Essay/Term paper: Rousseau vs self interest and progress

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Philosophy

Rousseau vs. self-interest and progress
In The Social Contract, Rousseau asserts the idea of the people"s General Will being the ideal governing force of the state. This idea is essentially the total alienation of each individual to the entire community, thus constructing the Sovereign. The collective body rules in the common interest, acting without individual bias or selfish concerns, to decide the laws that the Sovereign itself is to follow. However rightly intended, this concept is flawed because it requires people to put the community"s needs above their own. Rousseau distorts basic human nature by committing the fallacy of assuming people value the common good over their own personal interest. Ideally, civic politics would be the most important thing to every citizen, but in reality it is almost impossible to make a unanimous decision without the influence of self-interest. The General Will has good intentions, but its spirit would better be carried out through a more feasible concept of democracy. Rousseau forms the Social Contract as a way to preserve freedom through self-government by eliminating individual self-interest, basing his theory on the optimistic assertion that society will voluntarily follow the General Will. However, self-interest is the catalyst of progress, and for a state to advance and prosper there must be a government, such as the modern form of democracy, that allows for more opposition and individuality.
The fundamental problem facing mankind, according to Rousseau, is that "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."(Social Contract, 181) His "freedom" can only be attained when each man is independent and is not ruled by the private interests of any individual or group. Until this is accomplished, each person is still a slave to others and his freedom is forfeited. Man united form a civil society, but Rousseau is dissatisfied with the one they form. He feels the people are still oppressed and are only equal in that they have all degenerated into slaves to the despot. He recognizes the nature of humans and the governments that already exist, and "mean[s] to inquire if, in the civil order, there can be any sure and legitimate rule of administration, men being taken as they are and laws as they might be."(Social Contract, 181) His answer to the inquiry is The Social Contract, a complex system of government that will supposedly ensure freedom to all citizens.
In Rousseau"s Social Contract, every citizen of a state consolidates to become the Sovereign; the collective executive of the government. However, he still retains his individuality, except when acting as the Sovereign he puts aside his own self-interest and rules according to the General Will. "Each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody." (Social Contract, 192) This was a controversial but revolutionary idea, especially in the historical context in which he wrote. The monarchy ruled almost despotically in France and Hobbes" powerful Leviathan government was a popular theory. The radical idea that the individuals in a society could combine to rule themselves without a monarch contrasts sharply with all other ideas of governmental structure at that time. "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."(Social Contract, 192) Individual men make up the Sovereign, and the Sovereign in turn rules these same individuals. Rousseau believes this method works because the General Will of the people is known inherently by the Sovereign, because the people compose the Sovereign. Also, the General Will will always benefit society as a whole because "the Sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither had nor can have any interest contrary to theirs."(Social Contract, 194)
Rousseau truly wanted man to be free, and his concepts had the best interest of society in mind. The evil that he wanted to purge from the governmental system was individual self-interest. He believed that amore propre, or vanity, lead to the corruption of the so-called noble savage. "The impetuosity of amour propre . . . tempers the ardour with which he pursues his own welfare." (Second Discourse, 73) When man became concerned with what other people thought, his own basic self-preservation instinct decreased in importance. Rousseau also blames self-interest or the desire for self-improvement for many other problems man faces, stating that "this distinctive and almost unlimited faculty is the source of all human misfortunes." (Second Discourse, 60) He truly believes that man"s individual greed and biases corrupt his civic judgement and are a detriment to the common good.
There are several flaws in Rousseau"s Social Contract, the two most significant being his antipathy towards progress and his dislike of self-interest. Rousseau"s goal is not for the state to progress, but instead to carry out the general will of the Sovereign. Progress will transpire if and only if it is in the common good of the state, wherein the Sovereign will decide what actions should be taken. Progress is usually instigated by one person or a small group of people who come across a revolutionary or beneficial idea. This does not happen in Rousseau"s homogenous government, but often does in communities that encourage the capitalistic desire for individual prosperity and opposing views. Individual wants promote an atmosphere of constant deliberation, and philosophers such as John Stuart Mill show the importance of opposing viewpoints. "So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that opponents . . . supply them with the strongest argument which the most skillful devil"s advocate can conjure up," because "he who only knows one side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side: if he does not so much as know what they are, he had no ground for preferring either opinion." (On Liberty, 38-39) Even if something is considered truthful, it is important to think of any possible contradictions so that even its advocates understand the issue more in depth. When faced with the problem of formulating a new and progressive law, the people must discuss how it is going to affect the individuals of the state, including themselves, and decide if the law should be passed. Although Rousseau disregards progress and focuses on the will of the Sovereign, in most systems self-interest is imperative in deciding which laws are the most beneficial to the common good.
Rousseau"s General Will is supposed to ensure the common good, but a more practical way to decide the common good is a democratic vote. With this system, citizens familiar with the issues deliberate and vote, resulting in a manifestation of the general will through the majority opinion. Although Rousseau is vehemently against this, it accomplishes essentially the same result. He believes that "long debates, dissentions, and tumult proclaim the ascendancy of particular interests and the decline of the State."(276) This is not only an assertion, but it is disproven by the many strong democracies in existence. A classic advocate of majority voting is Aristotle, who posits that "whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just."(The Politics, 154) The particular interests are the means to the common good, and voting is the only practical way to discover the will of the majority.
The common good is realized through the majority opinion, which should only be enacted after a long process of informed deliberation. Deliberation requires conversation and dissention so the most just answer will ultimately be found. Aristotle emphasized the value of public elections to assess the general wants of the people by questioning, "In making the election ought we not to consider two points? What qualities are common, and what are rare." (The Politics, 1309b3-4) There is inevitably some dissention in any society, and an election reveals what the majority wants, thus revealing the common good.
Rousseau is one of the first philosophers to propose a democratic government in the sense that all the people have a say, but his General Will is ostensibly much different than the modern concept of democracy. Even though Rousseau states that "the law of majority voting is itself something established by convention," (The Politics, 1263b4) it is a necessary convention that works to the benefit of the common good. Through an actual democratic vote, the people can census the general will, resulting in tangible data. In effect, the system Rousseau condemned actually accomplishes his fundamental goal for society. Although slightly different concepts, the hypothetical General Will is essentially the same as the material Majority Will. Rousseau"s concept is just more idealistic and utopian while modern democracy is more practical and feasible, basically combining the ideals of Rousseau and the practicality of Aristotle. There needs to exist some self-interest of the citizens in the government in order for it to flourish, thus resulting in a progressive and legitimately understood system of government.