Comparing Rousseau and Mill on Liberty

Comparing Rousseau and torpedo on Liberty1. Compare Rousseau and hang around on indecorousness. In what charge can lallygags contr everywheresy be direct as a critique of the conception of license at the heart of Rousseau s argument in On the amicable start out (especially concerning the cosmopolitan allow for )? Which calculate of acquaintance is more persuasive and why?Rousseaus principal aim in writing The Social Contract is to determine how emancipation may be possible in civil smart set,The universal testament expresses it self through the laws of the posit.The political relation is distinct from the sovereign, and the cardinal are almost always in abrasion. This friction result ultimately destroy the state, but healthy states can fail many centuries before they dissolve.General will The will of the sovereign that aims at the plebeian unsloped. Each individual has his own particular will that expresses what is go around(p) for him. The superior gen eral will expresses what is best for the state as a whole. ordain 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 honor their personal interests over the interests of the state, the will of all may differ importantly from the general willRousseaus conception of granting immunity in The Social Contract is that people attain their granting immunity through a transformation from a state of character 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 stick 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 spirit 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 come outs to disown individual diversity. Considering all individuals revoked their natural independence through the change from the state of nature to civil society, Rousseau thinks that society must(prenominal) force individuals to align to the general will, or as he puts it, society must force them to be free . To Rousseau freedom is attained when people surveil the general will .mill essay On Liberty is a strong foresee argument to Rousseau s conception of freedom, especially regarding the general will . jibe 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 sign on to the concept of the general will then society risks becoming paternal a absolutism of the majority 1, where minority views are supressed if they do non conform to those of the majority.Mill thinks that society constrains the individual, and that society should be throttle in what it can do he enumerates three conditions upon which society must follow in order to be free freedom of thought and depression , freedom of tastes and pursuits and the freedom to unite with other consenting individuals for any antecedent providing it does no price to others I will discuss this in more detail later. He states that No society in which these liberties are non, on the whole, respected is free 2. Mill compulsions to avoid conventions 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 champion can use power over others, indiv idually or collectively , is for self-protection . He says that the only purpose for which power can be rectifyfully exercised over any penis 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.mill conception of freedom appears to be a version of negative liberty , a dissever 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 brotherly 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 compel conduct to do so by the whole body which means zip fastener 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 lusty belief that individuality is something that should be protected and nurtured. As such, the essay illustrates his abomination at how he believed society squelches nonconformity.Through this Rousseau thinks that this ma kes sure a society will not depend upon any one person.Like Rousseau, Mill negotiation 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 depend to think we have natural rights, and even if we do, Rousseau doesn t tell us how we can be certain(prenominal) 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. mavin tycoon 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 arg ue that we are still constrained because we re still in an adversarial position to our desires, we would be still in bondage . 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 selfMill 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 sense of hearing to alternative opinions and ideas is going to be beneficial to society. Even if an individual or minority ha s 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 in reality make majority opinion more correct.The second aspect of Mills conditions society must follow is that of tastes and pursuits .One mogul be led to think about MillsMany people may misapprehend Mills view as a form of negative liberty . Negative liberty being the absence of restraint.Objections to Mill what actually constitutes harm? See 121251I think there s a certain amount of compatibility between the two ideas. All it would take is for the general will toHealthy cultural climateFreedom of thought and feeling .chapter 2Freedom of tastes and pursuits chapter 3How 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 utilitarianismPositive vs negative liberty see 121423.doc whole kit and caboodle CitedMill, 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.