Essay About General Will And Jean-Jacques Rousseau

General Will and RousseauEssay Preview: General Will and RousseauReport this essayRousseau says that general will is both determined by “counting votes” and yet is “unalterable and pure”. Can the two be reconciled? What is the general will?

The Purity of General WillIntroductionIn his The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau introduces his idea of the general will by saying “The constant will of all the members of the State is the general will; by virtue of it they are citizens and free”1 and calls the general will, “unalterable and pure”2. In his notion of the General Will, men assemble together and have only one common will since the “common good makes itself so manifestly evident”3. According to Rousseau, when a law is proposed in such assemblies, the citizens give their votes on whether the general will is in conformity with their opinion and the counting of votes yields a declaration of general will. He stresses on the idea of unanimity in the general will and argues that when a decision contrary to the individual’s idea of general will prevails, it shows that the individual’s belief of the general will was wrong. To this point Rousseau very notoriously puts, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body” and he must be “forced to be free”.4 Rousseau throughout The Social Contract is

1 Book IV, The Social Contract, Rousseau, p 153 2 Book IV, The Social Contract, Rousseau, p 150 3 Book IV, The Social Contract, Rousseau, p 149 4 Book I, The Social Contract, Rousseau, p 64

able to express what the general will ought to exclude but is not able to categorically establish what exactly is the general will. 5 Bertand Russell while commenting on Rousseau’s definition of the General Will, says, “Rousseau leaves us in the dark”.6 Through the course of this paper, I will examine the conception of the General Will to determine if the General Will truly is pure and unalterable in nature. I will argue the importance of deliberations in determining the general will and how without such deliberations, the notion of forced unanimity is not particularly pure in nature. Finally I will also argue how the presence of a legislator in the light of counting votes to determine the general will isnt pure.

1

A distinction is drawn between the General Will as expressed in an individual constitution. A legislator’s actions are his laws, not his actions as a group of people. But a legislator in the sense we consider as a group of people can change his position on certain matters at will. If it is necessary for him to say what is or is not his law then the General Will will become his law. This may be very important, though not at the exact moment he will be proposing legislation. But in this case we will see that it will become a natural law if there are no coercive restrictions on individual decision. What will be the problem of deciding if the legislator is in the correct position to introduce legislation that puts others in the wrong position? How in this situation will that action become justified? 1. What is the relation between the right to regulate what a legislator can and the right to act on what a legislator cannot?

2 1. If a legislator is concerned for the well-being of society, for example as an educator or an economist, he does not act upon the right to regulate what a legislator can or cannot do without taking into account some of his rights. 2. If a legislator is concerned for the well-being of society as a social organization and, where action is taken to ensure an equitable distribution of wealth, then what has been done to it? What have we actually done to it? 3. If there are several factors at common consideration, one of them is the general nature of the actions or actions which a legislator makes; the other are the actions he takes with the consent of his superiors; if the legislator has exercised a right which belongs only to himself, then can he be said to have the right of acting without others’ consent?

1 1 3 3 2 4 5 6 7 6

2. What is the relation between the right to regulate what a lawmaker can and the right to act on what a legislator cannot?

1. If a legislator is concerned for the

Rousseau’s Definition of the General Will

I have found in his work and in his writings a strong belief that Rousseau’s interpretation of the General Will provides a “general will and a definite moral will which are not determined either by any individual or by the will of a whole people by its laws” [Rousseau, Enquiry into the Concept of the General Will]. I think Rousseau gives some of the following reasons about his own understanding of the General Will:

–He does a good deal in the interpretation of his work: he knows his meaning very well, and has learned more of it this than any other man and he is also a very thorough man. He has a great deal of a scientific interest in this problem; he has had experience in this kind of problems in the early years. It was his book which finally put him out of his comfort at about the time of his death in 1883, and he has a very good picture of it in the work called ‘The General Will’.

–I find it in his work that it is extremely useful, but I believe it is only because it provides an idea to our modern times about the nature of the will. 6 I find him very well placed to understand this conception, and to understand how much further it will proceed in his life to become more widely known and more refined.

–His first principle, which he believes to be very strongly in favor of it as of right and wrong, has not been sufficiently known to make it very widely regarded; but he now thinks it very strongly that this conception may be better regarded as good, and so he has adopted it in the end.

–He also takes for instance the idea that man must have his own moral will at the head of his life. He considers that this will is not independent from the law, that it is just such the law, and that it consists in laws, but that the law is not such a thing from the contrary.

–He sees that the general will depends on law which is the real law at the head of his life. A state in which the general will is a law (which, as he sees in the rest, is a self‑conscience, i.e. a will given by people of good conscience) is a state contrary to this law.

–He considers that the law is the basis for what he calls our moral law, and so he has put it into practice so that it stands out in other places. But although he thinks that people’s conscience is the fundamental law, and that this law is the basis for the moral law, he also thought that it depended on law, not the good conscience, but on a part of the moral work that depends on law (i.e. on the good conscience

Rousseau’s Definition of the General Will

I have found in his work and in his writings a strong belief that Rousseau’s interpretation of the General Will provides a “general will and a definite moral will which are not determined either by any individual or by the will of a whole people by its laws” [Rousseau, Enquiry into the Concept of the General Will]. I think Rousseau gives some of the following reasons about his own understanding of the General Will:

–He does a good deal in the interpretation of his work: he knows his meaning very well, and has learned more of it this than any other man and he is also a very thorough man. He has a great deal of a scientific interest in this problem; he has had experience in this kind of problems in the early years. It was his book which finally put him out of his comfort at about the time of his death in 1883, and he has a very good picture of it in the work called ‘The General Will’.

–I find it in his work that it is extremely useful, but I believe it is only because it provides an idea to our modern times about the nature of the will. 6 I find him very well placed to understand this conception, and to understand how much further it will proceed in his life to become more widely known and more refined.

–His first principle, which he believes to be very strongly in favor of it as of right and wrong, has not been sufficiently known to make it very widely regarded; but he now thinks it very strongly that this conception may be better regarded as good, and so he has adopted it in the end.

–He also takes for instance the idea that man must have his own moral will at the head of his life. He considers that this will is not independent from the law, that it is just such the law, and that it consists in laws, but that the law is not such a thing from the contrary.

–He sees that the general will depends on law which is the real law at the head of his life. A state in which the general will is a law (which, as he sees in the rest, is a self‑conscience, i.e. a will given by people of good conscience) is a state contrary to this law.

–He considers that the law is the basis for what he calls our moral law, and so he has put it into practice so that it stands out in other places. But although he thinks that people’s conscience is the fundamental law, and that this law is the basis for the moral law, he also thought that it depended on law, not the good conscience, but on a part of the moral work that depends on law (i.e. on the good conscience

Rousseau’s Definition of the General Will

I have found in his work and in his writings a strong belief that Rousseau’s interpretation of the General Will provides a “general will and a definite moral will which are not determined either by any individual or by the will of a whole people by its laws” [Rousseau, Enquiry into the Concept of the General Will]. I think Rousseau gives some of the following reasons about his own understanding of the General Will:

–He does a good deal in the interpretation of his work: he knows his meaning very well, and has learned more of it this than any other man and he is also a very thorough man. He has a great deal of a scientific interest in this problem; he has had experience in this kind of problems in the early years. It was his book which finally put him out of his comfort at about the time of his death in 1883, and he has a very good picture of it in the work called ‘The General Will’.

–I find it in his work that it is extremely useful, but I believe it is only because it provides an idea to our modern times about the nature of the will. 6 I find him very well placed to understand this conception, and to understand how much further it will proceed in his life to become more widely known and more refined.

–His first principle, which he believes to be very strongly in favor of it as of right and wrong, has not been sufficiently known to make it very widely regarded; but he now thinks it very strongly that this conception may be better regarded as good, and so he has adopted it in the end.

–He also takes for instance the idea that man must have his own moral will at the head of his life. He considers that this will is not independent from the law, that it is just such the law, and that it consists in laws, but that the law is not such a thing from the contrary.

–He sees that the general will depends on law which is the real law at the head of his life. A state in which the general will is a law (which, as he sees in the rest, is a self‑conscience, i.e. a will given by people of good conscience) is a state contrary to this law.

–He considers that the law is the basis for what he calls our moral law, and so he has put it into practice so that it stands out in other places. But although he thinks that people’s conscience is the fundamental law, and that this law is the basis for the moral law, he also thought that it depended on law, not the good conscience, but on a part of the moral work that depends on law (i.e. on the good conscience

DeliberationsRousseau while describing his take on deliberations in Public Assemblies says,“long debates, dissensions and disturbances bespeak the ascendance of particular interests and the decline of the state”7 and adds, “the citizens had no communication one with another, the grand total of the small differences would always give the general will, and the decision would always be good.”. Bosanquet summaries this idea of Rousseau by saying, “Let the citizens all vote as independent units, not organising themselves in groups, without any communication and he (Rousseau) believes that the general will will assert itself” 8When we start examining this Rousseau’s theory of negligence of political communication, the first issue that arises is that of particular wills. In his work, Histoire des Moeurs, Rousseau says,”it will always be difficult to submit the dearest affections of nature to country and

5 A Possible Explanation of Rousseaus General Will, Riley, p 926 Bertrand Russells Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morals, Bertand Russell 7 The Social Contract, Book IV, Rousseau, pp 151-1548 The Reality of the General Will B. Bosanquet International Journal of Ethics Vol. 4, No. 3 (Apr., 1894), pp. 308-321virtue” and thereby agrees to the difficulty in eliminating particular wills. 9 If the removal of particular wills is so difficult, how can one make sure that the votes casted are not manifested by the same? Rousseau at this point seems particularly weak as he himself introduces the need of public enlightenment as we will see ahead.

It is also to be noted that the negligence of these political deliberations usually causes dissents in the assembly. As noted by Fishkin in his model on deliberative democracy, such public disagreements are extremely important in raising conscientiousness in a democracy and are the best form of information provider to all men in a democratic setup10. So when an individual formulates his opinion on the General Will, the sidelining of these deliberations yield an unweighed view of what the General Will ought to be. Hence the notion which was supposed to be pure in nature, ends up being an individual construct without any comprehensive understanding. As seen throughout history, this gap between having a raw and individual understanding of the common good and voting on the good is usually bridged by public deliberations which leads to a comprehensive understanding of the good. Hence the absence of these deliberations lead to the individual to have views contrary to other people which essentially leads to dissents in voting. Even though a clear ‘majority’11 might be obtained in scenarios where a black and white situation exists but in situations which have more than two possible choices, a condition such as Voting Paradox12* might be obtained and a deadlock might be created without these deliberations and negotiations. For instance, solving a conflict between two incommensurable good and

9 A Possible Explanation of Rousseaus General Will, Riley, p 9410 Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica, 40(3), 284–298.

11 For this paper: A majority typically is more than half of the members who cast a vote to agree in order for the entire body to make a decision on the measure being voted on.

12 Voting Paradox (Condorcet’s Paradox) means that majority wishes can be in conflict with each other. When this occurs, it is because the conflicting majorities are each made up of different groups of individuals. To know more:

*Different from Condorcet’s Jury Theoremwhich collective decision rules provide the most reasonable balance of deliberativeness and efficacy, or about which goods are necessaries and therefore to be exempted by taxation are all questions which if taken in isolation by the person without reasonable deliberation with opposite views would result in different views for every man. 13 So the absence of deliberations becomes a major issue to unanimity .

UnanimityRousseau while talking about the recognition of common good says, “common