Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Discourses
To what "fundamental problem" does the social contract furnish the solution?
"To find a form of association which may defend and protect with the whole force of the community the person and property of every associate, and by means of which each, coalescing with all, may nevertheless obey only himself, and remain as free as before." Such is the fundamental problem of which the social contract furnishes the solution.
Democracy is best suited to what kind of state? Why that kind of state?
A successful democracy would need to be small, with simple and honest citizens who have little ambition or greed. Because it is so unstable, democracy is also very susceptible to civil strife.
What is sovereign authority under the social contract? (See the "act of association", and "reciprocal commitment")
As a member of the Sovereign he is bound to the individuals, and as a member of the State to the Sovereign. But the maxim of civil right, that no one is bound by undertakings made to himself, does not apply in this case; for there is a great difference between incurring an obligation to yourself and incurring one to a whole of which you form a part.
What does Rousseau describe as "the point of the second discourse?"
Be the intellectual, look in the past, and find when inequality began (law replaces instinct).
What does Rousseau describe as being "even more cruel" when it comes to studying the human species?
By becoming civilized and advanced, we left primitive nature. It's hard to understand time before humanity. The Enlightenment stated that all people are equal. Rousseau's answer challenged traditional concepts of his society that God created classes. He said inequality comes from the claim to private property.
The family is the oldest of all societies. Is there a point when the child is no longer bound to the father?
Children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children, return equally to independence. If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention.
How does "duty and interest" represent the social contract?
Duty to obey law that you helped make and benefits you.
What is the best form of aristocratic government? Why?
Elective aristocracy, which Rousseau considers the best kind of aristocracy, where those with power or riches, or those who are best suited to govern, are placed in charge.
Why did this essay make Rousseau a champion of the myth of the noble savage?
He questioned everything about science and religion and all other beliefs that other philosophers had.
What is the worst form of aristocratic government? Why?
Hereditary aristocracy, which Rousseau considers the worst kind of aristocracy, where certain families govern everybody else. As long as the magistrates can be trusted to govern justly, Rousseau believes that aristocracy is an excellent form of government. It is better to have a select group of the best men govern than to have everyone try to govern together regardless of qualifications.
How did Rousseau's answer challenge the very basis of the Enlightenment?
His answer turns out to not be justification of Enlightenment thinking. He answers as a challenge to the basic principles of the Enlightenment. He says that the idea of progress is an illusion. Primitive humans were happiest. The more progress, the more corruption. Ambition is the worst part of humanity. It causes corruption and greed. He believed that there was nothing wrong with ignorance and education wasn't the key to everything. He thought the printing press was bad.
What does Rousseau mean by this sentence: "I was born the citizen of a free state and a member of the sovereign."
Ideas from growing up in a small city-state republic of Geneva. The community votes. It is the citizens' duty to be educated and participate.
What is the radical statement that opens chapter 1?
In social contract, person is a citizen, part of the legitimate state sovereign authority
Why is slavery a violation of the social contract? (See question of "mutual obligation")
It violates the idea of equals in contract. One can make himself a slave, but you can't sell anyone else. Slaves are not equal part of contract, which is built on consent equally from both sides, and slaves have no consent nor equality in contract
Monarchy is best suited to what kind of state? Why?
Monarchies are best suited to large states, where a number of ranks of princes and underlings can be assigned.
What warning is given about kings and absolutism?
Monarchy is tremendously efficient, since all power rests in the hands of one man. However, this can be dangerous, as the corporate will becomes nothing more than a particular will. If a king wants his power to be absolute, it is in his best interests to keep the people he governs in harsh subjection so that they can never revolt.
What does Rousseau "conceive of" as "two kinds of inequality among the species..."?
Natural inequality (stronger, smarter, etc.) and moral/political inequality.
Why does surrender in war not make slavery legitimate?
Nothing natural about war, no natural right to conquest, so you can't hold POWs, can't make slaves from war.
What is meant by this sentence? "When the state is instituted residency implies consent; to inhabit the territory is to submit to the sovereign authority."
Residency implies consent. Forcing someone to obey the law is forcing freedom; they helped make the laws. Even if you were against it, everyone follows it. "If you don't like it, leave it." - Stanzi on social contract
Why can the death penalty be a legitimate result of the social contract?
Rousseau supports the death penalty, arguing that the sovereign has the right to determine whether its subjects should live or die. His strongest reason for this position is the claim that wrongdoers, in violating the laws of the state, are essentially violating the social contract. As enemies of the social contract, they are enemies of the state, and must either be exiled or put to death. It is possible to pardon criminals, but both pardons and punishments are signs of weakness: a healthy state has few criminals.
What is the basis of the social order if it is not derived from nature?
Social order as a social contract: Founded on consent, can only be drawn up by equals
Why is it important to the state to have a "civil religion?" What is the purpose of this "civil religion?"
Sovereign decide civil religion that creates loyalty to the State. Best option (classical education). In the past, there were no atheists. All were united through religion. Civil religion implies morals, unity, and "police."
At what point is "the body politic" destroyed?
The life-principle of the body politic lies in the sovereign authority. The legislative power is the heart of the State; the executive power is its brain, which causes the movement of all the parts. The brain may become paralyzed and the individual still live. A man may remain an imbecile and live; but as soon as the heart ceases to perform its functions, the animal is dead
What is meant by the term "the general will" as the source of sovereignty?
The voice of all citizens, and citizens look only to the good of the community. There is no privileged class in a social contract state.
What is meant by this sentence? "The strongest man is never strong enough to remain forever the master, unless he transforms his might into right and obedience into duty."
There is no "right of the strongest." There is no legitimate power/authority with brute force. "Might must be turned into right."
Can the sovereign legitimately punish, even by death, those who fail to follow the "civil religion?"
There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject. While it can compel no one to believe them, it can banish from the State whoever does not believe them — it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty. If anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law.
Why cannot a father legitimately sell his children into slavery?
This reflects the idea of debt slavery (selling people to cure debt). They don't have the authority to sell others. They have no right to do so.
What is Rousseau's purpose in writing book 1?
Where do obligations of social contract fall?
Why are the two words "Christian Republic" "mutually exclusive?"
a. A Christian republic is a governmental system that comprises both Christianity and republicanism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke considered the idea to be an impossibility, a self-contradiction, but for different reasons. As of the 21st century, the only countries in the world with a republican form of government and with Christianity enshrined in the constitution as established religion are Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Greece, Iceland and Malta. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke wrote that "there is absolutely no such thing, under the Gospel, as a Christian Commonwealth". By this he meant that political authority cannot be validly founded upon Christianity. Rousseau, in On the Social Contract (in book 4, chapter 8), echoed this, saying that "I am mistaken in saying 'a Christian republic'; the two words are mutually exclusive." However, Rousseau's point was subtly different, in that he was asserting that a civic identity cannot be molded out of Christianity. David Walsh, founder of the National Institute on Media and the Family, acknowledges that there is a "genuine tension [...] between Christianity and the political order" that Rousseau was acknowledging, arguing that "many Christians would, after all, agree with him that a 'Christian republic' is a contradiction in terms" and that the twain live "in an uneasy relationship in actual states, and social cohesion has often been bought at the price of Christian universalism". Robert Neely Bella has observed that most of the great republican theorists of the Western world have shared Rousseau's concerns about the mutually exclusive nature of republicanism and Christianity, from Machiavelli (more on which later) to Alexis de Tocqueville. Rousseau's thesis is that the twain are incompatible because they make different demands upon the virtuous man. Christianity, according to Rousseau, demands submission (variously termed "servitude" or "slavery" by scholars of his work) to imposed authority and resignation, and requires focus upon the unworldly; whereas republicanism demands participation rather than submission, and requires focus upon the worldly. Rousseau's position on Christianity is not universally held. Indeed it was refuted by, amongst others, his friend Antoine-Jacques Roustan in a reply to the Social Contract
