Glossary:
Natural Liberty: Power of acting as one deems fit; unlimited right
Civic Liberty: Power of acting in accordance with the laws selected by all
In this paper, I will be identifying arguably one of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s important views regarding the role society has on the nature of humans. Two of his most important works elucidate that the creation of good laws in a society will lead to a society filled with good people. He first sets the stage with the work he entered into the competition held by the Dijon Academy, First Discourse.
The Academy held a competition where submitted essays had to argue whether or not the arts and sciences are crucial for morality. His First Discourse begins offering appraisal on the work that humankind did to arise from nothing via the light of reason, only to have receded during the dark ages, only to bounce back from that state of ignorance back to enlightenment. This raises the question whether morality is improved or impaired by the restoration of the arts and sciences. He would then proceed to give examples of societies that were adamant on learning and passing down knowledge on the arts and sciences, calling out the Athenians and how it became the home of politeness, good taste, orators and philosophers which would eventually serve as models for the corrupt ages [of no scientific or cultural progress] (First Discourse). This allows for Rousseau to set the stage for the point he wants to make in that the arts and sciences are a setback on the morality of man since it paved the way for good people to slip up by neglecting agriculture, military discipline and the fatherland in the name of studying virtue (First Discourse). Claiming that nature wished to protect the people from attaining a certain knowledge, compared to withholding that what is evil from entering our minds, looping it together to state how our natural state is better off without the time invested into arts and sciences. The only thing that saved these people was the government and laws. This notion would later be brought up in one of his more famous works, The Social Contract, and how people are truly free when they are governed by their own laws.
“Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” This is the opener for the subject of the first book in Book I, where he elucidates that even those who own slaves are no more enslaved than the slaves they own (Social Contract). He starts stating that the social order that we have is a sacred right in which all others are based on, and since it doesn’t come from nature, then therefore it must be based on agreements (Social Contract). Transitioning into men being born, and born free, he states that they have inherited this freedom that no one has the right to take from them. Like a parent making rules and guidelines to raise the children, the government has a similar role, that is not legitimate unless everyone who can potentially be under the guise of the government is in a position to accept or reject. The key here is everyone has this sacred right to a social order so that together they can all decide on a common ground. With the idea of a social contract being not from nature, would indicate that it would potentially be doomed to follow the same fate as those who partake in the arts and sciences. This is not the case and I will show by defining the social contract.
Upon implementation of a social contract, they’re not explicitly mentioned and thus, poor communication may allow it to crumble back to ground level. This could be the case, however, everyone would still retain their natural liberty as individuals. This is made possible because each individual devotes themselves to the cause which leads to no one having the interest in making things tougher for everyone but themselves (Social Contract). By having everyone devoted to the issue at hand, everyone is making that sacrifice, or contributing for the benefit of the union. Since this was done without anything being held back, no one involved would demand more than what already is in question, thus completing the union. Only in the case of retaining some other rights would there be a sense of superiority, rendering the association useless or tyrannical by nature, which would contradict the status of natural liberty (Social Contract). Superiority among individuals would diminish the opinions of the rest of the individuals and implementing such a pedestal would lead to the creation of bad laws based on inequality, thus leading to the creation of bad men. Finally, with each individual giving himself to everyone, gives themself to no one and the right they get over them, allowing them to gain as much as the other individuals and to lose as much as the other individuals (Social Contract). With this in mind, this establishes that all have the same weight of each others’ opinions making it that the social contract in mind takes everyone into account for the benefit of the people. This would form a city where man would lose their natural right and unrestricted right to do whatever their hearts desire, and they would instead attain civil liberty and ownership to all that they own (Social Contract). This in turn would lead to the creation of a good law, and by default, would lead to a society of good people.