Rousseau's Social Contract and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty - Essay Example

Rousseau's Social Contract and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty Jean–Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers who have concentrated much on the subjected of freedom and liberty, with both of them evaluating their meanings and the possible limitations to these two concepts. Nevertheless, both of the philosophers have some diversionary views in relation to these concepts, especially regarding to how the concepts of freedom and liberty are useful and beneficial, what forms the fundamental basis for believing in liberty as well as the arguments regarding the illegitimate restrictions on liberty. The two philosophers have also delved into the relationship that exists between the government and liberty, while also investigating the valid basis for limiting liberty. Mill’s position on the concept of liberty is based on the observation that the majority in the society has the opportunity to dominate the minority, and thus subject them under their own authority (Mill, 12). As a result of this observation, Mills advocates for individuality, where individuals possess their own rights that are not interfered by the society, and thus can be able to shape their own destiny without depending on the influence of the society, which is highly driven by the tyranny of the majority. On his part, Jean–Jacques Rousseau observes that man was born in freedom, to be absolutely free, but he is always in chain whenever he is (Rousseau,). In an attempt to devise the right ways of developing a political community, he devised the fundamental concept of the liberty of people. Pitched on the argument that only the people can develop the rules that should govern them, and anything short of that is unacceptable. Therefore, this discussion seeks to compare Rousseau's Social Contract and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, with a view to assessing their points of congruence and departure, in regards to the concept of liberty and the freedom of man. First, Rousseau’s belief in liberty is informed by the fundamental observation that man is naturally good, and he is only made bad by the institutions (Rousseau, 28). He observes that man was created to be free and to enjoy all the freedom that comes with life. The freedom extended to that liberty to use any resources that man may require to enhance his life, without being limited by any forces. Therefore, it is the institutions like that of private ownership of property that has made man bad (r). This is because, with the introduction of such institutions, man has been corrupted and made mean, so that he attempts to own as much as he can, without any due regard for the others. If there were no private ownership of property, man could not be such corrupt or mean, because he could only use what is enough for him, and leave the rest for others, thus creating equality for all. Therefore, the existence of institutions has destroyed man’s pity and benevolence. Thus the fundamental basis for Rousseau’s belief in liberty is equality and security, where man can obey himself, while still uniting himself with all, and retaining the ever unlimited freedom (Rousseau, 33). According to him, only institutions create inequality and insecurity. Mills on the other hand observes the fundamental basis for liberty as individuality and individual basic rights, which he observes are the basis for the good citizenship, which translates to a healthy society, and consequently to the freedom of mankind (Mill, 24). He observes that individuals should have the freedom from constraint by the government, but that is associated with self rule. Therefore, Mills differs with Rousseau regarding the fundamental basis of freedom, by arguing that individual rights grant man freedom, and by extension makes the society free. On his part, Rousseau argues that individual rights make an individual a slave of oneself, by making him obey his self desire (Rousseau, 56). According to Rousseau, liberty is beneficial in the sense that it enhances equality and security. This is because, when man has all the freedom that does not limit him in any way, he is able to utilize whatever is useful to him, and leave the rest for the better use of the rest. This way, there is no accumulation of private property, which ends up creating insecurity, considering that an individual holds more at the expense of others, who are in turn compelled to take away what the individual is not using (Rousseau, 22). Rousseau also argues that it is through the submission of individual rights, that order is created in the society, since the submission of individual interest for the sake of upholding general interests of all ends-up creating a legitimate society. Rousseau therefore concludes that an individual’s duty to the society supersedes all the other interests, including the interests of oneself. Therefore, liberty is beneficial when it is operating in the realm of the whole society, as opposed to when it is operating within the zoning of an individual right, since it ends-up making the individual a slave of himself (Rousseau, 36). On his side, Mill observes that liberty is beneficial, since it enables the creation of a healthy society, with good citizenship and absolute freedom for mankind (Mill, 16). Even though he agrees with Rousseau that the liberty of man need to be regulated, he differs with him, in arguing that individuality should not be suppressed and exchanged with the duty to community, since individuality is the basis of retaining the basic rights of individuals, which in turn prevents an individual from being dominated over by the tyranny of the majority (Mill, 22). Therefore, individuals should be allowed to pursue their desired ends without any interference, barriers or obstacles from either the society or the government, since it is this pursuit of individual’s desired ends that creates happiness to the individuals, and thus leads to a productive and civilized society. Both Rousseau and Mill have put across arguments against the illegitimate restriction of liberty. Mill rejects the illegitimate suppression of individual morality and opinions, by observing that individuals should be allowed to form opinions and to express such opinions without any reserve (Mill, 15). Therefore, any attempt to suppress the rights of individuals to their own morality and opinion is restrictive and interferes with an individual’s happiness, while also paving way for the tyranny of majority, which Mills opposes by all costs. Mill observes that when an individual is prevented or restricted from forming and issuing his personal opinion without any limitation, the individual is placed in a situation where his rights and freedoms no longer counts, and thus paves way for the majority to dominate over the individual (Mill, 9). On the other hand, Rousseau argues that illegitimate restriction to liberty is constituted by the rejection of a contract between individuals and the community, to have them submit their rights to the general will of the community (Rousseau, 61). He observes that the rejection of a contract between individuals and the society results to the rejection by the individuals of their morality, rationality and duty, which are the essential and intrinsic values that create the characteristic of the society. Therefore, according to Rousseau, the illegitimate restriction of liberty is the restriction applied by individuals towards establishing a contract with the community. He requires that they should rescind their personal rights and submit them to the society and in turn commit to perform their duty towards the community, for the best interest of all. Such restriction is not warranted in the society and thus such individuals should be forced out of the society (Rousseau, 28). The relationship between government and freedom is established in fact that; according to Rousseau, the government is the body that should act as the agent of sovereignty to the will of the community (Rousseau, 31). In this sense, the liberty of the people should be committed to the will of the community through the government, which in turn preserves and protects such liberties by limiting individuals from engaging in illegitimate restrictions, which could see the individuals serve their own interests at the expense of the interests of the society. Therefore, the government holds the liberty of all individuals with their mandate, and thus ensures that rationality, morality and duty to the community is observed by the individuals. On his side Mill observes that the relationship between government and liberty is that of preserving the individual rights and freedoms of the people, at the expense of championing the welfare of the community (Mill, 13). Thus, according to Mill, the role of the government in defining the liberty of an individual occurs when the government requires restricting the behaviors and actions of individuals, which are likely to harm others. Therefore, both Rousseau and Mill concurs that the legitimate restriction of liberty is the restriction applied only when the actions of individuals are likely to cause harm to others (Mill, 17). Legitimate restrictions entails the prevention of the actions of others from either interfering with individual rights and their freedom to form and express opinions, as advocated for by Mill, or the prevention of the actions by individuals, which may interfere with the general will and welfare of the community, as advocated for by Rousseau. Reaction to the authors’ beliefs and arguments In reaction to Mills beliefs and argument, I totally concur and support them, since they are the basis of a society where the individual rights and freedoms of the people are respected and protected, thus establishing institutions in the society that are not meant to take away the rights and freedoms of individuals, but to protect and preserve such liberties. I fully concur with Mills belief that there should only be community or government intervention and restriction on an individual rights and freedoms, where they are bound to harm others. On the other hand, Rousseau’s beliefs and arguments are detrimental to the development of a modern society, considering the fact that they vest all the powers in the government of the day, to take control of the rights and freedoms of individuals, at the expense of the full exercise of individual rights and freedoms. While the belief and argument that excessive personal liberty is detrimental to the rights of others might be true, giving the government or the community absolute powers to restrict individual rights and freedoms creates an avenue for dictatorship and autocracy, which is detrimental to modern society development. Conclusion According to the answers given by Rousseau, the formation of a government through personal will surpasses individual rights and freedoms, since the capacity of individuals to submit their freedoms and rights to the general will of the community forms the basis of a civilized society. Therefore, his argument is that freedom is not the absence of restriction in an individual’s rights and liberties, but the free consent to allow the general will of the community to take preference, since in the prevalence of the general will of the community, all the individuals will be equally protected and cared for, as opposed to the situation where all individuals are straining to protect their own self-interests and desires. This argument is plausible, in consideration of the fact that individual interests have always conflicted, and thus an attempt by all individuals to protect their own desires, freedoms and rights will always result to a chaotic society. On the other hand, Mill answers the questions from the perspective of the need to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, at the expense of allowing the general will of the community to prevail. He is in favour of total personal liberty, and is totally against the intervention of the government or the community to restrict the freedoms of an individual. His perspective is that an individual can exercise his freedoms and liberties as much as he/she would like, as long as they are not causing harm to others. While personal rights and freedoms are essential concepts that an individual should be allowed to exercise with minimal restriction or interference, Mills advocacy of the unconditional exercise of personal rights and freedoms might be untenable, considering that individual interests are always conflicting and thus bound to cause conflicts of interests and chaos amongst the people in a society. Therefore, the general will of the community should prevail over individual interests, and thus individual rights and freedoms need to be restricted. Works cited Mill, John S. On Liberty. New York: Bantam Classic, 1983. Print. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Chicago: The Great Books Foundation, 1947. Print. Read More