Two Types of Liberty - Essay Example

Rousseaus concept of liberty Liberty is defined as the immunity from the arbitrary exercise of independence, ity, and political. Rousseau differentiated two types of liberty, moral liberty and natural liberty. According to Rousseau, natural liberty is defined as the freedom to pursue a person’s desire while civil liberty is defined as a person’s freedom to carry out the general will. The general will is a crucial concept the social contract of Rousseau1. He defines the general will as majority opinion of what interest the common interest without any influence from the private interest. Rousseau concept of liberty was developed from political and social theory that makes each citizen in a community to obey only himself and remain as free as possible. The concept however has not been seen to achieve the goals they were designed. The concept demands total alienation to all that are in a community and making citizen that are not cooperative to be forced to be free. Rousseau concept also reveals the necessities that are needed in apolitical condition for social acts making the citizen to realize the freedom they have2. According to Locke and Hobbes, good and evil, left and right. Political theory in the 17th century, according to many historians and philosophers, experienced a similar rift. Liberty and Freedom for a person was a huge topic during the Rousseau time. Rousseau stood apart from Locke was in the manner in which he laid the issues of liberty loss in the society and the manner in which he went about trying to come up with solutions to retrieve them. In one of his essays, The Discourse of the Arts and Sciences, he contended that man lost his morals through sciences and arts. This caused wants and created inequalities which led to dependency and hence losing liberty. Restrictions that are made in the society prevent man from getting his will which is mainly through lack of resources or prevention. The wills are also sometimes restricted in the society. In one of his works, Rousseau links freedom to the relationship between will and power and the disparity between them. He links this with the upbringing of children where he states that they should be taught how to comply by the wishes that they have within the power limits that they are. This will make them to less feel the need or want anything that is not in the reach of their power. Rousseau showed the origins of inequality in present society however he seizes to stop there, he then proceeds to trace inequality back to periods when man lost his isolation. He argues that the first concern of a man is always survival, this taught him how to adapt, forage and to hunt. Later he realized that there is a common good in doing activities with their fellowman. For Rousseau this formed the beginning of liberty3. In social contract, he relates contract to be the only legitimacy when sovereign is formed of the entire society. In the terms of contract he argues that each person in the community places his power in supreme direction of the general will of the society.  By placing ourselves, and our powers under the general will, Rousseau is saying that we are giving up our natural liberty in return for civil liberty. Meaning that all along we had natural liberty before the social liberty came to take over. This argument seems to occur on two unlike levels. Firstly natural liberty is the freedom to find and retain what one can, while civil liberty is the right of ownership. And secondly natural liberty is, as brought out in the first parts, the freedom to follow one’s own needs while civil liberty is freedom to follow the general will. Through this it means that it is not only considered to be a social contract but that which requires a change in personality4. There are challenges that Rousseau faced in his arguments on liberty. The first challenge is based on the question on what was to happen when one disagrees with the general will. What will happen when an individual is held on the personal view above that of the general wills the person is likely to reject the contract. Rousseau thinks that complying with the general will is a must. Liberty is judged alongside equality in the theories that were brought about by Rousseau in his political theories. The general will meant the will of everyone in the society combined. Roughly, Rousseau meant the consensus or what majority refer to as democracy. What the whole society chooses during voting process. According to Rousseau’s he meant the greater good, the protection of everyone in that society or what is considered to be good in the society. Rousseau made the general will to be sovereign. This became part of his grand contribution to the literally, democracy and constitution5. Comparison of Rousseau to Locke According to the social contract of Rousseau, man is born with freedom and yet everywhere he lives he is confined in chains. Locke articulated that the tabula rase translated into a natural liberty Meaning that we are all born equal, empty, or devoid of skills and knowledge and therefore we are all equal. Similarly, Rousseau argued that the freedom of a man is inherent and is considered to be the natural condition of a man. For this reason, all slavery, inequality, and absence of freedom arises from the social and not natural conditions. Therefore, they both agree that freedom is an inherent rights and a mechanism toward maintaining morals in the society. Using the concept of Locke, Rousseau implemented the philosophy into a set of regulation to create the society. Those means became the foundation of the European democracies and the Americans. There are several factors that differ between Locke and Rousseau. Locke acknowledges the right to liberty, right to life, right to property and right to respect others. Individuals have the liberty to do anything based on other people’s life. Everyone has a natural right and these are some of the claims and privileges in which the society are entitled to benefit. Rousseau believe that whatever one does in order to survive is good but they should try as much as possible not to harm others. The natural rights are always on the framework of self-preservation and pity. These rights have always been considered to make mankind unequal6. In Locke, men are considered to exist in the state of nature with all the freedom all that they want in the community. The nature of the society that occurs in the context is neither necessarily bad nor good. Rousseau men in the state of nature are free and are also considered to be equal. In the state of nature according to Rousseau men are considered to be noble savages and they are corrupted through civilization. This is because men always give it up so that they can be able to secure the advantage of civilized society. According to Rousseau, natural liberty is defined as the freedom to pursue a person’s desire while civil liberty is defined as a person’s freedom to carry out the general will. The general will is a crucial concept the social contract of Rousseau. The main consideration in Locke is to secure natural rights of individuals including the property of man and liberty. The stance for Locke and Rousseau on liberty differs between the two. In Locke representation that is made ensures that governments are made responsible for all activities and actions that happen to the people. Representation is considered a safeguard against oppression. In Rousseau representation that occurs is not enough. In this, the citizen is not allowed to delegate their civil duties. The citizen must be actively involved in actions. Rousseau also favors a more direct democracy which enacts the general will of individual through Representation of liberty. Impact of founders can also be viewed in different perspectives according to Locke and Rousseau7. According to Locke, his argument on liberty brings out the fact that the government should be designed in a way that protects the citizen from the government. In the protection of the people against the government, there should be factors to be considered. Objections of the two concepts of liberty vary in the two. In Locke most people are seen not to have the knowledge, either partially or whole as the people agree to comply by the rules and laws that are put forward by the government. The education system in this approach is set in a way that makes people to comply with the rules that are provided by the government. The people in the society are not easily able to leave the country in which they are born due to the casual in doctrine that they receive in the country8. Objection in Rousseau brings out the fact that a pure democracy is not easy to be achieved on large scale in a society. In the same concept there is consideration of majority vote, as it does not necessarily identify the general will in the society. This brings about difficulty in identification of rules and laws that are not desirable in the society and those that need to be changed. Locke brings the objection to avoid the assumption that those that rule obtain their authority from God just because they are born in a family that is ruling. References Burns, C. Delisle. 1928. The Conception Of Liberty. Philosophy 3 (10): 186. doi:10.1017/s0031819100017435. Chappell, V. 2004. Review: Liberty Worth The Name: Locke On Free Agency. Mind 113 (450): 420-424. doi:10.1093/mind/113.450.420. De Roover, J., and S.N. Balagangadhara. 2008. John Locke, Christian Liberty, And The Predicament Of Liberal Toleration. Political Theory 36 (4): 523-549. doi:10.1177/0090591708317969. Klausen, Jimmy Casas. 2007. Room Enough: America, Natural Liberty, And Consent In Locke Second Treatise. The Journal Of Politics 69 (03). doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00573.x. Read More