The Individual and the State - Essay Example

The Individual and the a)According to Rousseau's political philosophy, can civil disobedience be a legitimate of action Do you agree with views on this issue Within The Social Contract Rousseau suggested that the "natural" state of man was to be found within nature, which has no laws or society. But as society developed, with private property etc. it was inevitable that men would come into greater conflict with on another. Individuals would abandon their claim to a natural right to as they wish to the general will of the people. This general will is generally found within the laws of a country. The people give up their natural right because the terms of the social contract mean that their individual rights are guaranteed by the state. In toerh ways, citizens give up some freedoms in return for the state guaranteeing much larger freedoms such as the right to live safely and to own personal property without it being stolen. Within this context, it would appear that "civil disobedience" would not be allowed. For civil disobedience would not bow to the general will, it would be an expression of natural right. This is only the case when the government of a country genuinely adheres to the general will, and when the social contract is being honored. Thus if a despotic ruler takes control, or if the citizens start to tyrannize their fellow people, then disobedience would be in order. This seems a sensible point of view. Most of the most advanced countries of the world adhere to the idea of the social contract, and thus civil disobedience is not needed. However, when the laws are demonstrably unjust (such as race laws in the American South in the 1950's) then a degree of "civil disobedience" (such as Rosa Parks) is legitimate. Rousseau would support such actions. b)What formal and pictorial means does David employ to depict the conflict between the individual and the state in The Death of Socrates In The Death of Socrates David portrays the last seconds in the life of Socrates, who had been condemned to death by the Athenian state for corrupting the morals of young men by his teaching methods. These teaching methods essentially enabled them to think for themselves and to question the logic of authority through the Socratic method of questioning. The main feature of the painting is the contrast between the powerful-looking, animated and yet controlled Socrates who is about to drink the hemlock with those of the young men surrounding him who seem miserable in their inability to accept the situation. Formally, Socrates is placed just to the right of center of the picture, and has a kind of light exuding from him. This makes him the most powerful figure in the painting. In contrast, his disciples are painted in a darker manner, and they are looking away from the figure of Socrates, even as one of the young men is handing him the hemlock. In this situation David is suggesting that the individual must stand up for what he believes in against the forces of the state. The masses are represented by the apparent anger of the old man looking at Socrates on the right. Two young men look at him like timid animals, while an old man sits at the end of the bed, apparently impotent to do anything. It is only Socrates who is facing the reality of the situation, as an individual must if he is to take on the state. c)What areas of shared concern can you identify between Rousseau's argument in The Social Contract and David in The Death of Socrates One major area of shared concern is what the individual should do when he/she is about to take on the state. Thus within The Social Contract the individual should in nearly all cases give up the "natural right" for the good of the whole mass of people. Essentially Socrates has demanded his freedom to assert his natural right through teaching the young men of Athens as he sees fit, rather as the state sees fit. The background to the scene in the painting is that Socrates has in fact refused to escape his death sentence, but rather voluntarily drinks the hemlock. The irony is that Socrates himself respected the right of the state to try and condemn him to death, even as he respected his own right to carry on teaching as he saw fit. Rousseau would agree with the stance of Socrates vis--vis the state's power. If individuals ignore the law and especially if they escape a perfectly legal (although perhaps unjust) condemnation, then anarchy might soon appear. To Rousseau the ultimate justice is the assertion of the general will through the laws of a country. Socrates agrees with this to a certain extent at least. He will drink the hemlock because the state has condemned him, but he will not accept that this is the ultimate Justice rather than a lower form of practical justice as is seen within state power. The ultimate virtue is in both speaking one's mind fearlessly and in accepting the judgment of the state. This is the reason that Socrates is painted in an almost beatific light within David's painting. He is exhibiting the kind of courage that is seldom found within individuals. The Social Contract is of course not really designed for the exception, perhaps even unique, individuals such as Socrates. It is designed for the mass of ordinary people who merely wish to live their lives peacefully and safely, and give up the right to do anything they feel like in return for the state guaranteeing that safety. Socrates openly challenges the logic, efficacy and virtue of the manner in which the state treats (and teaches) its young men, but in common with Rousseau he does not challenge the right of the state to condemn him. There is a common idealism to both Rousseau and David within their views of the relationship between the individual and the state. Rousseau suggests that a few individuals should take control of the state in The Social Contract: he does not believe in any kind of representative body. In many ways he believes in a kind of benign King (or Queen) who will assure the people's safety in return for them obeying the laws. Rousseau was writing of a world that was just about to come violently to an end: the social contract is what occurs within most successful modern societies, but it is representative democracy rather than despots who ensure it. In the same way, David illustrates a kind of destructively idealistic Socrates. A pragmatist who really wanted to shape as many people's lives as possible would have escaped from Athens and lived to fight (or in the case of Socrates teach) another day. The question which this picture raises is what will happen to the young men (and others like them) who cannot stand to watch Socrates committing suicide Would it not be better for him to turn aside his personal allegiance to the idea of Athenian law and to carry on living for their sake But idealism and pragmatism rarely go hand in hand, and so Socrates, bathed in the light of absolute certainty within David's painting, goes to his death without flinching. _________________________________ Works Cited David, Jacques-Louis. "The Death of Socrates". 1787. Rousseau. Jacques. The Social Contract. Penguin, London: 1981. Read More