Jean Jacques Rousseau Research Paper
Jean Jacques Rousseau led a turbulent life. His mother died at his birth and his father deserted him shortly thereafter. Running from one set of friends to another as a young man he did settle long enough to do some serious writing from time to time. The Social Contract is considered one of his best works. This essay describes the relationship of man with society. Contrary to his earlier work, Rousseau claimed that the state of nature is "brutish condition without law or morality, and that there are good men only a result of society 's presence. In the state of nature, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men. Because he can be more successful facing threats by joining with other men, he has the impetus to do so. He joins together with his fellow men to form the collective human
…show more content…
presence known as `society. '" "The Social Contract" is the `compact ' agreed to among men that sets the conditions for membership in this society (phil/rousseau.html).
Rousseau, considered a frontrunner of modern socialism, was one of the first modern writers to seriously attack the institution of private property, and therefore is considered a forebear of Communism as well. He questioned the assumption that the will of the majority is always the correct one, and he argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all within the state, regardless of the will of the majority.
One of the most important principles of Rousseau 's political philosophy is that politics and morality should not be separated. Rousseau felt that when a state fails to act in a moral fashion, it ceases to function in the proper manner and ceases to exert genuine authority over the individual. According to Rousseau as well, the second most important principle is freedom, which the state is created to preserve (phil/rousseau.html).
The ideas Rousseau held about education have influenced modern educational theory in many ways. Rousseau minimizes the importance of book learning, and recommends that a child 's emotions should be educated before his reason. He placed a special emphasis as well on learning by experience
(phil/rousseau.html).
Rousseau felt that if he were elected to office he would be able to take action on those things he perceived as being wrong in societal ways. Since he did not hold public office however, he did the only thing he could which was to write on those subjects that he felt about strongly.
The Subject of the First Book
Rousseau writes that man is born free and yet everywhere he turns he is in chains. He contends that while man may think himself the master of others he himself is, in fact, a greater slave than they are. He attempts to answer this question in this, the first chapter of his essay. He attempts to make us understand that when people are forced to obey, they might do so. But when people are able to shake off this force and become true to themselves under the rights of liberty, they obey even more so. Rousseau maintains that social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. He explains that while this right does not come from nature it must be founded on conventions.
The First Societies
The most ancient of all societies Rousseau claims, is the family. This is also the only society that is a natural one. The children remain bound to their parents only so long as they need them. Once they are able to survive on their own then each party, the children and the parents, both return to their previous independent state. If this is not followed, that is, if the children continue to remain with their parents then it is no longer a natural convention but a voluntary one, and one by which the family is united only in general principle.
This liberty is a result of the true nature of man. Man 's first instinct is to provide for his own preservation, to tend to his own needs, and as soon as he retains the proper means to provide for himself so that he becomes his own master. It is here that Rousseau likens the ruler of a political society to the father in a family. The ruler, he says, corresponds to the father and the people to the children. And as all of these have been born free and equal, they alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The difference here is, of course, that in the family the love of the father for his children repays him for the efforts of taking care of them while in the
State the commanding takes the place of love.
Rousseau 's influence in many of his works were the liberty and slavery polarization in society and they often served to challenge readers to confront their feelings about these subjects, thus helping them to resolve these differences. Rousseau 's influence and popularity was at its height during this time when he was regarded as the main spokesperson on this type movement for that time.
The Right of the Strongest
"The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will - at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?"
The mere fact that a measure has been enacted by a commonly accepted method does not of itself entitle it to respect as being just, or perhaps even to the title of `law ' at all if it defies higher principles. There was, it was believed, a role that man was to follow and that role was to live in accord with the plans of the universe. The natural order was of divine nature, and all things possess a divine nature. The natural order was good, and the universe was good. The beliefs, too, were that this natural order could not be changed. Rousseau felt it desirable, first, that there should be a dominant and royal element in the society; second that some powers should be granted and assigned to the influence of the aristocracy; and third, that certain matters should be reserved to the people for decision and judgment.
Rousseau emphasized that we will see the truth of what we say still more clearly when we observe the state progressing and coming to its perfect form by course of development natural to itself. The conclusion, in fact, that the wisdom of our ancestors deserves praise even for the many institutions which, as we will find, they adopted from other states and made much better in our state than they had been in the places where they originated and whence they were derived.
Rousseau felt that in most cases men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth. This, at least, was the way Rousseau described his feelings for the natural order of things. Not content to blindly believe in that, which he could not prove, Rousseau was considered one of the great thinkers of his time. We know that Rousseau was a great proponent of natural law and he believed all things could be explained with a sound idea. Characteristic of Rousseau 's constant quest for the concept of the meaning of slavery, the journey of this understanding has come to represent myriad things to myriad people, ultimately rendering any universal explanation virtually impossible. The problem with this meaning as it applies to value and valuing is attempting to successfully pinpoint a single yet comprehensive connotation to its concept; however, this cannot be achieved as long as any two individuals harbor decidedly different interpretations.
Is life and our liberty truly determined or is it the result of man 's free will? In establishing the answer to this question, it is essential that one understand the difference between the two representations. When one is cast forward by way of determinism, it is as though one has absolutely no control over the various and sundry occurrences that take place during one 's life.
Free will speaks to the concept of having full authority over one 's aspirations and ultimate direction, reflecting the exact opposite of those ruled by determinism.
The Slavery Discussion
"Men are not corrupted by the exercise of power or debased by the habit of obedience, but by the exercise of a power which they believe to be illegitimate, and by obedience to a rule which they consider to be usurped and oppressive" -Alexis De Tocqueville
This quote relates directly to what Jean Jacques Rousseau believed. In his writings Rousseau tried to stress the different methods by which man could be held as a slave. Rousseau recognized the fact that for people living in democratic societies to have freedom of religion is of utmost importance.
When one 's religious practices are not allowed to be chosen but are instead dictated then the inherent faith and ability to think creatively of one 's beliefs is somehow pushed aside and can get lost or destroyed in the aftermath. This subsequently weakens a people, allowing the higher power of government in a non-democratic society to keep a strict handhold over its subjects. This is quite useful for the powers in command as it helps emphasize the servitude of the people. The lack of free will makes a populace fearful and when found to have some freedom actually will be found to surrender it themselves.
Rousseau would have been moved to express that the arts are a most important facet of true freedom in a society. For it is when a person is allowed to express his own true passion through the love of the arts, allowed only in a free society, that truth and beauty can prevail. Those countries, which dictate to their people what art they have to practice, will find that those people practice the same art generation through generation, through necessity to put food on the table, and are not working out of the love or passion of what they do. They are working out of the necessity to uphold a reputation. When ranks are done away with and citizens are allowed to pursue that which gives them satisfaction and freedom then great works can be created.
Morals and Slavery
Rousseau wrote in order to change the world, knowing perfectly well that he probably couldn 't, but also knowing that literature is indispensable to the world. The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter, even by a millimeter, the way people look at reality, then you can change it. Rousseau was quite successful in changing his part of the world.
His works sparked controversy and debate, and this is what he wanted.
Rousseau wrote not only to appease his own unrest but also to do his part to make the world a better place. If any of his writings inspired a person to think things out on the topics of which he wrote then his goal, he felt was met.
Rousseau wanted nothing more than to touch people 's lives in a profound way.
Freedom could be found if he could get people to listen, accept and understand it for what it was. The connection from long ago was continuing through them, into the future, so that it would live beyond them, and keeps on continuing as it had always done so before. This was the road to understanding and freedom, and Rousseau was able to give this gift to his readers and friends.
It is important for the student to understand that there exist great many philosophies by which people live their lives. These philosophies help maintain order and a sense of direction that otherwise would merely drift in subconscious thought, which also helps to apply a modicum of understanding to the concept of meaning.
Rousseau felt that to say that a man gives himself gratuitously is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that he who does it is out of his mind. To say the same of a whole people is to suppose a people of madmen; and madness creates no right.
Even if each man could alienate himself, he could not alienate his children: they are born men and free; their liberty belongs to them, and no one but they has the right to dispose of it. Before they come to years of discretion, the father can, in their name, lay down conditions for their preservation and well-being, but he cannot give them irrevocably and without conditions: such a gift is contrary to the ends of nature, and exceeds the rights of paternity. It would therefore be necessary, in order to legitimize an arbitrary government, that in every generation the people should be in a position to accept or reject it; but, were this so, the government would be no longer arbitrary.
These philosophical ideals are what make us the morally minded creatures we strive to be, although their principles are often overlooked or misconstrued. To delve into the concept of slavery is to examine the wide and varying societal rules that bind one to one 's cultural existence. It is important for the student to consider that there is no universally accepted mode of ethical behavior as a means by which to define meaning; rather, what is acceptable for Americans may be deemed inappropriate for another society halfway around the world. Cannibalism may be a perfectly moral and ethical way of life for some ancient tribes, but it is far from that in a more civilized society. To two very diverse cultures, meaning holds quite conflicting representation. Therefore, there is no singular set of ethical disciplines that are adhered to by all sectors.
Distinguishing these moral and ethical actions as regards slavery presses one to determine that if the actions are right or wrong based solely upon to what one is accustomed. This, then, begs the question that asks what denotes right and wrong, and what role does this play in the concept of meaning?
Indeed, it is important for the student to consider that dependent upon the social customs imbedded in such actions, there cannot be any clearly right or clearly wrong standards; without question, any and all moral principles are well founded as they relate to their native cultural tastes.
It is important for the student to consider that given the fact that all of humanity must coexist on the same planet, there has to be a modicum of consideration with regard to values as they relate to meaning. If not, then there would be no sense of tolerance or respect for individual life. It is important for the student to consider that people have to abide by an ethical code to ensure proper behavior among the world 's population. Yet, again, who is to determine what this ethical code will represent, and who is to say that all cultures and all communities must follow it?
Because of a man 's belief, he is sometimes asked to provide justification for such a claim in order to defend it. If objective moral truth did, indeed, exist, people would then live their lives in accordance to just one moral body of law. However, this is not the case, as all of the planet 's people follow many moral codes that remain inconsistent with any other, ultimately serving to separate the many representations of meaning. In actuality, and based upon this argument, Rousseau seems to imply there is no such thing as objective moral truths as they exist in the contemporary world. It is quite difficult to connect a society 's ethical obligation based upon what one unrelated segment of society believes it to be; rather, it must be developed as a result of sociological and anthropological considerations.
To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with man 's nature; to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts.
Finally, it is an empty and contradictory convention that sets up, on the one side, absolute authority, and, on the other, unlimited obedience. Is it not clear that we can be under no obligation to a person from whom we have the right to exact everything? Does not this condition alone, in the absence of equivalence or exchange, in itself involve the nullity of the act? For what right can my slave have against me, when all that he has belongs to me, and, his right being mine, this right of mine against myself is a phrase devoid of meaning (Rousseau PG).
Clearly, an individual 's moral standard is as it relates to his own existence, in turn reflecting an individual 's association with his or her concept of meaning.
It is not expected that an aboriginal comprehend the concept of ethics when he still utilizes wooden sticks as eating utensils.
Similarly, one cannot believe that just because a certain ethical code is respected in one are considered that if objective values are such that they do not exist, then it can be stipulated that there remains no earthly reason for a person to care about anything, including the concept of meaning. This would, then, serve to imply that God 's word has no value, and there would be absolutely no limits placed upon what is tolerated within a civilized society.
Philosophers have long argued that the two repel each other in their quest to maintain sole ownership of the concept; however, in order to effectively come to terms with these diverse and fundamental ideals, one must first ascertain that morality is, indeed, a concept worth investigating as representation of meaning. Thus, one must determine whether morality is subjective or objective before one can truly comprehend the
concept.
Rousseau believed that men may have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.
But, "as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces great enough to overcome the resistance.
These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive power, and cause to act in concert" (Rousseau PG).
The supreme ultimate authority, arbiter, reference, or determinant of what is ethically and morally good, right and true, that has been used most widely and most commonly recognized throughout history, has been the concept, in various forms, of man 's creator. Along with this, the cosmic forces that move and control the universe the eyes of modern science becomes the vast interdependent and interwoven matrix of all evolving nature, a tremendously complex concept. This includes all of the immutable and emergent forces of cosmic causation that control everything from high energy sub-nuclear particles on up to galaxies--not forgetting the causal properties that govern brains and behavior at the individual and social levels.
The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. In other words, mere heartfelt emotion can not explain away actions that would take place in the physical world. "In practical matters the end is not mere speculative knowledge of what is to be done, but rather the doing of it. It is not enough to know about Virtue, then, but we must endeavor to possess it, and to use it, or to take any other steps that may make us good" (Aristotle, PG). Aristotle, ever the scientific thinker, stressed that there is no speculation. There is only knowing and doing. This still holds true today; we know that not only knowing about something is enough, but that action must be taken in order to see it through to completion.
Summary and Conclusion
"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." (Rousseau PG). This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.
The clauses of the social contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective. So, "although they have perhaps never been formally set forth, they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until, on the violation of the social compact, each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty in favor of which he renounced it" (Rousseau PG).
Rousseau sums up his chapter thusly: "I shall end this chapter and this book by remarking on a fact on which the whole social system should rest: i.e., that, instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right" (Rousseau PG).
Rousseau 's insight, while intriguing to be sure, nonetheless overlooks some major facets of society; such as in the case of bad governments in which equality is only illusory.
Works Cited
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/rousseau.html
http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/mwebster/phil/rousseau.html
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rousseau.htm
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Kemerling, Garth. "Aristotle." At http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/ph/aris.htm
presence known as `society. '" "The Social Contract" is the `compact ' agreed to among men that sets the conditions for membership in this society (phil/rousseau.html).
Rousseau, considered a frontrunner of modern socialism, was one of the first modern writers to seriously attack the institution of private property, and therefore is considered a forebear of Communism as well. He questioned the assumption that the will of the majority is always the correct one, and he argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all within the state, regardless of the will of the majority.
One of the most important principles of Rousseau 's political philosophy is that politics and morality should not be separated. Rousseau felt that when a state fails to act in a moral fashion, it ceases to function in the proper manner and ceases to exert genuine authority over the individual. According to Rousseau as well, the second most important principle is freedom, which the state is created to preserve (phil/rousseau.html).
The ideas Rousseau held about education have influenced modern educational theory in many ways. Rousseau minimizes the importance of book learning, and recommends that a child 's emotions should be educated before his reason. He placed a special emphasis as well on learning by experience
(phil/rousseau.html).
Rousseau felt that if he were elected to office he would be able to take action on those things he perceived as being wrong in societal ways. Since he did not hold public office however, he did the only thing he could which was to write on those subjects that he felt about strongly.
The Subject of the First Book
Rousseau writes that man is born free and yet everywhere he turns he is in chains. He contends that while man may think himself the master of others he himself is, in fact, a greater slave than they are. He attempts to answer this question in this, the first chapter of his essay. He attempts to make us understand that when people are forced to obey, they might do so. But when people are able to shake off this force and become true to themselves under the rights of liberty, they obey even more so. Rousseau maintains that social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. He explains that while this right does not come from nature it must be founded on conventions.
The First Societies
The most ancient of all societies Rousseau claims, is the family. This is also the only society that is a natural one. The children remain bound to their parents only so long as they need them. Once they are able to survive on their own then each party, the children and the parents, both return to their previous independent state. If this is not followed, that is, if the children continue to remain with their parents then it is no longer a natural convention but a voluntary one, and one by which the family is united only in general principle.
This liberty is a result of the true nature of man. Man 's first instinct is to provide for his own preservation, to tend to his own needs, and as soon as he retains the proper means to provide for himself so that he becomes his own master. It is here that Rousseau likens the ruler of a political society to the father in a family. The ruler, he says, corresponds to the father and the people to the children. And as all of these have been born free and equal, they alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The difference here is, of course, that in the family the love of the father for his children repays him for the efforts of taking care of them while in the
State the commanding takes the place of love.
Rousseau 's influence in many of his works were the liberty and slavery polarization in society and they often served to challenge readers to confront their feelings about these subjects, thus helping them to resolve these differences. Rousseau 's influence and popularity was at its height during this time when he was regarded as the main spokesperson on this type movement for that time.
The Right of the Strongest
"The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will - at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?"
The mere fact that a measure has been enacted by a commonly accepted method does not of itself entitle it to respect as being just, or perhaps even to the title of `law ' at all if it defies higher principles. There was, it was believed, a role that man was to follow and that role was to live in accord with the plans of the universe. The natural order was of divine nature, and all things possess a divine nature. The natural order was good, and the universe was good. The beliefs, too, were that this natural order could not be changed. Rousseau felt it desirable, first, that there should be a dominant and royal element in the society; second that some powers should be granted and assigned to the influence of the aristocracy; and third, that certain matters should be reserved to the people for decision and judgment.
Rousseau emphasized that we will see the truth of what we say still more clearly when we observe the state progressing and coming to its perfect form by course of development natural to itself. The conclusion, in fact, that the wisdom of our ancestors deserves praise even for the many institutions which, as we will find, they adopted from other states and made much better in our state than they had been in the places where they originated and whence they were derived.
Rousseau felt that in most cases men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth. This, at least, was the way Rousseau described his feelings for the natural order of things. Not content to blindly believe in that, which he could not prove, Rousseau was considered one of the great thinkers of his time. We know that Rousseau was a great proponent of natural law and he believed all things could be explained with a sound idea. Characteristic of Rousseau 's constant quest for the concept of the meaning of slavery, the journey of this understanding has come to represent myriad things to myriad people, ultimately rendering any universal explanation virtually impossible. The problem with this meaning as it applies to value and valuing is attempting to successfully pinpoint a single yet comprehensive connotation to its concept; however, this cannot be achieved as long as any two individuals harbor decidedly different interpretations.
Is life and our liberty truly determined or is it the result of man 's free will? In establishing the answer to this question, it is essential that one understand the difference between the two representations. When one is cast forward by way of determinism, it is as though one has absolutely no control over the various and sundry occurrences that take place during one 's life.
Free will speaks to the concept of having full authority over one 's aspirations and ultimate direction, reflecting the exact opposite of those ruled by determinism.
The Slavery Discussion
"Men are not corrupted by the exercise of power or debased by the habit of obedience, but by the exercise of a power which they believe to be illegitimate, and by obedience to a rule which they consider to be usurped and oppressive" -Alexis De Tocqueville
This quote relates directly to what Jean Jacques Rousseau believed. In his writings Rousseau tried to stress the different methods by which man could be held as a slave. Rousseau recognized the fact that for people living in democratic societies to have freedom of religion is of utmost importance.
When one 's religious practices are not allowed to be chosen but are instead dictated then the inherent faith and ability to think creatively of one 's beliefs is somehow pushed aside and can get lost or destroyed in the aftermath. This subsequently weakens a people, allowing the higher power of government in a non-democratic society to keep a strict handhold over its subjects. This is quite useful for the powers in command as it helps emphasize the servitude of the people. The lack of free will makes a populace fearful and when found to have some freedom actually will be found to surrender it themselves.
Rousseau would have been moved to express that the arts are a most important facet of true freedom in a society. For it is when a person is allowed to express his own true passion through the love of the arts, allowed only in a free society, that truth and beauty can prevail. Those countries, which dictate to their people what art they have to practice, will find that those people practice the same art generation through generation, through necessity to put food on the table, and are not working out of the love or passion of what they do. They are working out of the necessity to uphold a reputation. When ranks are done away with and citizens are allowed to pursue that which gives them satisfaction and freedom then great works can be created.
Morals and Slavery
Rousseau wrote in order to change the world, knowing perfectly well that he probably couldn 't, but also knowing that literature is indispensable to the world. The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter, even by a millimeter, the way people look at reality, then you can change it. Rousseau was quite successful in changing his part of the world.
His works sparked controversy and debate, and this is what he wanted.
Rousseau wrote not only to appease his own unrest but also to do his part to make the world a better place. If any of his writings inspired a person to think things out on the topics of which he wrote then his goal, he felt was met.
Rousseau wanted nothing more than to touch people 's lives in a profound way.
Freedom could be found if he could get people to listen, accept and understand it for what it was. The connection from long ago was continuing through them, into the future, so that it would live beyond them, and keeps on continuing as it had always done so before. This was the road to understanding and freedom, and Rousseau was able to give this gift to his readers and friends.
It is important for the student to understand that there exist great many philosophies by which people live their lives. These philosophies help maintain order and a sense of direction that otherwise would merely drift in subconscious thought, which also helps to apply a modicum of understanding to the concept of meaning.
Rousseau felt that to say that a man gives himself gratuitously is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that he who does it is out of his mind. To say the same of a whole people is to suppose a people of madmen; and madness creates no right.
Even if each man could alienate himself, he could not alienate his children: they are born men and free; their liberty belongs to them, and no one but they has the right to dispose of it. Before they come to years of discretion, the father can, in their name, lay down conditions for their preservation and well-being, but he cannot give them irrevocably and without conditions: such a gift is contrary to the ends of nature, and exceeds the rights of paternity. It would therefore be necessary, in order to legitimize an arbitrary government, that in every generation the people should be in a position to accept or reject it; but, were this so, the government would be no longer arbitrary.
These philosophical ideals are what make us the morally minded creatures we strive to be, although their principles are often overlooked or misconstrued. To delve into the concept of slavery is to examine the wide and varying societal rules that bind one to one 's cultural existence. It is important for the student to consider that there is no universally accepted mode of ethical behavior as a means by which to define meaning; rather, what is acceptable for Americans may be deemed inappropriate for another society halfway around the world. Cannibalism may be a perfectly moral and ethical way of life for some ancient tribes, but it is far from that in a more civilized society. To two very diverse cultures, meaning holds quite conflicting representation. Therefore, there is no singular set of ethical disciplines that are adhered to by all sectors.
Distinguishing these moral and ethical actions as regards slavery presses one to determine that if the actions are right or wrong based solely upon to what one is accustomed. This, then, begs the question that asks what denotes right and wrong, and what role does this play in the concept of meaning?
Indeed, it is important for the student to consider that dependent upon the social customs imbedded in such actions, there cannot be any clearly right or clearly wrong standards; without question, any and all moral principles are well founded as they relate to their native cultural tastes.
It is important for the student to consider that given the fact that all of humanity must coexist on the same planet, there has to be a modicum of consideration with regard to values as they relate to meaning. If not, then there would be no sense of tolerance or respect for individual life. It is important for the student to consider that people have to abide by an ethical code to ensure proper behavior among the world 's population. Yet, again, who is to determine what this ethical code will represent, and who is to say that all cultures and all communities must follow it?
Because of a man 's belief, he is sometimes asked to provide justification for such a claim in order to defend it. If objective moral truth did, indeed, exist, people would then live their lives in accordance to just one moral body of law. However, this is not the case, as all of the planet 's people follow many moral codes that remain inconsistent with any other, ultimately serving to separate the many representations of meaning. In actuality, and based upon this argument, Rousseau seems to imply there is no such thing as objective moral truths as they exist in the contemporary world. It is quite difficult to connect a society 's ethical obligation based upon what one unrelated segment of society believes it to be; rather, it must be developed as a result of sociological and anthropological considerations.
To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with man 's nature; to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts.
Finally, it is an empty and contradictory convention that sets up, on the one side, absolute authority, and, on the other, unlimited obedience. Is it not clear that we can be under no obligation to a person from whom we have the right to exact everything? Does not this condition alone, in the absence of equivalence or exchange, in itself involve the nullity of the act? For what right can my slave have against me, when all that he has belongs to me, and, his right being mine, this right of mine against myself is a phrase devoid of meaning (Rousseau PG).
Clearly, an individual 's moral standard is as it relates to his own existence, in turn reflecting an individual 's association with his or her concept of meaning.
It is not expected that an aboriginal comprehend the concept of ethics when he still utilizes wooden sticks as eating utensils.
Similarly, one cannot believe that just because a certain ethical code is respected in one are considered that if objective values are such that they do not exist, then it can be stipulated that there remains no earthly reason for a person to care about anything, including the concept of meaning. This would, then, serve to imply that God 's word has no value, and there would be absolutely no limits placed upon what is tolerated within a civilized society.
Philosophers have long argued that the two repel each other in their quest to maintain sole ownership of the concept; however, in order to effectively come to terms with these diverse and fundamental ideals, one must first ascertain that morality is, indeed, a concept worth investigating as representation of meaning. Thus, one must determine whether morality is subjective or objective before one can truly comprehend the
concept.
Rousseau believed that men may have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.
But, "as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces great enough to overcome the resistance.
These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive power, and cause to act in concert" (Rousseau PG).
The supreme ultimate authority, arbiter, reference, or determinant of what is ethically and morally good, right and true, that has been used most widely and most commonly recognized throughout history, has been the concept, in various forms, of man 's creator. Along with this, the cosmic forces that move and control the universe the eyes of modern science becomes the vast interdependent and interwoven matrix of all evolving nature, a tremendously complex concept. This includes all of the immutable and emergent forces of cosmic causation that control everything from high energy sub-nuclear particles on up to galaxies--not forgetting the causal properties that govern brains and behavior at the individual and social levels.
The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. In other words, mere heartfelt emotion can not explain away actions that would take place in the physical world. "In practical matters the end is not mere speculative knowledge of what is to be done, but rather the doing of it. It is not enough to know about Virtue, then, but we must endeavor to possess it, and to use it, or to take any other steps that may make us good" (Aristotle, PG). Aristotle, ever the scientific thinker, stressed that there is no speculation. There is only knowing and doing. This still holds true today; we know that not only knowing about something is enough, but that action must be taken in order to see it through to completion.
Summary and Conclusion
"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." (Rousseau PG). This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.
The clauses of the social contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective. So, "although they have perhaps never been formally set forth, they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until, on the violation of the social compact, each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty in favor of which he renounced it" (Rousseau PG).
Rousseau sums up his chapter thusly: "I shall end this chapter and this book by remarking on a fact on which the whole social system should rest: i.e., that, instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right" (Rousseau PG).
Rousseau 's insight, while intriguing to be sure, nonetheless overlooks some major facets of society; such as in the case of bad governments in which equality is only illusory.
Works Cited
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/rousseau.html
http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/mwebster/phil/rousseau.html
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rousseau.htm
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Kemerling, Garth. "Aristotle." At http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/ph/aris.htm