I think that the most appealing and least appealing elements of Rousseau's Social Contract are the same thing: The exchange of natural rights for societal rights. I like the idea of being given specific rights by the society you belong to, especially if those rights protect you and make you more integrated into the society. The backlash to this is if you have to give up your natural rights for these social rights, you have these new rights, but you've done away with your old ones. If you want to retain your natural rights, you cannot truly join society, making all those who chose to keep their natural rights outsiders. I like the idea of being bound by rights to your society, but natural rights are the most important rights humanity has, and they shouldn't be taken away.
I suppose the most appealing idea in the Social Contract, is that the General Will will be heard. That is, what is best for EVERYONE is how the government governs, it is fair and just and obviously the ideal way to run a country (do the best for all). However, I can hardly fully appreciate it due to it's unlikelihood of success. There is no way one can expect an entire population to forget about themselves and think about others. This brings me to what is least appealing. I would find it difficult to not advocate for my own life, thoughts, and actions, solely thinking about the rest of the people. That is not to say that I exclusively wish to think about my own self interest, it is that I know that my only true advocate is myself and I feel I could hardly place my interests into others' hands and hope they pay attention to them.
I think the most appealing aspect of "The Social Contract" is the "free" society. Rousseau makes use of the term General Will, giving the idea that people are heard and make the decisions. People would be attracted to this aspect of Rousseau's ideas because it would mean they would be making the decisions in their state because the people are the sovereign. However, this can be a double-edged sword because, while the General Will is acknowledged, that does not mean the Particular WIll is known. Citizens may initially think it is great that they will have a voice, but if they are not aligned with the majority opinion, their opinions will get overruled by the General Will. However, they will need to obey the General Will to keep peace, so technically they are not really free, as they may have thought initially.
The most appealing ideas in the "Social Contract" are the ideas of the sovereign and the will of the people. Rousseau states that the people are the sovereign and that their power can not be delegated. They apparently hold the absolute power in the state. The idea of the will of the people is also appealing because it endorses the majority's opinion. This aspect is clearly democratic.
The ideas that are not appealing are the ideas regarding the General Will. The General Will seems to be determined by a body that is not the same as the majority of people. Instead of what the people want, the General Will is what is best for the state. Also, the people are forced to live by the General Will even if they are dissatisfied with it.
The theory of the general will is very appealing when it comes to Rousseau because it allows for the happiness of the majority. The benefit of the having the people as the sovereign is that the desires or interests of one individual will not determine how the state functions, as seen in a tyranny. In addition, if the people need guidance, there is a legislator which will help in the making of the laws.
The negative aspects of the social contract is the "force" to be free. In a contract, it is understood that you have the right to agree to the contract and abide by its rules, or not listen to the contract. However, Rousseau says that people that disagree should either abide by the contract or face punishment.
One of the most appealing ideas in "The Social Contract" is the belief that the government exists by the people's consent.
What is not appealing is his belief in sovereignty and that people, essentially, need to be told what to think. Subordination of oneself to law is not freeing, but rather oppressive. Additionally, Rousseau believes the law shapes character which I think is untrue because character is shaped by social experiences.
I think the most interesting ideas in the "Social Contract" are Rousseau's parallels of the sovereign to the individual person. The general will aims at pleasing the common good, just as each individual person has its own personal goals and aims. This trust of the people in public matters shows a clear trust in the commonwealth, which is important in any thriving society. However, I believe that Rousseau's tactics can sometimes be severe, his ideas with the General Will and freedom seem to be somewhat conflicting. If he is forcing someone to do something to be free, it does not seem like true liberty.
The most appealing part, as Zach discussed, is that the social contract ensures the security and general happiness of the people. It enables the people to be in control of their state and have an edge over the leader. Moreover, it makes sure that this said leader does not become a tyrant and abuse the state or his power.
The negative part of the Social Contract is that what happens if the general will is not carried out properly? Rousseau puts too much faith in both the leader and the people. The Social Contract is somewhat ideal in a case where both parties are cooperative; however, and even though JRR discusses the rules of the contract and that it could be broken - it is not practical or can be even properly executed.
The aspect of the Social Contract that I most liked was Rousseau's idea of a General Will. The General Will is an important concept because it offers an alternative to the will of the powerful, who at the time, essentially, controlled the will of all their subjects. The General Will, in my opinion, is an early Utilitarian Ideology which seeks to maximize overall happiness, at the expense of the few. My biggest problem with the Social Contract is the dismantling of personal liberties. Rousseau wants individuals to give up all sovereignty to the collective, and that can be disastrous, as history has shown us.
The opening line of Rousseau's "Social Contract" is "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains." The most appealing aspect is that the people are the sovereign; they hold the absolute power in the state and protect against tyranny, for example, because the majority is always satisfied. However, in some ways, this is also the least appealing aspect. Although "man is born free," he is still "... in chains." General Will in the "Social Contract" aims at the general good, yet the general good must come from all and apply to all. Rousseau states that one must obey the rules of the contract or otherwise deal with the repercussions (punishment, for example). In a way, the "Social Contract" becomes tyranny-like because it forces its "free" citizens to do as it says. For law-abiding citizens, General Will in the "Social Contract" is a good thing, but for those who choose to live differently, it is very limiting.
I think that the most appealing and least appealing elements of Rousseau's Social Contract are the same thing: The exchange of natural rights for societal rights. I like the idea of being given specific rights by the society you belong to, especially if those rights protect you and make you more integrated into the society. The backlash to this is if you have to give up your natural rights for these social rights, you have these new rights, but you've done away with your old ones. If you want to retain your natural rights, you cannot truly join society, making all those who chose to keep their natural rights outsiders. I like the idea of being bound by rights to your society, but natural rights are the most important rights humanity has, and they shouldn't be taken away.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the most appealing idea in the Social Contract, is that the General Will will be heard. That is, what is best for EVERYONE is how the government governs, it is fair and just and obviously the ideal way to run a country (do the best for all). However, I can hardly fully appreciate it due to it's unlikelihood of success. There is no way one can expect an entire population to forget about themselves and think about others. This brings me to what is least appealing. I would find it difficult to not advocate for my own life, thoughts, and actions, solely thinking about the rest of the people. That is not to say that I exclusively wish to think about my own self interest, it is that I know that my only true advocate is myself and I feel I could hardly place my interests into others' hands and hope they pay attention to them.
ReplyDeleteI think the most appealing aspect of "The Social Contract" is the "free" society. Rousseau makes use of the term General Will, giving the idea that people are heard and make the decisions. People would be attracted to this aspect of Rousseau's ideas because it would mean they would be making the decisions in their state because the people are the sovereign. However, this can be a double-edged sword because, while the General Will is acknowledged, that does not mean the Particular WIll is known. Citizens may initially think it is great that they will have a voice, but if they are not aligned with the majority opinion, their opinions will get overruled by the General Will. However, they will need to obey the General Will to keep peace, so technically they are not really free, as they may have thought initially.
ReplyDeleteThe most appealing ideas in the "Social Contract" are the ideas of the sovereign and the will of the people. Rousseau states that the people are the sovereign and that their power can not be delegated. They apparently hold the absolute power in the state. The idea of the will of the people is also appealing because it endorses the majority's opinion. This aspect is clearly democratic.
ReplyDeleteThe ideas that are not appealing are the ideas regarding the General Will. The General Will seems to be determined by a body that is not the same as the majority of people. Instead of what the people want, the General Will is what is best for the state. Also, the people are forced to live by the General Will even if they are dissatisfied with it.
The theory of the general will is very appealing when it comes to Rousseau because it allows for the happiness of the majority. The benefit of the having the people as the sovereign is that the desires or interests of one individual will not determine how the state functions, as seen in a tyranny. In addition, if the people need guidance, there is a legislator which will help in the making of the laws.
ReplyDeleteThe negative aspects of the social contract is the "force" to be free. In a contract, it is understood that you have the right to agree to the contract and abide by its rules, or not listen to the contract. However, Rousseau says that people that disagree should either abide by the contract or face punishment.
One of the most appealing ideas in "The Social Contract" is the belief that the government exists by the people's consent.
ReplyDeleteWhat is not appealing is his belief in sovereignty and that people, essentially, need to be told what to think. Subordination of oneself to law is not freeing, but rather oppressive. Additionally, Rousseau believes the law shapes character which I think is untrue because character is shaped by social experiences.
I think the most interesting ideas in the "Social Contract" are Rousseau's parallels of the sovereign to the individual person. The general will aims at pleasing the common good, just as each individual person has its own personal goals and aims. This trust of the people in public matters shows a clear trust in the commonwealth, which is important in any thriving society. However, I believe that Rousseau's tactics can sometimes be severe, his ideas with the General Will and freedom seem to be somewhat conflicting. If he is forcing someone to do something to be free, it does not seem like true liberty.
ReplyDeleteThe most appealing part, as Zach discussed, is that the social contract ensures the security and general happiness of the people. It enables the people to be in control of their state and have an edge over the leader. Moreover, it makes sure that this said leader does not become a tyrant and abuse the state or his power.
ReplyDeleteThe negative part of the Social Contract is that what happens if the general will is not carried out properly? Rousseau puts too much faith in both the leader and the people. The Social Contract is somewhat ideal in a case where both parties are cooperative; however, and even though JRR discusses the rules of the contract and that it could be broken - it is not practical or can be even properly executed.
The aspect of the Social Contract that I most liked was Rousseau's idea of a General Will. The General Will is an important concept because it offers an alternative to the will of the powerful, who at the time, essentially, controlled the will of all their subjects. The General Will, in my opinion, is an early Utilitarian Ideology which seeks to maximize overall happiness, at the expense of the few. My biggest problem with the Social Contract is the dismantling of personal liberties. Rousseau wants individuals to give up all sovereignty to the collective, and that can be disastrous, as history has shown us.
ReplyDeleteThe opening line of Rousseau's "Social Contract" is "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains." The most appealing aspect is that the people are the sovereign; they hold the absolute power in the state and protect against tyranny, for example, because the majority is always satisfied. However, in some ways, this is also the least appealing aspect. Although "man is born free," he is still "... in chains." General Will in the "Social Contract" aims at the general good, yet the general good must come from all and apply to all. Rousseau states that one must obey the rules of the contract or otherwise deal with the repercussions (punishment, for example). In a way, the "Social Contract" becomes tyranny-like because it forces its "free" citizens to do as it says. For law-abiding citizens, General Will in the "Social Contract" is a good thing, but for those who choose to live differently, it is very limiting.
ReplyDelete