| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "HOBBES ROUSSEAU SOCIAL CONTRACT": |
|
|
Hobbes and Rousseau: Social Contract, 2005.
Discusses the concept of the social contract through the works of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
1,500 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the notion of the social contract - the concept that human society is fundamentally a human construct. It explains that the concept originated in seventeenth-century European thought and was developed throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, receiving perhaps its most dramatic and influential expressions in Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan", published in 1651 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract", published in 1762.
From the Paper
"Jean-Jacques Rousseau also used the notion of the social contract as a human creation, 'not a natural right' but 'one founded on covenants' (Rousseau 50), but radically changed the concept put forward by Hobbes. Rousseau, like Hobbes, argued that people agreed to cede authority to a particular group in return for the benefits of social organization and mutual security: 'the only way in which they can preserve themselves is by uniting their separate powers in a combination strong enough to overcome any resistance, uniting them so that their powers are directed by a single motive and act in concert' (Rousseau, 59-60). However, while Hobbes argued that the social contract could not be changed once established, for to change it would invite social breakdown and anarchy, Rousseau asserted that if those in power failed or refused to fulfil the contract by providing safety, the people were free to break the contract with them and establish a new social contract."
| |
|
Rousseau?s ?The Social Contract?, 2002.
This paper discusses the concept of the General Will, a vital element in the study of the social contract Rousseau proposed in ?The Social Contract?.
645 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 1 source, AU$ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Rousseau's concept of the General Will presented in ?The Social Contract?: The General Will is the primary tool of the Sovereign that will either make the Social Contract valid or not. The paper defines the General Will as a collective form of consent of the people to let others govern them. The author feels that the General Will is beneficial in that it takes into account the welfare of all the people.
From the Paper
"In proposing the social contract, Rousseau mentions that each person in the state will have to give a part of their rights to the leader or government, in which the people entrusts, to help them run the state. For Rousseau, the General Will is the combined force of the people that enables a leader or a government the right to govern and recognize their powers to exercise and come up with vital decisions concerning the welfare of the people and the state. Thus, because of the entrustment of the will of the people to a leader or to a government, Rousseau then describes that the General Will ?is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct.? "
| |
|
Locke and Rousseau on the Social Contract, 2002.
Looks at the contrasting viewpoints on the 'social contract' by political philosophers, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau both employed the "social contract" device, yet they arrived at very different political conclusions. Rousseau believed very much in a social contract, but in which the freedom of the individual would have to be subordinated to the collective good. In other words, in his eyes, people would have to abide by a certain contract and sacrifice their own individuality. Locke was much different in that he also believed in a social contract, but a social contract that the government, not the people, was responsible to. If the government sacrificed the contract, then the people had a right to throw the government out.
| |
|
Rousseau's "Social Contract", 2002.
This paper argues that Rousseau did not develop his "Social Contract" as a means of protecting the individual against the evils of society but as protection fthem rom weaknesses of human nature.
935 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper states that Rousseau describes liberty as being attained only when each man is independent and is not ruled by the private interests of any individual or group. The paper discusses the process by which Rousseau believes people make the transition from the state of nature to civil society by forming of the social pact, or social contract. The author believes that Rousseau truly wanted man to be free, and his concepts had the best interest of society in mind.
From the Paper
"Refuting the doctrine of Locke, Rousseau argues that concepts such as morality, justice, and equality do not stem from human nature, but arise from the development of society. Rousseau?s view of human nature was of a savage, uncivilized creature and, ?a circumscribed and stupid animal?. Only the progression from the savage, amoral state of nature to a civil society would lead to mankind, ?substituting justice for instinct?giving to his actions a moral character which they lacked before? , and preserving his independence within a framework of liberty and equality. "
| |
|
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract", 2008.
An analysis of the views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as defined in his "The Social Contract".
2,599 words (approx. 10.4 pages), 0 sources, MLA, AU$ 114.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how, in his book, "The Social Contract", Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains the relationship of the individual to society. The paper relates that Rousseau emphasizes the natural law of personal rights and sovereignty and argues that any government derives its legitimate power only from the collective choice of many individuals to allow government to act as a proxy for their personal exercise of those rights directly. The paper also examines how, for similar reasons, Rousseau opposed the concept of "rightful" ownership of slaves, especially those who did not choose to become slaves. Finally, the paper discusses how Rousseau questions the legitimacy of some forms of democratic.
Outline:
Introduction
Rousseau on the Origin of Legitimate Power
Rousseau on Political Representation, Democracy, Law, and the Need for Legislators
Conclusion
From the Paper
"According to Rousseau, legitimate governmental authority can only come from the voluntary will of many people, and those forms of governmental authority that derive their power elsewhere are fundamentally illegitimate. Rousseau acknowledges that allowing the collective will to establish rules that govern individual conduct might be a form of relinquishment of individual rights. He takes the position that this apparent contradiction is resolved by the fact that it is in the interest of every individual to give the power of social policy and rule enforcement to the government, because without some form of collective power, the individual cannot enforce any legitimate social concerns at all. Finally, Rousseau questions the legitimacy of some forms of democratic representation and suggests that affiliation or allegiance to sub-groups or representative political parties cancels out some of the main benefits of the principle of individual expression in political choice."
| |
|
Jacques Rousseau?s ?The Social Contract?, 2002.
This paper discusses that Jacques Rousseau, in ?The Social Contract?, created a new determining factor in the history of modern political theory: The idea of ?the masses? or ?the popular will?.
1,610 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Rousseau was the first philosopher to endow the so-called masses with a particular expressive character and a set of inherent, inalienable rights. The author believes that Rousseau is a true democrat, almost in the Greek Athenian sense. The paper contends that Rousseau?s significance as a philosopher is inextricably linked to his stress upon his deflation of the necessity of a monarch to govern a nation state.
From the Paper
"Rousseau proclaims at the beginning of his text "The Social Contract" that man is free, yet everywhere he is in chains. In other words, man in his natural state is free and possessing of an inherent and inexorable right to freedom. But because of the structures of governance that have evolved over time, conditions have been placed upon the will of human beings that limit their freedoms. These limitations are, to a certain extent, endemic to the nature of the human animal as expressed in the form of the first social unit family. Rousseau notes in Part One of "The Social Contract", that the father of the family, the basic social unit of the family, extends both dominion and protection over his children."
| |
|
?The Social Contract? by Jean Jacques Rousseau, 2004.
This paper discusses how Jean Jacques Rousseau addresses the problem of political obligation and individual freedom in ?The Social Contract?.
850 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 1 source, APA, AU$ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in ?The Social Contract?, Jean Jacques Rousseau clarifies the idea of the social contract and the way the state should work together with its subjects to create a perfect and peaceful society. The author points out that Rousseau?s opening statement that ?Man is born free? is intriguing because, according to the rest of the section, this statement is not true; a child is obliged to be in bondage to its parents until it can leave the home on its own. The paper contends that, until lessons from the past can be recognized, books like ?The Social Contract? will have academic value only; practical applicability is entirely dependent upon the human ability to recognize lessons, to adjust, and to evolve accordingly.
From the Paper
"Rousseau makes a strong argument in his first book when he states, ?One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.? (Book I; ch.i). This is applicable to current society, which is more often than not subject to some or other less than laudable human trait such as greed or addiction. People are slaves to money, drugs, success or any other of a maze of possible enslavements. This was also true in Rousseau?s time, and he recognized that human beings are in bondage since birth."
| |
|
?The Social Contract?, 2002.
An analytical essay on Jean Jacques Rousseau?s ?The Social Contract?.
632 words (approx. 2.5 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper defines and analyzes Jean Jacques Rousseau?s treatise about the civil government entitled, ?The Social Contract?. It shows how this treatise introduces to us the concept of a the social contract which serves as an agreement between the people, called the Sovereign, and the appointed leader of their newly formed civil government. The paper discusses the huge responsibility of the civil government which serves as legislator. The paper refers to an example of this tremendous responsibility which was illustrated in a speech delivered by Franklin Hall in a Symposium Lecture in Lynchburg College, where Hall explains what makes a legitimate government.
From the Paper
"By saying that a government becomes ?legitimate? only when it is consented by the governed, meaning by the people or the Sovereign, Hall reflects the truth behind Rousseau?s premise that it takes the approval of the Sovereign for a government to be effective and legitimate in its function for the State. Hall also was quoted saying that a ?social compact of Rousseau, should be of consent from the people up, not from the top, down? (italics provided by the author). Again, he refers to Rousseau in pointing out the power of the people in implementing, even approving the laws that will be formulated by the legislative government. This statement is also a reflection of the power of people during elections. The election process is an example of the ?social compact? Rousseau talks about and Hall refers to in his speech."
| |
|
The Social Contract Theory, 2007.
This paper looks at Rousseau's social contract theory of how society holds together.
789 words (approx. 3.2 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper relates that Rousseau's writings continue to be relevant today, as social contract theorists see morality as a set of rules. The paper explains that for these theorists, the rules govern how people should treat one another. The paper discusses how the social contract theory lays down the laws that supposedly hold society together, but their foundation is a strong sense of self-interest.
From the Paper
"Like his predecessor Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau believed that the general state of nature was not conducive to the development of a cooperative society. Hobbes believed that people only obey the rule of order due to "fear of death." Hobbes further believed that the Laws of Nature clearly show that life is "nasty, brutish and short." People are constantly engaged in a state of war over scarce resources such as food. Reasonable people will therefore strive to seize what they need, in order to survive. This bleak scenario, according to Hobbes, represented the state of nature, in which humans must somehow survive."
| |
|
Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and the Right to Property, 2002.
This paper discusses Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and the right to property.
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 116.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke provides his theory of private property and how it is connected to the rights of man. In his view, the right to property was one of the natural God-given rights.
| |
|
?The Social Contract?, 2002.
A review of the book ?The Social Contract? by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
1,234 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the ?The Social Contract? by Jean-Jacques Rousseau which argues that we are all born free and equal, yet do not live either freely or equally. It discusses the argument that the construction of the General Will is the means by which people can achieve freedom. The General Will is the social contract where all members of society agree to obey the General Will to be part of society. Rousseau argues that by this General Will, the separate wills of each member of society converge into one and that freedom is achieved because every citizen is equal, each being a single unit of the General Will and having the same amount of influence over it. It considers the implications of the General Will and the social contract and how Rousseau?s version of freedom and equality may never be truly attained, however this may be a reality of a society, rather than a downfall in the theory.
From the Paper
"Rousseau differentiates between two types of freedom, personal freedom and social freedom. Personal freedom is an individual?s own selfish choices, where an individual will carry out only those actions that are of benefit to them. Social freedom is the freedom achieved when an individual carries out those actions that the General Will requires. Rousseau argues that social freedom must be achieved at the expense of personal freedom. This is the cost of being part of a society. Thus while an individual is born free, their freedom in society cannot exist until they give up their personal freedom. Giving up their personal freedom for social freedom, means all individuals act in accordance with what is best for society as a whole, not their own needs and wants. It is true in this, that individuals do give up freedom."
| |
|
"Discourses" and "Social Contract", 2006.
A discussion on "Discourses" and "Social Contract", by Rousseau.
1,996 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 6 sources, APA, AU$ 92.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Rousseau's "Discourses" and "Social Contract", in which he presents a philosophical debate on the failures, ideals, and realities of states and political livelihood. The paper details the ways in which he creates an argument for the social contract .
From the Paper
"Rousseau defines freedom and equality through the integration of liberty in the Discourses. Rousseau argues that the onset of governmental forces exists, in its most nascent state, in a way that is at odds with citizens and thus under steady review if not threat. The basic, core freedoms of individual sovereignty are so undermined by a new republic that, despite its necessary quality, it is initially incomprehensible to those who it should rule; liberty is the key to the circumnavigation of this construction. "For with liberty," he purports, "it is like those solid and delicious foods or those robust wines which are appropriate to nourish and strengthen healthy temperaments which are used to them but which overwhelm, ruin, and intoxicate the weak and delicate who are not made for them." Those who have become used to the mastery of others and their own suppression are not able to make use of liberty in a conscious manner, be it viable or volatile."
| |
|
Social Contract, 2006.
An analysis of the social contract and the differing views of Hume and Rousseau on the subject.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, AU$ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will compare Hume and Rousseau on the issue of the social contract's impact on freedom. The paper discusses their opposing views, in that Rousseau believed that the alternative to the social contract is to be found in the concept of the general will; Hume maintained that there is no alternative.
From the Paper
"Comparison of Hume and Rousseau on the Infringements of Freedom Caused by the Social Contract Entering into the social contract is equivalent to voluntarily entering a low- or medium-security prison. Both Hume and Rousseau agree with such an assessment of the social contract, although for different reasons. The social contract provides two benefits - protection and stability - but at a very high price."
| |
|
Locke, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau, 2002.
Compares the philosophies of John Locke, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
1,523 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The philosophies of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau encompass a spectrum of thought on how a state should be governed. This paper discusses how at one end is the cynicism of Machiavelli and, to some extent, Hobbes. Their ideas are countered by the democratic optimism of Locke and Rousseau. It shows how, at the heart of each of these essays is each philosopher?s assessment of the fundamental character of people and how much they can be trusted to govern themselves.
From the Paper
"Throughout The Prince moral codes seem irrelevant to the business of running a state. The survival of the sovereign is the highest priority. At times Machiavelli seems to be writing guidelines for tyrants. According to him, a prince is safer if he is feared rather than loved. It is easier, Machiavelli maintains, for people to offend, or betray, someone they love than someone they fear. How is that fear instilled? ?Fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.? ( Santoni 120 ).
In Leviathan , Hobbes, like Machiavelli, stresses the importance of a powerful sovereign, however his philosophy of government seems less tyrannical than that of Machiavelli. ?During the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.? (Santoni 143)."
| |
|
Marx, Rousseau and Social Structure, 2002.
Examines social structure as seen through the views of social theorists Karl Marx and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, AU$ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the treatment of social structure in the works of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The paper shows that both Marx and Rousseau viewed human nature as pliable. Because of this, their view of social structure entailed the conviction that human nature could be moulded by social engineering.
| |
|
Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes, 2006.
An argument against the self-evident reality of democracy in Western civilization.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, AU$ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the historical evidence of democracy in America as a prime example of the philosophical treatises of Rousseau and Locke, and the supposed fruition of their cause. However, the ideology of a government that would rule for the great good of the people is not realistic, nor has been proven to self-evident. This paper provides examples of how Locke attempted to give more sovereignty for land to the lower classes and the inability of American elites to help evenly distribute the land for the greater good.
From the Paper
"In this political analysis of western civilization, the premise of democracy has been an arguably difficult subject to display as a self-evident form of government. In the many treaties written by such philosophers as John Locke and Hobbes, one can realize the problems associated with realistically governing through the will of the people. Although the United States Constitution reveals an eventual realization of the principles that Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes discuss in their ideas of government, democracy is not truly a self-evident form of governing."
|
|
|
