difference”;
• “the opinion that prevails is nothing but a private
opinion.”
Problem:
Can the SC be dissolved?
Yes, see III.10.6
Aristotle on Democracy
• Not rule of the best: aristocracy, kingship,
aristocracy, polity
• But not worst regime either—these are:
– tyranny,
– oligarchy
• Qualified endorsement of democracy:
–
–
–
–
Democracy = best of worst;
Democracy exhibits collective wisdom;
Diners, not cooks, should judge quality of meal;
Large group harder to corrupt than a small one.
Rousseau on democratic gov’t
“a genuine Democracy never has existed, and
never will exist” (III.4.3)
“It is against the natural order that the greater
number govern and the smaller number be
governed” (III.4.3);
Subject to “civil wars and intestine turmoil”;
“If there were a people of Gods, they would govern
themselves democratically. So perfect a Gov’t is
not suited to men” (III.4.[ ]).
Freedom is like robust food,
or wine:
not for all peoples (DOI, Epistle;
SC, III.8.1).
On what distinction
does Rousseau’s skepticism
about democracy rest?
(Hint: sovereignty is democratic)
Aristocratic republic
• 3 kinds aristocracy:
– Natural, elective, hereditary
– Rousseau prefers elective
– DOI Dedicatory epistle: people elect the best as their
officials
– “the best and most natural order is to have the wisest
govern the multitude, so long as it is certain that they
will govern if for its advantage and not for their own”
(III.5.7).
– “moderation among the rich and contentment among
the poor” (approaching equality, but not “rigorous”)
(III.5.9).
Questions
• Book I of The Social Contract begins with the claim:
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
• What are these restrictions on man's liberty and how are
they affected by the social contract?
• Rousseau says that "whenever one believes one sees
sovereignty divided, one is mistaken.” How can
sovereignty not be divided when the individual's will is
not necessarily the general will?
• What does Rousseau mean by the "general will?" (Does
he mean that it's the will that's most represented?)
• What is Rousseau's input on equality for individuals
under the Social Contract?
Different views of freedom
• Communitarian:
– Aristotle: polis regulates entire life of citizen
– Rousseau: Sovereign has right to demand anything required by
“public utility,” but nothing more (II.4.4).
• Libertarian:
– Locke: private domain of life, liberty, property—inviolable;
– Mill: only justification for “interfering with the liberty of action of
any[one]…is self-protection” (9);
– State may require “positive acts for the benefit of others” (10);
• Can someone be punished for failing to prevent evil?
(11)—more difficult to determine.
Mill on Freedom
• Key liberties:
– Thought,
– Expression,
– Association
– Pursue one’s good in one’s own way (12)
– This may mean letting others do things they
think may benefit them even if you believe
otherwise!
Problem
What about use of substances such as alcohol,
marijuana and other drugs?
Does Mill believe the state has the right to
restrict individuals’ use of these?
If yes, under what conditions?
Question on Mill
• According to Mill’s Harm Principle, “the only purpose for
which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilised community, against his will, is to
prevent harm from others. His own good, either physical
or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
• Is harm necessary to justify regulation? Should
government punish individuals who interfere with others
out of altruism? Take Mill's example of Good Samaritan
laws. Suppose a man fails to rescue the drowning child
when he can do so at little or no cost to himself. It
seems that his failure to rescue harms the child. Should
the government, in this case, punish this man? Does
failure to provide benefits always count as harm?