Rousseau, justice, society, individual, Scottish Enlightenment, Adam Smith, Cold War, religion, christianity, democracy, law of the strongest, social contract, power of a sovereign, Thomas Hobbes, USSR, Ukraine, human labour, Phoenician mythology, Leviathan
According to Rousseau, justice cannot be defined as "the right of the strongest". If justice were so, the most powerful individuals would always be the right ones. Hence, he develops the idea that freedom is our self regulation. This is the reason why the well-known philosopher developed a new social contract theory that advocates a balance between the freedom of an individual and the power of a sovereign. However, a plethora of contra examples demonstrates the opposite point of view.
[...] This example perfectly illustrates that even if social life is necessary, it is from far not always beneficial. The Voice of Duty can also be something evil. In many places, the church is no longer a holy place, but something corrupted and full of horror. For instance, since the end of the 20th century, the Catholic Church has been faced with the revelation of numerous cases of sexual abuse on minors, committed by priests, religious or lay people in the ecclesial mission on different continents. [...]
[...] Thus, we can see that a social contract, which initially proposes a better quality of life, is in fact a trap to control in a stricter way the people who agreed to it. Furthermore, supported by Thomas Hobbes, one theory is that the State should rule through fear. The aforementioned philosopher wrote a book which he named after a monster that appears in Phoenician mythology, the Leviathan. In fact, his conception of the state comes close to the characteristics of this monster, which is capable of annihilating the entire world. [...]
[...] Notwithstanding, a social contract can also be seen as an obstacle to a better life. If social life is necessary for individuals, does this mean that all aspects of social life are necessarily beneficial? First of all, we could have more choices outside the contract. It is true that a contract implies that an agreement is made between several groups, which would also imply that the two groups have commonalities but also divergences. Rousseau declares " Man is born free and he is everywhere in chains". [...]
[...] Thus, we always think about how to act in the right way. We avoid disrespecting our parents, we share with those in need, we offer our help. In addition, many people are prevented from committing murder, or crimes. Moreover, if Man was to succumb to all his desires, without any restrictions, as in his natural state, he would no longer have access to the improvements that allow us to live comfortably by destroying them and spreading chaos. Indeed, the city life gives us access to health care (thus improving our lifespan), social welfare and education. [...]
[...] He supports the idea that our state of nature is the "war of every man against every man", which in other words refers to chaos. Thus, only a State that can regulate and even make disappear the extreme instability of the state of nature should be established. In fact, we could imagine a world without any rules, where prison does not exist, where all the most dangerous people are in liberty among the most vulnerable ones. Since we had to live closer and closer to each other all this time, we have developed, as Rousseau argued, "l'amour propre", in other words self-love, which include feelings such as shame, envy and pride towards the others. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
