Campbell 1

Sharnetta Campbell

PHIL 4093

Prof. Purdy

03 March 2024

On Prompt #1

In the first book of Rousseau’s On the Social Contract, he explores the reasoning behind

why we as humans have to enter a state of society to escape the state of nature, as well as the

possible challenges that could come about due to the choice. In the first six chapters, he

discusses the concept of the state of nature and why it is necessary for humans to leave it for a

state of society. He states that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (1.1.1)

meaning that humans are born into nature free, but at some point that freedom is not enough to

reach ultimate happiness. In addition, Rousseau’s work is a critique on the way that societies are

run in modern society, which results in at least some groups in the society being subordinated.

He also mentions ideas similar to that of Hobbes’s Leviathan, where everyone gives their rights

to a sovereign person and is led overall by majority rule, would not work in the long run as the

minority would have no reason to abide by these rules. In addition, this societal set up is formed

under the presumption that humans are meant to be governed by a superior being. Rousseau’s

main issue with the dependence on a superior person to govern a political body is that in some

sense, those being governed would end up giving up their right to liberty, which according to

Rousseau is an inalienable right. In response to this, he suggests that the only solid option is that

of a social compact. This social contract is to be understood as an agreement that protects and

defends the “person and goods of each associate” (1.6.4), while also maintaining his freedom and

obeying only himself. Through this agreement, one can be certain that their property is safe
 Campbell 2

while still maintaining their independence. The social contract will only be able to properly

function if everyone agrees to pool their forces together to pass judgements. Each person has his

own force that he can use to be able to intact change, but by joining a society one gives their

force to the Sovereign body that is subsequently formed. Under this principle, another key factor

is that all within the contract understand the importance of unity, and thus the fact that all peoples

with reason come to the same understanding of what would be best for the state of humanity.

He believes that this contract is possible under the idea of the general will, which would

ultimately mean that we all have the same common will for the success of humanity and so we

are obeying ourselves by obeying everyone else in the contract.

The general will is defined as the will that one comes to after forming a society.

Rousseau has stated that once a group decides to become a society, they form the republic or

body politic. This body politic has a will of its own and this is known as the general or common

will. He acknowledges that there is also the existence of the private will, which can be different

than that of the general will. He expands on the idea of the social contract by stating that once

one submits to that of the general will, they become an “indivisible part of the whole” and

increase the influence that the general will holds (1.6.9). However, in order for the social

contract to work, everyone in the agreement must understand that they have to have complete

commitment to the general will or else be subjected to being “forced to be free” through

following the will of the people (1.7.8). Rousseau believes that through the establishment of

society, man himself changes and gains reason which allows him to discover what the general

will is and why we should act in accordance with it to better humanity. One of the primary

benefits of establishing a society is the idea that, under the state, harm to one is harm to all. In

addition to the general will, he explains that when we join a society we trade our natural liberty
 Campbell 3

for civil and moral liberty. Natural liberty is one’s unlimited right to everything that they desire

and can acquire by their own abilities. However, civil liberty is one’s need to adhere to the

obligations and rights of the state, while moral liberty is the obligation that one follows the laws

that they prescribe for themself. These liberties ultimately allow the individual to reach new

levels of fulfillment through the development of their own reasoning, as they become aware of

themselves in relation to others within the state. Because they are gaining these new liberties,

the few rights that one loses through joining a society become minimal in comparison.

Upon reading this work, multiple questions come to mind, but the first is that of the

general intention of this concept and whether or not that actually changes the way that the

concept functions. For instance, when he presents the argument of Hobbes’s Leviathan, he

expresses his reserves towards choosing one person to ultimately make all decisions for a

populous because it takes away their individual rights to the liberty to choose. However, under

his presentation of the social contract, the only true difference between the two philosophies is

that Hobbes’s is created under the pretense that humans have to be ruled by a singular entity to

be able to reach a place of societal peace, while Rousseau’s philosophy is built on the idea that

humans have to maintain an obedience to themselves and thus are in control of the rules within

the society. When this is put into action, Rousseau also admits that with the agreement to the

social contract, there is the formation of the republic that also has its own will. This will is

presumably the same as the general will, and so is what everyone in the society would want, but

Rousseau still doesn’t provide a definitive reason for everyone within the society to always agree

to abide by the general will, besides that of force. With this in mind, is there truly a difference in

the two philosophies? In both agreements, those in agreement submit their own force to the state

and allow one body to make the ultimate decisions. The only stable difference is the fact that
 Campbell 4

Rousseau allows distinction between people who are citizens in the society and those who are

just “passing through” but still have to abide by the basic laws of the land.

Separate from this, the concept of the general will also present a possible problem.

Rousseau states that once a person agrees to join the state, they gain the ability to reason and thus

are able to realize that of the general will. However, this would assume that every human has to

come to a realization of reason at some point, and also that this general will is functionally the

same across multiple minds. However, if we are to maintain our sense of individuality then it

could also be reasonably assumed that some people’s understanding of the general will can differ

from others. Thus, one would be in the position that Rousseau's republic would have to make a

decision based on what the majority of society believe is the best for everyone. This would

result in a society functioning essentially the same as the one that Hobbes had presented, just

with a slight focus on the preservation of one’s property. Ultimately, Rousseau’s presentation of

the social contract would only be effective if we are to assume that all humans are born with

good intentions and that our understanding of good is exactly the same. Because there are no

specifications on how the individuals in the society would discuss the issues that they disagree

on, there will always be the problem of a possible minority forced to act in the way of the

majority.