Comparing Rousseau and Mill on Liberty

Comparing Rousseau and Mill on Liberty 1. Compare Rousseau and Mill on liberty. In what way can Mills argument be read as a critique of the conception of freedom at the heart of Rousseau s argument in On the Social Contract (especially concerning the general will )? Which account of liberty is more persuasive and why? Rousseaus principal aim in writing The Social Contract is to determine how freedom may be possible in civil society, The general will expresses itself through the laws of the state. The government is distinct from the sovereign, and the two are almost always in friction. This friction will ultimately destroy the state, but healthy states can last many centuries before they dissolve. General will The will of the sovereign that aims at the common good. Each individual has his own particular will that expresses what is best for him. The general will expresses what is best for the state as a whole. Will of all The sum total of each individuals particular will. In a healthy state, the will of all is the same thing as the general will, since each citizen wills the common good. However, in a state where people value their personal interests over the interests of the state, the will of all may differ significantly from the general will Rousseaus conception of freedom in The Social Contract is that people attain their freedom through a transformation from a state of nature to civil society. His contention is that we can be both free and subject to political authority; Rousseau thinks it s possible to be autonomous and subject to law when we obey those laws of which we are the author. He justifies this model of political authority by saying that government and laws are the will of the sovereign we give our consent for them to exist. That consent is guided by what Rousseau calls the general will. The general will is an idea that signifies the wishes or welfares of society as a whole. The purpose of the general will is to guide society to a common good ; to advise society in its creation of laws and express what is best for all individuals in a society. The problem with the general will is that it seems to reject individual diversity. Considering all individuals revoked their natural liberty through the change from the state of nature to civil society, Rousseau thinks that society must force individuals to conform to the general will, or as he puts it, society must force them to be free . To Rousseau freedom is attained when people follow the general will . Mills essay On Liberty is a strong counter argument to Rousseau s conception of freedom, especially regarding the general will . According to Mill, in order for a society to be free it must avoid interfering with the lives of its people wherever possible. The threat, as Mill sees it, is that if we subscribe to the concept of the general will then society risks becoming paternalistic; a tyranny of the majority 1, where minority views are supressed if they do not conform to those of the majority. Mill thinks that society constrains the individual, and that society should be limited in what it can do; he enumerates three conditions upon which society must follow in order to be free: freedom of thought and feeling , freedom of tastes and pursuits and the freedom to unite with other consenting individuals for any reason providing it does no harm to others I will discuss this in more detail later. He states that No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected is free 2. Mill wants to avoid principles as much as possible because he sees them as constraints. The only principle that Mill does want to establish is the harm principle what he calls the object of his essay. The harm principle says that the only time one can use power over others, individually or collectively , is for self-protection . He says that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others . This principle claims that if an individual is not doing any harm to anyone in their actions, then society has no right to interfere. Over himself says Mill, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign , the individual, not society, should be free to choose how they want to live. Mills conception of freedom appears to be a version of negative liberty , a sort of freedom that allows one to do what they want because there shouldn t be a law to restrict them from doing it. His freedom is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints 3. Rousseau characterises two types of freedom in The Social Contract: the natural liberty which is limited only by the strength of the individual 4 and civil liberty which is limited by the general will 5. Natural liberty is the freedom to follow one s own desires. Civil liberty is the freedom one attains when they follow the general will. I think the biggest problem at the heart of Rousseau s social contract theory is the way he deals with individuality. His social contract says that if an individual disagrees with the general will then they must be wrong, and for their own good they must be forced to conform to the general will. Rousseau says that if anyone refuses to obey the general will he will be compelled to do so by the whole body; which means nothing else than that he will be forced to be free 6. Mill would undoubtedly consider such forced conformity a tyranny of the majority because of his strong belief that individuality is something that should be protected  passionate belief that individuality is something that should be protected and nurtured. As such, the essay illustrates his disgust at how he believed society squelches nonconformity. Through this Rousseau thinks that this makes sure a society will not depend upon any one person. Like Rousseau, Mill talks about a type of civil or social freedom; however, unlike Rousseau he doesn t speculate about a state of nature . Rather, Millstates that his theory is justified by utilitarianism and not a comparison between a state of nature and civil society. I think Mills argument is more persuasive because he isn t making an assumption that we have natural rights . Mill doesn t seem to think we have natural rights, and even if we do, Rousseau doesn t tell us how we can be certain of what they are. Rousseau appears to think we have an intrinsic freedom that exists in the state of nature, and he wants to merge the individual liberty one supposedly has in the state of nature with civil society. One might suppose that the state of nature is a place of complete chaos. A place with no rules or restrictions to tell people what they can or cannot do, but even if this was the case, Rousseau would argue that we are still constrained because we re still in an adversarial position to our desires, we would be still in chains . Rousseau thinks that civil freedom is better than natural freedom because civil liberty gives one freedom from their desires. we own in a state of nature with civil society. Rousseaus social contract theory, especially his notion of the general will, makes it seem impossible to avoid a tyranny of the majority that Mill talks about. Rousseau doesnt seem to perceive a distinction between who we are in public and what we are in private. By demanding such active citizenship, he is demanding that our public persona take precedence over our private self Mill thinks that the individual has an important duty in society. Individuals function as great counterbalances for society regardless of the validity of what they think. Simply the process of listening to alternative opinions and ideas is going to be beneficial to society. Even if an individual or minority has an idea that is different from the majority, and even if that idea is wrong, discussing and acknowledging the idea is good because it can only prove that majority opinion is correct. This process would actually make majority opinion more correct. The second aspect of Mills conditions society must follow is that of tastes and pursuits . One might be led to think about Mills Many people may misinterpret Mills view as a form of negative liberty . Negative liberty being the absence of restraint. Objections to Mill what actually constitutes harm? See 121251 I think there s a certain amount of compatibility between the two ideas. All it would take is for the general will to Healthy cultural climate Freedom of thought and feeling .chapter 2 Freedom of tastes and pursuits chapter 3 How can Mills argument be read as a critique of Rousseau s conception of freedom? How might Mill object to the notion of the general will ? How would Rousseau respond? One might object to Mills argument by saying this . How Mills theory fits in with utilitarianism Positive vs negative liberty see 121423.doc Works Cited Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin Group, 2006. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract, A new translation by Christopher Betts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

The Colliding Dynamics of Class Structure Essay -- Social Studies

The rigidity of class structure is the culprit for the vast number of inequities in society. Power is concentrated in the hands of a small sector; leaving a few individuals to have more authority and influence, in comparison to others. The construction of class structure identifies the way groups are divided into social positions. Differences stemming from social position are further exemplified by the accessibility to valuable resources–such as wealth, education, occupation, and status. Those with distinguished command in society have access to these increasingly wide ranges of resources, which may be present in limited forms to the less powerful. Used as a device of supremacy, power is a style of control when the basis is acquiring these societal possessions. Even though class structure is considered to be fluid in nature, for some it is a complex web of entanglements hard to deal with it. Groups who suffer from social and material deprivations are not doing so by choice, b ut hugely in part to economical and occupational factors. These prominent distinctions have led several to fall victim to the systems of hierarchy. Built within these schemes are the inequalities that arise due to one’s position; and captured inside are the outcomes that influence levels of individual, educational, and occupational independence. People who do observe the inequities between classes may feel the impact of social stratification in various ways. Similarly the dynamics of class structure are very significant elements found throughout the works of Virginia Woolf, George Orwell, and Karl Marx. They are all in agreement that society host the series of conflicts underlying that of class structure. Class structure as a whole denotes differing realit... ...ist Feminism." Critical Sociology (Brill Academic Publishers) 25.2/3 (1999): 196-217. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One. Moscow. Progress Publishers, 1969, N. pag. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist- manifesto/index.htm. Web. 23 Apr. 2012. Orwell, George. "Shooting an Elephant". The Seagull Reader Essays. 2nd Edition. Ed. Joseph Kelly. New York. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2008. 243-250. Print. Peet, Richard. "Inequality and Poverty: A Marxist-Geographic Theory." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 65.4 (1975): 564-571. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One's Own. New York. Quality Paperback Book Club, 1992. Print. Woolf, Virginia. Three Guineas. New York. Quality Paperback Book Club, 1992. Print.

Marginalization of people according to Luke’s gospel Essay

To marginalize means to relegate to a lower or outer edge, of specific groups of people. Marginalized people in society are people who are considered as outcasts in the society, they are referred to as those of a lower class. Those who are marginalized are outside the dominant culture of a group. The group could be a professional group, a social group, or a whole society. An individual may be marginalized because the dominant culture is unable to live with a particular group or individual. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), it is obvious that prioritizing the powerless is a form of love for neighbors. Luke’s gospel entails a writing style that is aimed at giving hope to the non Jews or Gentiles and those disregarded in society to depict to them that Jesus also came to save them, he aims to break the strongholds of disregard for the marginalized in society. At the time, the Jews marginalized the poor, women, orphans and the diseased. In Luke 7:11-17, we clearly see Jesus showing love and compassion to a widow (Nain), depicting utmost concern and love for women, as the men at the time had a daily prayer â€Å"thanking God that they were not born women†. Luke’s gospel brings out Jesus as a voice for the marginalized by uplifting and showing their importance to his Kingdom, like the account of Mary with Angel Gabriel, as well as condemning the actions of the rich. In our communities today, we see the same marginalization being depicted among various disadvantaged groups some of which may include The Poor are greatly marginalized due to their inability to afford what others can. Uganda has a high poverty rate where 90% of the country’s poor live in Rural areas, Many children are left roaming the city streets due to lack of funds for their education, many Karamajong women travel to become beggars’ on the Kampala streets which also act as their homesteads in the cold biting nights, many girls also resort to prostitution to get a living and are seen as grave sinners and because of these adverse factors, the poor are disregarded by many people and ignored due to their uncontrollable circumstance Women are also greatly marginalized despite their higher percentage of 51% in the Ugandan community. Women are seen as a weaker or less important sex to men. This is clearly depicted in the working sector, where very few women are able to take up white collar employment opportunities which are mainly taken up by men. This stretches back to the educational opportunity given to women whereby many girls are taken away from school early, and other don’t even get to start school which is mostly evident in the rural areas since women are seen as tools for house work, producing children and taking of gardens, widowed women are also taken advantage of when their husbands pass on and relatives take the remaining property. These in turn limits their chances for a bright future and therefore, even in the Bible in Luke 7:37-43, we see the disregard for women by Simon, one of Jesus’ disciples which has stretched till this present. The sick have also been marginalized for example, people living with HIV, cancer, diabetes and other diseases are segregated from society since people don’t want to associate with them to risk infection and therefore, some people are chased from schools, work places since they don’t want to associate with them. Sick people are seen as less special and are kept out of conversations, meetings and other social gatherings yet Jesus regards everyone as special before his sight (Luke 12:6-8) Some children are dumped in bins and latrines due to the disabilities which is extremely gruesome. Regardless of this marginalization, God still creates a solution, a way out for his people to get refuge. The very same compassion that Jesus had for the poor and disadvantaged has been placed in the hearts of my people in community who come up with solutions and means of helping the marginalized Many Organizations have been put in place to help those in need with the basic health care needs like The World Food Programme (W.F.O), Red Cross, Relief Aid and many others and this has helped to establish families that have gone through crisis like the Bududa landslides, the famine outbreaks in Karamoja and this shows that regardless of the situations the poor go through, God still makes a way for them. The government has started programmes to help facilitate the poor for example the NAADS programme as well as the Youth Loan schemes and this has helped to build up innovativeness and revenue for the poor since they are able to get loans from which they can start up business activities and be able to sustain themselves Charity Organization like Samaritan Purse, Smile Like a Child, Invisible Children, Mission Moving Mountains and many others in different communities have been able to provide homes for street children as well food and an education and therefore, the number of street children has greatly reduced and the number of those who lack is gradually reducing. The government has introduced Universal Education which is cheap and affordable for the poor as well which has enabled girls and women to access educational facilities and not stay idle at home, this is in line with the law for all children to go to school which is stipulated as a law in the Uganda Constitution. Sponsorships and Incentives for women have been put in place to enable women to get a fair chance at competing with the vast number men in the work field for example the 1.5 point grade added to girls at University admission as well as the Sponsorships from organizations like Compassion International that can facilitate ones education fees from Primary to University level and this has helped increase the number of female graduates and employees. Zacchaeus in the Bible also gave to the poor half of what he owed (Luke 19:7-9) and we should follow this example Sensitization programmes about the HIV/AIDS, Cancer diseases has been put in place whereby companies like T.A.S.O, and other health organizations have been able to inform people about the stigma issues related with these diseases and provide information about them that enables people to know the truth and stop marginalization for example, the Health awareness week in Uganda Christian University by Allan Galpin Health Center Extension of health services with trained health care workers and health units to provide outreach health facilities to under-served communities. Establishment of authorized clinics and pharmacies recognized by the ministry of health helps to provide good health facilities at a lower cost, for example the free Health Care weeks by various Companies and Hospitals like Mulago Hospital, free ARV’s to HIV/AIDS patients by companies like Midmay International and TASO. Therefore, it’s important for us to promote a change in our community and care for those in need, knowing that we are all special before God and w have to treat each other the way Jesus cared for the marginalized when He spent his 33 years on earth as a man like we are. Taking the story of Lazarus, the poor man and the Rich man (Luke 16:19-26), that if we are rich, let’s give to those who are less fortunate and not segregate them instead. REFERENCE Good News Bible, The Gideons International Understanding the New Testament, 2011 edition Baulcombe, S. Hostick, T. New, A. Pugh, H. (1998) ‘Asking the Experts: A Guide to Involving People in Shaping Health and Social Care Services’. The Community Care Needs Assessment Project (CCNAP) (available to download from www.ccnap.org.uk) Baxter, L. Thorne, L. Mitchell, A. (2001) ‘Small Voices, Big Noises: Lay involvement in health research: lessons from other fields’ Folk.us, Consumers in NHS Research, Exeter, Washington Singer Press http://www.academicjournals.org www.christianaid.org.uk www.redeemercitytocity.com

Rousseau and the General Will †Government (300 Level Course)

Rousseau and the General Will – Government (300 Level Course) Free Online Research Papers Rousseau and the General Will Government (300 Level Course) The general will is defined by Jean Jacque Rousseau as the common good of all of the people that live in the state. While this explanation of general will is vague, Rousseau does in fact delve deeper into a working definition of it by expressing its crucial role in the creation of a strong and fair government. Yet merely defining the term does not give justice to its meaning. One may ask where general will is indeed cultivated, in other words, from where did it come? Also, is it in fact necessary in a society to promote freedom to its people? These questions require a simple analysis of Rousseau’s work, which has had and will continue to have lasting impressions on modern political thought. For Rousseau, the general will is not just important, it is crucial for the existence of a strong and fair government. Though it is defined easily as the good of all, when instituted in the world it becomes much more than that. The general will therefore are the overall welfare of the whole (state) at any given time and the source of all governing laws. And while it pertains to all of the members of the state, that is where it stops, as it does not apply to those living outside of the lines of that society. Interestingly, it is not a tangible thing that can be grasped and unraveled, it is more of an evasive presence that is present always and acknowledged by those living with it and around it. In this way, Rousseau dodges a literal definition of general will. It must then exist more in the readers mind than in a physical sense. These characteristics suit the general will more appropriately. Knowing the meaning of the general will does not explain where the theory was cultivated. While the general will is implemented and adhered to by the government, it never really exists in their hands. It is the citizen’s actions together that create the existence of this will. Rousseau states that virtue is achieved through a combination of general will and particular will, still it seems as if at times the two overlap. Furthermore, it is stated that to will at all a citizen must be free and must will between public liberty and the authority of government. This would mean that the citizen find a happy medium somewhere between total freedom and the restrictions that government places upon their actions. Once the will is established it must be followed for there to be any hope of a popular and legitimate government existing. And in this government, the legislator, who makes the laws, must do so in a way that they reflect benefit to the general will and in any case where th e law may fail, the general will would be consulted for a quick resolution. The best for all in the state is the ultimate goal of the general will be both cultivated and implemented. This leads to the question of whether or not the state needs to adhere to this general will in order to promote freedom. Even after long deliberations no clear answer comes to mind for this perplexing question. It is clear that the general will is dependent on those that are free to create it, but that is not the question at hand. When thinking about promoting freedom, Rousseau clearly states that the general will is always on the side most favorable to the public interest, and it is known that general will exists as a pervasive force and that is a direct product of the individual and their thoughts and contributions to society as a whole. So it can be broken down even further so as to say what if there was no general will, if there is no concern for the good of all, or worse yet, no general good? Not only will the citizens run amok, but also the government could be in a position to impose limitations on its citizens and the state would resemble a dictatorship. Likewise, a situ ation could in fact arise in which the state does adhere to a Rousseauian general will, yet the people are constantly asking themselves to distinguish between good or bad, or even right and wrong. That would be a case in which the general will placed constraints on the people and thus they would not truly be experiencing freedom. Therefore both situations could easily exist and while it may be fair to say that many citizens that enjoy freedom were both assisting and enjoying the general will it does not guarantee freedom. So as no clear-cut answer arises immediately, by creating a scenario it can be deduced that the general will can produce freedom but a state does not have to adhere to the general will in order to assure it. Thus while the general will may have a number of meanings, the reader can interpret it as the common good of all. Not only can it be known as this common good, but also it is the source of laws and when those laws are not effective, the general will acts as the mediator that can settle any differences. The free citizens that have to execute it and place it somewhere between their own personal liberty and the authority of the government that rules them cultivate the will. And ultimately while it may lead to freedom of people a strict adherence to the general will may not automatically result in the enjoyable peace of all those citizens of the state. For that it seems that a balance is needed to create success in the general will. This balance must be somewhere between the private will and the general will of all those that live and work the state. That is what Rousseau meant by his general will. Research Papers on Rousseau and the General Will - Government (300 Level Course)Comparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropePETSTEL analysis of IndiaThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationWhere Wild and West MeetRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andCapital PunishmentNever Been Kicked Out of a Place This NiceTwilight of the UAWAnalysis Of A Cosmetics Advertisement

Women And Traditional Roles In Girl Interupted. Essays - Free Essays

Women And Traditional Roles In Girl Interupted. Essays - Free Essays Women And Traditional Roles In Girl Interupted. Essay #2 Women and traditional roles in Girl Interrupted Films tell us stories and present us with values and messages about our society and what needs to be changed. In the film Girl, Interrupted, Susannas struggle with self-discovery and her fight to find a place in society illustrates the view that the women who do not fit into traditional roles should be ostracised from mainstream society given that they pose the threat of change. It is clear that women like Susanna, who have little ambition in becoming a carbon copy of their mother, are seen as a threat and therefore classified as crazy. Susanna is clearly misunderstood by her peers as well as the authority figures in her life. She is not a degenerate but a young girl frustrated with her limited options for the future. When Susanna is held after class by her teacher to discuss why she is the only senior not going on to college, she tries to reach out for support from her teacher by explaining that she's not a druggie but she is concerned about ending up like her mother. The teacher does not hear this and claims that there are more options for women today. Susanna is trying to open up and seek some guidance, but the only solution she gets is that she gets is to start acting like everyone else. This scene reveals how secluded and trapped Susanna feels, nobody seems to understand her even her parents don't know what to do with her. The people she is reaching out to, brush off her ambitions of being an artist, as something to do in her spare time, and place social pressure on her to do what is expected. Even her peers expect more from her; at the after-grade party the boy that is trying to pick her up is talking about his scholarship and future, but this does not impress Susanna. He sees this as strange and is willing to believe her when she jokes about joining the Krishna's because she seems to have no plan for the future. This scene demonstrates that Susanna is also faced with peer-pressure. Susanna is not attracted to the status quo; the fact that this guy is basically doing the same thing as everybody else is tiresome and uninviting. Her peers do not accept her because she is unlike them and crazy for having no interest in her future. Being institutionalised at Claymore, Susanna is faced once again with the choice of conforming or being labelled as insane because she is different. The definition of normal is set in stone; according to the institution, any one who does not act or react according to the text book definition is ''crazy. When Susanna is being shipped off to Claymore she gets a Taxi driver who asks her what she did to be going to an asylum. She tries to explain but the only answer she can give is that she is sad, he claims that everybody gets sad. She goes on to say that she smoked a little weed, he says that if thats so then they should put Bob Dylan away, Susanna answers that she is not Bob Dylan. This examines the fact that Susanna doesn't think she is crazy she is merrily a girl who has no choice but to do as they say. She thinks that she is different from the people who surround her, but the world is a bigger place. At Claymore she learns that the more you open up to the doctor the better her chan ces of being released. This is where Susanna has to decide if she should do what is expected or not. Val influences her to ride the system out and not to get trapped in Claymore like Lisa, she tells Susanna that she does not think she is crazy. Val sees Susanna as lost which she is, the fact that at least one authority figure is willing to understand, her encourages Susanna to break free of the system she is trapped under. Closed windows are a running theme throughout the film they symbolise Susannas closed window of opportunity; she can see out them but cannot

Research Ethics in the Human Service Field Paper

Ethics in the Human Service Field - Research Paper Example This paper purports to discuss some of the more important legal and ethical implications. The first ethical requirement of the job is a high motivation on the part of the professional (NOHS, 2009). Since this profession demands a great degree of involvement and self motivation by the service provider, it is expected that the professional be fully committed to his job, and appropriately trained (NOHS, 2009). This means an effort in an ongoing training and educating lifestyle, so that the newer and better schemes and models of service provision can be adopted (NOHS, 2009). The professional needs to be well aware of the cultural diversity and differences in the society and community in which he is operating, so that he can keep his professional dealings in accordance with the societal norms (NOHS, 2009). He should impart equal respect and acceptance of all the various belief systems that his clients might present with. This is especially true of those professionals who are involved in direct relation with the clients, such as counselors and psychologists (NOHS, 2009). Whereas it is true that the professional is not expected to discriminate on the basis of demographic details, he is, nevertheless, expected to advocate for those classes of the society which are targeted, maligned, or otherwise marginalized (NOHS, 2009). It should be noted that every client is supposed to be treated equally by the service provider, who should abstain from bias or favoritism. Therefore, all personal interests should be kept at bay (NOHS, 2009). However, when it comes to protecting a client’s well being and dignity, the provider is bound to take a stand for the minorities or the targeted groups of

Assault Rifles Should Be Banned In Washington State Essay

Assault Rifles Should Be Banned In Washington State - Essay Example 7 should be banned because these rifles are most commonly used in mass shooting incidences, the ban will result in safeguarding the lives of defense officials and the ban is completely constitutional. One of the main reasons due to which assault rifles should be banned is that these fire arms provide an advantage to the shooter and allows them to take more lives and spread more fears in a very limited amount of time. These rifles mostly contain more than 10 rounds and are easy and much faster to shoot and due to this several lives are taken away in a very small period of time. For example: in the Sandy Hook case the shooter, Adam Lanza used an assault rifle known as Bushmaster and within a matter of 10 minutes ended up taking a total of 27 lives at a school (Flegenheimer 1). Another reason due to which assault rifles should be banned is that it restricts the defenders of the nation in carrying out their duties in the best possible manner. It does not only become an obstacle in the way police men carry out their duties, it has even resulted in the deaths of several policemen while they try to safeguard the citizens of Washington. According to Mathews, there has been an increase in the number of police officials being killed since the removal of the ban on assault weapons, he notes that during the period of 2009 there was an increase of 24% in the number of police officials being killed due to gun fire as compared to 2008 (Matthews 1). Banning of assault rifles is completely constitutional and does not infringe upon the citizen’s right to purchase and carry arms as stated in the Second Amendment. During the period of 2008, Justice Scalia held in a verdict that the Second Amendment protects the right of the Americans to own and carry firearms but the amendment does not cover fire arms that are dangerous and unusual (Fuchs 1). This means that if Washington State bans assault rifles they would not be going against the constitution because these weapons are very