Why To ‘err’ Is He Correct In Essay Example

freedom if he moves from the state of natural independence towards participation in civil society (Affeldt 1999, p. 299). In doing so one does lose several advantages that were given to him by nature, however 'he gains in return', Rousseau writes in Chapter 8 of Book I, 'far greater ones; his faculties are so exercised and developed, his mind is so enlarged, his sentiments so ennobled, and his whole spirit so elevated that' he should praise that he left 'the state of nature' and that 'from a stupid, limited animal' he became 'a creature of intelligence and a man' (Rousseau 2006, 1762, p. 20).

Further in the same chapter he states that moral freedom alone 'makes man the master of himself' as freedom is 'obedience to a law one prescribes for oneself' (Rousseau 2006, 1762, p. 21).Before trying to answer the main question, it is essential to explain what the general will is according to Rousseau. As I said before, he argues for a rule of the general will. It is possible to achieve it if the government is based on a social contract. In order to do so all people have to give all of their rights to an absolute sovereign which is made of all members of the society, all of whom are equal to each other. The sovereign body must only establish laws that affect all citizens and it has to rule according to the general will and try to attain the common good. As Rousseau claims, it is impossible for the general will to introduce oppressive laws as they would affect everyone, which would be against every citizen's interest to act

against his own will (Rousseau 2006, 1762, pp.

17-20). In The Social Contract we see that Rousseau assumes that in this type of society we would be free. However, I will later argue that Rousseau might be wrong.In The Social Contract Rousseau recognises the will of all and the general will as well as the common good and particular interests. Basically, the former two are consequences of the decision making process. The will of all is a result of citizens voting according to their own interests, while the general will is an equal product of everyone's interests (so when they vote in terms of the common good) (Wolff 2006, pp. 78-79). As Rousseau argues, if the decision making process is done in terms of the will of all, it will make a majority and a minority.

The minority will not get what they want, so it will be bound by the majority's decision. As a result, it will not be free. Because of this Rousseau rejects this idea and argues for the general will. If people think in terms of the general will, they will all agree. Since the general will is created by every member of the state, everyone will get what they want. Therefore all citizens will live by their own will and be genuinely free (Bluhm 1984, p. 372).It is quite interesting how this kind of society could be governed and how the laws would be established.

Rousseau argues that it would be irrational if it required universal participation. Therefore the body that would apply the laws would not be the sovereign but some sort of government or executive (an 'elected aristocracy').

It would consist of wise men who would govern in their citizens' interest, and not just in their own (Wolff 2006, pp. 79-80).In this perfect world shown by Rousseau each citizen benefits from living in the society. Everyone is a part of the sovereign, therefore everyone has the same equal influence on the policy making process. For this reason people will vote for what is best for the common good, which is also their good. However, we should ask how we could achieve unanimity.

But Rousseau himself admits that not everyone will be able to see what the common good is. In fact, he even says that we will not get unanimity. However, as he argues, unanimity is not required (the only law where unanimity is essential is the contract law) because the majority will usually be right and know what is best for everyone. Therefore those who had a different opinion were simply mistaken about the general will and since they actually want the general will, they will get what is best for them and be free (Rousseau 2006, 1762, pp. 125-128). Rousseau believes that in the system which he proposes people would vote not according to their own interests but to what is best for everyone, and that the majority would always get it right. I am now going to argue that he is wrong in his assumptions.In Rousseau's system education would play a crucial role.

It is important for Rousseau that people are educated into citizenship. Moreover, as previously said, he believes that everyone is equally affected by the same laws. However, it can be argued how it would be possible. People's

wealth differs and it is safe to assume that class differences would have some sort of influence on their interests. Even though all laws apply to everyone we could argue that they would not affect them in the same way. Therefore it can be doubted that there would be any general will at all and even if there was, there is no evidence it would be right (Wolff 2006, p. 81).However, Rousseau predicts these issues and holds solutions to them.

First of all, there should not be huge inequalities in wealth. If the presence of classes made the existence of the general will impossible, they should be abolished. As he says, at the very least there should be no people who would be rich enough to buy other people's votes and no people who would be so poor that they would sell their votes (Rousseau 2006, 1762, pp. 58-59). Rousseau does not say how equality could be attained but it can be argued that the absence of classes would make the existence of the general will more likely. He admits that people would sometimes make mistakes but the general will would be the achieved difference after cancellation of the pluses and minuses (Wolff 2006, pp. 81-82).Another thing that could be a source of problems is creation of factions, such as political parties, trade unions or special interest groups.

It can be assumed that such groups will not vote for the common good but for the best interest of their members. For instance, if a company is planning bonuses and there are multiple trade unions inside the firm, ideally they should all vote for an equal

distribution of money. However, it is not hard to believe that each one of them will want the whole amount to be given to their members instead of an equal distribution of money. Therefore Rousseau argues that in this kind of society should ideally be no political parties or other such groups but even if there were any, there should be a very high number of them. As a result each group will have a tiny influence on decision making (Wolff 2006, pp. 82-83).