Crit of The Social Contract Essay Example

either a prince or legislator tasked with writing about politics. However, we clarify that we are neither of those and it is precisely for that reason that we engage in this endeavor. If we were indeed a prince or legislator, there would be no need to discuss what must be done; action would simply be taken or silence maintained. As citizens of a free state and members of the sovereign who have been born into these roles, our voices may have limited impact on public affairs but our right to vote obligates us to study them. Consequently, examining governments always provides us with fresh reasons to love our own country.

Man is initially free and not constrained. However, in every setting, he finds himself entangled in restrictions. An individual may perceive oneself as having control over others, yet actually they are more subjugated than those they claim domination over. The exact cause of this transition remains unknown. Nevertheless, there is a potential solution to ascertain its legitimacy.

According to the text, complying under coercion is considered satisfactory. However, it is preferable for individuals to break free from oppression and regain their freedom. The text argues that if individuals are able to reclaim their liberty, they are justified because they possess the same entitlement to freedom as those who deprived them of it. The text recognizes that social order is a fundamental right that serves as the foundation for all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not occur naturally and must be established through agreements and conventions. Before delving deeper into this topic, the text aims to substantiate its previous assertions by stating that the family represents the

oldest and most innate form of society. Even within families, children only remain dependent on their fathers until they no longer require protection. Once this necessity ceases, the natural bond between parent and child dissolves, allowing both parties to regain independence.

If they stay together, they no longer remain united naturally, but by choice; and the family itself is then sustained merely by convention. This shared freedom derives from the nature of man. His primary principle is to ensure his own survival, his initial responsibilities are those he owes to himself; and, once he reaches adulthood, he has the sole authority to determine the appropriate means of preserving himself and therefore becomes his own master. The family can then be called the initial model of political societies: the ruler is equivalent to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, give up their freedom solely for their own benefit.

The main difference is that in the family, the father's love for his children serves as a reward for his care, whereas in the state, the pleasure of commanding replaces the love that a leader cannot have for the people under him. Even the most powerful person cannot always be in control unless they convert their strength into righteousness and obedience into obligation. This is why the phrase "the right of the strongest" is presented as a fundamental principle, although it may seem to be ironic. However, we still lack an explanation for this statement. Submitting to force is a necessity rather than a choice, at best an act of prudence.

The notion of considering it a duty can be examined. Let

us for a moment envision the existence of this purported "right." I contend that it ultimately leads to an unclear and unreasonable outcome. If the determination of what is right hinges on force, then the outcome varies depending on the underlying cause: any force that exceeds the initial force asserts its own entitlement. As soon as disobedience becomes possible without repercussions, defiance becomes justified; and given that the mightiest force is invariably deemed as correct, the sole significant factor becomes behaving in a manner that establishes one's superiority. However, what sort of right vanishes when power diminishes? If we are compelled to comply, there is no requirement to obey out of moral obligation; and if we are not obliged to comply, we have no responsibility to do so.

Clearly, the word “right” holds no significance in relation to force; it essentially means nothing. The instruction is to obey those in power. If this necessitates surrendering to force, it is a commendable principle, but unnecessary. We can guarantee that it will never be violated. We acknowledge that all authority comes from God, but so does all illness. Does that imply that we are prohibited from seeking medical help? In a scenario where a bandit surprises me at the edge of a forest, we must not only hand over my wallet under duress but even if we were capable of withholding it, are we morally obligated to surrender it? Because unquestionably, the pistol he possesses is also a form of power.

In this passage, the argument is made that force does not establish righteousness and that we should only obey rightful powers. This brings up the question of whether

conventions are the foundation of all legitimate authority among people, since no one naturally has authority over another and force does not create right. If an individual can surrender their freedom and become a slave to a master, then why couldn't an entire population do the same and make themselves subject to a king? This passage contains various unclear terms that require clarification, but let's focus on the term "alienate."

To alienate means to give or sell. When a person becomes another's slave, they are not giving themselves, but rather selling themselves, at least for their own survival.

So, what does a population sell themselves for? A king does not provide his subjects with their basic needs; instead, he relies on them for his own sustenance. Do the subjects therefore give themselves in exchange for the king taking their possessions as well?

Some may argue that a despot ensures civil tranquility for his subjects. However, what do they truly gain if the wars resulting from his ambition, his insatiable greed, and the oppressive actions of his ministers inflict more harm than their own disagreements would have caused? What do they gain if the tranquility they experience is actually a form of suffering?

Even though tranquility can be found in dungeons, it does not make them desirable places to live in.

To claim that a person freely gives themselves is illogical and inconceivable since such an act would be null and illegitimate due to the person's irrational state of mind. Similarly, to assert the same of an entire population is to imply that the people are insane, but insanity does not establish any rights.

Even if each individual could alienate themselves, they

would not have the ability to surrender the liberty of their children. Children are born as free human beings, and their freedom belongs exclusively to them; only they possess the authority to dispose of it.

The father has the power to establish conditions for their children's wellbeing and preservation before they reach judgment. However, these conditions cannot be granted unconditionally and permanently as it goes against nature's intentions and exceeds parental rights. To justify an arbitrary government, the people would need the option to accept or reject it in each generation. But if this were so, the government would no longer be considered arbitrary. Surrendering freedom means forfeiting humanity along with its associated rights and responsibilities. Renouncing everything has no compensation. This renunciation contradicts human nature; removing liberty eradicates morality from actions. Ultimately, it is an empty agreement that establishes absolute authority on one side and unlimited obedience on the other.

The text highlights the idea that individuals should perceive themselves as defenders of their country rather than solely its citizens. It argues that when we have the right to demand everything from someone, we cannot be obligated to them. This condition alone renders any action null and void without equivalence or exchange. The concept questions the rights of a slave against their owner, stating that since everything the slave possesses belongs to their owner, their own right becomes meaningless. Furthermore, it discusses how in war, the victor claims the right to kill the defeated but allows them to buy back their life by sacrificing their liberty; this agreement is seen as legitimate because it benefits both parties involved. However, it clarifies that such a supposed right

to kill cannot stem from a state of war itself.
The text emphasizes that humans are not naturally enemies in their primitive state of independence since they lack stable relationships that can establish either peace or war. Instead, war arises from relationships between things rather than individuals. It further states that private or personal wars cannot exist in either the state of nature (where consistent ownership is absent) or the societal state (where laws govern everything). Ultimately, it asserts that war is a relationship between states rather than individuals and individuals become enemies only incidentally and not primarily as humans or citizens but as soldiers.The text stresses the importance of states perceiving only other states as adversaries, not the individuals residing within those states. It asserts that there cannot exist a true connection between entities that possess fundamentally dissimilar qualities.

Moreover, this principle aligns with the established rules throughout history and the consistent practices of all civilized nations. Declarations of war serve as warnings primarily to the subjects of powers rather than to the powers themselves. Those who unlawfully rob, kill, or detain the subjects without officially declaring war on the ruling authority, whether they be foreign kings, individuals, or peoples, are not considered enemies but rather as criminals. Even in a legitimate war, a just ruling authority will respect the lives and possessions of individuals while appropriating public property within the enemy's territory. The ruler acknowledges the rights upon which their own rights are based. Although the objective of war is to dismantle the hostile nation, the opposing side has the right to eliminate its defenders when they are actively fighting; however, once they surrender and

lay down their arms, they cease to be enemies or instruments of the enemy and revert to being ordinary individuals whose lives should not be jeopardized by anyone. It is occasionally feasible to destroy a nation without causing harm to any of its members, and war only grants rights that are indispensable for achieving its purpose.

The principles outlined in this passage diverge from those of Grotius. Rather than being based on the authority of poets, they are grounded in the nature of reality and reasoned upon. The right to conquer is solely predicated on power, lacking any other basis. If the victorious side in a conflict does not possess the right to massacre the defeated population, then there can be no justification for enslaving them through a non-existent right. Killing an enemy is only permissible when enslavement is not an option; thus, deriving the right to enslave from the right to kill is unjust. Consequently, it is an inequitable exchange to compel someone to surrender their freedom in return for their life, especially when the victor lacks a legitimate claim over it.

The text demonstrates a harmful cycle wherein the right to determine life and death is based on the right to slavery, and vice versa. Even if we were to accept the dreadful ability to kill anyone, we argue that a slave produced through war or conquest has no obligation to a master except for complying with them under compulsion. The conqueror, by taking an equivalent for their life, has not done them a favor; instead of purposelessly killing them, they have killed with utility. Consequently, rather than gaining additional authority over the slave beyond

force, the state of war between them persists. This mutual relationship arises from this state, and exercising the right of war does not imply a peace treaty. While there may be a formal agreement in place, it assumes the continuation of the state of war rather than eradicating it.

Slavery, regardless of our perspective, is both invalid and meaningless. The terms "slave" and "right" are contradictory and cannot coexist. It would be foolish for someone to impose a contract that only benefits themselves while burdening others indefinitely. Even if we were to accept the arguments in favor of slavery, it would not benefit those who support tyranny. Subjugating a large number of individuals is fundamentally different from governing a society. Even if one person were to enslave many, they would still be considered slaves rather than a people with a ruler. This creates an aggregation rather than an association; there is no common good or body politic yet.

Even if the man in question has enslaved half the world, he is still just an individual. His interests, separate from others, are solely private. When this man dies, his empire remains scattered and lacking unity, much like an oak that crumbles to ashes when consumed by fire. Assuming that men have reached a point where the obstacles to their survival in a state of nature are stronger than each individual's resources for sustaining themselves, that primitive condition can no longer exist. The human race would perish unless it changes its manner of existence. However, since men cannot create new forces but can only unite and direct existing ones, their only means of survival is by forming a collective

force large enough to overcome resistance through aggregation.

The text discusses the need for individuals to come together and unite their forces in order to act as a collective. However, this poses a dilemma as each person's self-preservation and personal freedoms are important considerations. The challenge is to establish an association that can protect the rights and possessions of each member, while allowing them to retain their individual freedoms. This is the fundamental problem that the social contract aims to solve. The specifics of the contract are determined by the nature of the agreement and cannot be altered without rendering it ineffective. While these clauses may not be explicitly stated, they are universally accepted and recognized. If the social compact is violated, individuals regain their natural rights and liberties, while relinquishing the conventional liberties they had agreed upon. Ultimately, the contract involves each individual surrendering their rights to the community as a whole.Initially, as each person fully commits themselves, the conditions are equal for everyone. Therefore, there is no incentive for anyone to impose unnecessary burdens on others. Additionally, since complete alienation exists, the unity is flawless and no associate has any further claims. Without a common authority to settle disputes between individuals and the society as a whole, each person would want to be their own judge on all matters. This would result in the continuation of the state of nature, rendering the association ineffective or oppressive.

In conclusion, when each man gives himself to all, he ultimately gives himself to no one. This is because he acquires the same rights over others as they do over him. In this way, he compensates for what he

loses and gains strength to protect what he already has. By removing nonessential elements, the social compact can be summarized as follows: each individual places their person and power in common under the supreme direction of the general will. In doing so, they become part of a moral and collective body, known as a city, republic, or body politic. When passive, it is referred to as the state; when active, it is the sovereign power and is compared with other similar entities. Collectively, those associated in it are called the people, while individually they are citizens with shared sovereignty and subjects under the state's laws. While these terms may be confused and used interchangeably, it is important to differentiate them accurately.

The formula demonstrates that association involves a mutual agreement between the public and individuals, with each individual being bound in two capacities: as a member of the sovereign to the individuals, and as a member of the state to the sovereign. However, the principle that one is not bound by obligations made to oneself does not apply here. This is because there is a significant difference between obligating oneself and obligating a collective of which one is a part. It is important to note that public deliberation can bind all subjects to the sovereign due to the different capacities in which each may be viewed. However, it cannot bind the sovereign to itself because it goes against the nature of the body politic for the sovereign to impose a law it cannot violate. The sovereign, being able to view itself in only one capacity, is like an individual entering into a contract with oneself. This

clarifies that there cannot be any fundamental law binding the body of people, not even the social contract itself. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the body politic cannot form agreements with others, as long as those agreements are not violated. In relation to external matters, the body politic becomes a simple being, an individual.However, the body politic or the sovereign cannot bind itself, even to an outsider, to perform any actions that go against the original agreement, such as giving up any portion of its power or submitting to a different sovereign.

The violation of the act by which the body exists would result in self-destruction; and something that is nothing itself cannot create anything. Once this group of individuals is united as one entity, it becomes impossible to harm one member without attacking the entire body, and even more impossible to harm the body without the members retaliating. Therefore, both duty and self-interest oblige the two parties involved to assist each other; and the same individuals should strive to combine all the advantages associated with their dual capacity. Additionally, since the sovereign is comprised entirely of its constituents, it neither possesses nor can possess any interest that contradicts theirs; thus, the sovereign power does not need to provide any guarantee to its subjects because it is inconceivable for the body to desire harm upon all its members. Furthermore, we will also discover later that it cannot harm any particular member.

The sovereign is always what it should be by virtue of its inherent nature. However, this does not apply to the relationship between the subjects and the sovereign. Despite having a common interest, there is

no guarantee that the subjects will fulfill their obligations unless the sovereign finds a way to ensure their loyalty. Each individual, as a person, may have a personal will that goes against or differs from the general will they possess as a citizen. Their personal interests may lead them to view their contribution to the common cause as unnecessary. They may believe that not fulfilling their duties as a subject will cause less harm to others than the burden of fulfilling them would cause to themselves. Additionally, seeing the state as a fictional entity rather than a human being, they may desire the rights of citizenship without being prepared to fulfill their responsibilities.

The ongoing existence of such an injustice will ultimately lead to the downfall of the social order. In order to prevent this from happening, the social contract includes an implicit agreement: anyone who refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the entire community. Essentially, this means that they will be forced to be free, as it ensures each citizen is protected against personal dependence on others. This is crucial for the functioning of the political system and justifies civil initiatives. Without it, civil undertakings would be absurd, tyrannical, and susceptible to horrific abuses.

The transition from the state of nature to the civil state brings about a significant change in mankind. It replaces instinct with justice in their behavior and gives their actions the morality they previously lacked. Only then, when duty replaces physical impulses and reason replaces appetite, does man realize that he must act according to different principles and consult his reason before following his inclinations.

Although he sacrifices some advantages that he obtained from nature in this state, he gains other benefits that are so great. His faculties are stimulated and developed, his ideas are extended, his feelings are ennobled, and his entire soul is uplifted. If it weren't for the abuses of this new condition that often degrade him below what he left behind, he would constantly bless the fortunate moment that freed him from it. Instead of being a foolish and unimaginative animal, it transformed him into an intelligent being and a man. So, let's summarize the entire account using easily comparable terms. The loss incurred by man through the social contract is his natural liberty and unlimited right to acquire and possess everything he desires. However, what he gains is civil liberty and ownership of all that is rightfully his.

If we want to avoid confusion when comparing natural liberty and civil liberty, we must clearly distinguish between the two. Natural liberty is only limited by the individual's strength, while civil liberty is limited by the general will. Similarly, we must differentiate between possession, which is simply the result of force or being the first to occupy something, and property, which can only be founded on a positive title. Additionally, in the civil state, moral liberty must be considered, as it is what truly makes a person the master of themselves. Acting solely based on impulse and appetite is slavery, whereas obeying self-imposed laws is liberty. However, discussing the philosophical meaning of liberty is not our current focus. When a community is established, each member contributes themselves and their resources, including possessions. This act does not change the

nature of possession or make it property in the hands of the sovereign. Nonetheless, due to the greater collective power of the city compared to an individual, public possession becomes stronger and more irrevocable, though not necessarily more legitimate from a foreign standpoint. Within the state, the social contract gives the state authority over all goods belonging to its members, serving as the foundation for all rights.However, the power it possesses is solely due to being the original occupier and it maintains this power because of its members.

The right of the first occupier, though less powerful than the right of the strongest, only becomes a true right when the right of ownership has already been established. Every individual has a natural right to everything they require; however, once they become the owner of one thing, it excludes them from everything else. They should be content with their portion and have no further claim against the community. Therefore, the right of the first occupier, which is initially weak in a state of nature, commands the respect of every individual in a civilized society. By honoring this right, we are not just respecting what belongs to others but also what does not belong to ourselves.

In general, to establish the right of first occupancy over a plot of ground, certain conditions must be met. First, the land must be uninhabited. Secondly, a person must only occupy the amount of land necessary for their subsistence. Thirdly, possession must be taken through labor and cultivation, which serves as the only recognized sign of ownership in the absence of a legal title. However, in granting this right, are we not pushing

its limits to the extreme? Can this right be left unrestricted? Is it enough to simply set foot on common ground to claim immediate mastery over it? Should a person's strength to temporarily expel others be sufficient grounds to deny their return indefinitely? How can any individual or group seize an expansive territory and exclude the rest of the world without committing punishable usurpation? Such acts deprive others of their rightful place to live and the means of sustenance that nature has provided for all. We can envision how individual lands, when contiguous and united, become public territories and how the sovereignty's authority extends over the lands held by its subjects, becoming both real and personal. This further increases dependence among possessors, with their forces being utilized to ensure loyalty.The unique aspect of this alienation is that, rather than depriving individuals of their belongings, the community actually secures their rightful ownership and transforms unwarranted acquisition into genuine entitlement and usage into proprietorship.

The possessors, seen as custodians of the common good and protected by the state, have gained all that they have given up through a mutually beneficial cession. This apparent contradiction is explained by the difference between the rights of the sovereign and the property owner. It is also possible for individuals to come together before owning anything and then collectively or individually divide a sufficient tract of land, either equally or as determined by the sovereign. Regardless of how the acquisition is made, an individual's right to their own property is always subject to the community's right over all property. Without this, there would be no stability in the social contract or true power

in the exercise of sovereignty. It is important to note that instead of eliminating natural inequality, the fundamental agreement establishes a moral and legitimate equality to compensate for any physical inequalities between individuals. Thus, through convention and legal rights, individuals who may differ in strength or intellect become equal.