Way Does Burke's Speeches Before Parliament Reflect Some Of The Ideas Articulated By Rousseau
00-Sep-2016
Asma Ahmed Bham
Shaping Modernity - Essay Assignment
“In what way does Burke’s speeches before Parliament reflect some of the ideas articulated by Rousseau in The Social Contract?”
The social contract is about people exchanging their political freedom for protection from their ruling body. Going back to initial idea of the social contract by Thomas Hobbs, who talks about the relationship between the ruler and those they rule, says that there is an exchange between these two parties- freedoms for protection. John Locke, who built his ideas upon those of Hobbs, believed that men had certain god given rights. He said that due to the State Of Nature and its brutality, an absolute authority in the form of a sovereign was absolutely necessary for maintaining harmony in the society. (Cite) Hobbs claimed that we do not give up our freedom to the government but we enter into relationship of trust- a contract- with them. And at the end of the day if the contract is not being honoured by the ruling body (i.e. when the people are refused their god given rights) the people have the right to rebel and form a better state of government. …show more content…
However, Rousseau, when talking about about the social contract says that the people should not have to give up any of their rights to the governing body.
In his book the social contract published in 1750 he states that instead of people giving up their freedom to the government, the people to should give up their freedom to one another and in return get their freedom back from one another. Basically what he meant to say was that individuals should be able to give up their individual powers and rights for the collective benefit of the society, which he called the general
will.
As a result of this, there exists a contract -an exchange- but no one has given up his or her freedom during that exchange. (Insert vid name) He says that the state should be formed on the basis of the opinions of the sovereign thus the sovereign will have complete control over the state. Because humans have wants and desires they should be able to construct the laws by which they will want live, anything that goes against humanistic abilities will be collectively rejected hence it is important to create laws based on agreements and not force.
According to Rousseau, laws implicated through force will not sustain and face inevitable collapse. Talking about the ‘right of the strongest’ in Book 1, Rousseau carefully proves that power exerted by force is not legitimate power. “If force makes us obey, we can’t be morally obliged to obey… Then let us agree that force doesn’t create right, and that legitimate powers are the only ones we are obliged to obey.” (Cite) In order to legitimise a power everyone from every generation must wilfully accept the power.
Which brings us to the points on slavery addressed by Rousseau where he continues his point on how everyone is born equal but it is the society as a whole, which creates inequalities amongst its members. It is not established by nature, rather it is against nature. To enter into a contract where a person willingly gives up his freedom is impossible because it is against the human interest. “To alienate something is to give or sell it. A man who becomes a slave of another does not give himself- he sells himself at the rock bottom price of his subsistence. But when a people sells itself what price is paid? Not their subsistence”(cite) Thus a society based on this principle –slavery- would eventually collapse as the power is not legitimate.
Asma Ahmed Bham
Shaping Modernity - Essay Assignment
“In what way does Burke’s speeches before Parliament reflect some of the ideas articulated by Rousseau in The Social Contract?”
The social contract is about people exchanging their political freedom for protection from their ruling body. Going back to initial idea of the social contract by Thomas Hobbs, who talks about the relationship between the ruler and those they rule, says that there is an exchange between these two parties- freedoms for protection. John Locke, who built his ideas upon those of Hobbs, believed that men had certain god given rights. He said that due to the State Of Nature and its brutality, an absolute authority in the form of a sovereign was absolutely necessary for maintaining harmony in the society. (Cite) Hobbs claimed that we do not give up our freedom to the government but we enter into relationship of trust- a contract- with them. And at the end of the day if the contract is not being honoured by the ruling body (i.e. when the people are refused their god given rights) the people have the right to rebel and form a better state of government. …show more content…
However, Rousseau, when talking about about the social contract says that the people should not have to give up any of their rights to the governing body.
In his book the social contract published in 1750 he states that instead of people giving up their freedom to the government, the people to should give up their freedom to one another and in return get their freedom back from one another. Basically what he meant to say was that individuals should be able to give up their individual powers and rights for the collective benefit of the society, which he called the general
will.
As a result of this, there exists a contract -an exchange- but no one has given up his or her freedom during that exchange. (Insert vid name) He says that the state should be formed on the basis of the opinions of the sovereign thus the sovereign will have complete control over the state. Because humans have wants and desires they should be able to construct the laws by which they will want live, anything that goes against humanistic abilities will be collectively rejected hence it is important to create laws based on agreements and not force.
According to Rousseau, laws implicated through force will not sustain and face inevitable collapse. Talking about the ‘right of the strongest’ in Book 1, Rousseau carefully proves that power exerted by force is not legitimate power. “If force makes us obey, we can’t be morally obliged to obey… Then let us agree that force doesn’t create right, and that legitimate powers are the only ones we are obliged to obey.” (Cite) In order to legitimise a power everyone from every generation must wilfully accept the power.
Which brings us to the points on slavery addressed by Rousseau where he continues his point on how everyone is born equal but it is the society as a whole, which creates inequalities amongst its members. It is not established by nature, rather it is against nature. To enter into a contract where a person willingly gives up his freedom is impossible because it is against the human interest. “To alienate something is to give or sell it. A man who becomes a slave of another does not give himself- he sells himself at the rock bottom price of his subsistence. But when a people sells itself what price is paid? Not their subsistence”(cite) Thus a society based on this principle –slavery- would eventually collapse as the power is not legitimate.