Transcript
Use with ChatGPT / Claude Auto-scroll A
Introduces Rousseau's ideal direct democracy and defines the sovereign, the will of all, and the general will. It also explains how laws and the executive branch function in his political system.
all right let's begin our next lecture here on Rousseau and the general will alright so Rousseau was a prominent philosopher in the modern era and he claimed that citizens in a democracy need to be well educated and playan active role in a direct democracy by voting on what's for the good of society so notice right here off the bat Rousseau adopts a dump democracy as his ideal state and on top of that he adopts adirect democracy where the people vote on all the policy issues any policy issue any possible propositions that come up for a particular state people are gonna vote on it there's gonna be a direct democracy and here he emphasizesthat in a democracy people need to be well educated and and so insofar as that they're well educated it makes it more likely that they'll make good decisions in their direct democracy so here are some key terms here
one term here is a sovereign and by this Rousseau defined a sovereign as being the body of citizens acting collectively with authority over themselves so especially for here in his democratic state the sovereign is are the body ofcitizens and they're acting collectively and there is self-rule right with democracy they have authority over themselves the next concept is that of the will of all the will of all is the culmination of everyone's particular self-interested will soyou take a state you take all the citizens in that state and you kind of add up all their own self-interests alright and that kind of culmination we can think of as being the will of all then wehave this different notion and is called the general will and the general will is the will that's in accord with what's morally right what's for the common good regardless of the self-interest of the citizens of that state so
it could be the case that people's self-interest is too do something or get something that is unethical that's possible that people can have bad self-interest but the general will is not about people's self-interest but rather it's in accordwith what's morally right what's just rather than unjust and it's not really interested in taking account people's self-interest it's taking into account what's just and what's right what's morally right and the general will is the notion that Rousseauis most interested in he wants to base his state on being a state that of largely promotes the general will rather than the will of all because if you promoting the will of all it could be the casethat the citizens in a particular state their self interests are really bad ones so he wants to focus on general will so at this time I'll invite you to press pause and think about any possible objections that are
any possible weaknesses or concerns that can come Russo's way a base on his base on the setup of his ideal state at this early stage of talking about it alright so next let's talk about government laws and hesays that the laws put forth by a government should focus only on matters that affect all citizens equally so in other words do not have oppressive laws focusing on particular groups or agents saying let's say members of thisgroup you know have less have less equality less freedom etc as compared to members of this other group so don't have oppressive laws focus only on issues and promoting laws that affect all citizens equally where all citizens areto be treated equally he says they're there although there's a direct democracy right where people directly vote on the various prop relevant propositions of a state the executive there should be an executive branch and the executive branch deals
with the legal punishments and the day-to-day administration of the government and he says the executive branch dealing with legal punishment and day-to-day administration of the government should be an elected meritocracy so here we're seeing attempt here to essentiallyadds a ground-level have a democracy but also try to make it be the case that those who are elected into the executive branch that those who are elected are those people with merit but those people who have experienceas well as the knowledge to make good decisions and to be clear here in a direct democracy the executive branch members of the executive branch they don't make the laws right the public makes the laws this is adirect democracy right everyone votes on each part potential law rather to have it or not this is not a representative democracy where their representatives like a congressman or congresswoman who's making the laws but and voting on the laws
but rather it's the people everyday people who are voting on each possible law so the executive branch is not dealing with making the laws the public does and to give you example of how this setup works and thisinterchange works between the public and the executive branch a perhaps an example here would be useful for example the public votes when war should be waged right the public comes together they vote on for example whether or notto what are the conditions that have to be met in order for our country to go to war but once those laws and conditions are put in place into place for when a country should go to war isthen the executive branch or the government that decides when the conditions for war in the laws have been met and then if the government decides that the conditions that the people voted on for when to go to war
have been met then they'll have the country go to war so here we see the laws itself are based on a direct democracy but how the laws are executed and including on how punishments are taken out our baseon the government base on the executive branch all right and it'd be a good idea to exercise the mind to here to think about possible objections of this setup of an ideal state at this point alright so here
Presents Rousseau's replies to objections by emphasizing education, class reduction, and the removal of political parties. It argues that these measures help citizens vote for the common good rather than self-interest.
are some worries and some objections my capital R here a shorthand for Rousseau so Rousseau says this people are educated and looking out for the greater good the general will right what's moral what's morally right or Society iseasy to perceive thus it's likely that voting will turn out well it's likely that here once again the emphasis is that people should be well educated in a democracy so that's likely to lead to a meritocracy when theyvote for who gets in the executive branch right because the people are educated and they're educated about the general will etc that that makes it likely that those in the executive branch will be meritorious they'll have merit andit's likely that their voting will turn out well so it's always important in a democracy that people are educated that there's public education for example for those children who happen to be born into families that cannot afford private
schools and education on their own so that when people vote in a democracy they are educated in for example US history politics government etc in order to make more be more informed decision makers and more informed voters whichis to the benefit of the overall state in a democracy so it's very important to be educated and to have education in a democracy given that it's the people who vote and Rousseau is saying well people will beeducated and they'll be educated for looking out for voting in accord with the general will will for the greater good for what's morally right what's just and this can lead to good decision-making so in a way you canthink Rousseau is responding to Plato's objection that a democracy can lead to maybe some kind of tyrant or some kind of demagogue who gets elected where the masses are you know not very intelligent right masses might even think
that experience isn't necessary were relevant knowledge isn't even necessary to be the leader and they'll vote accordingly they'll vote for someone who's has lacks experience who doesn't have relevant knowledge and politics and the experience in politics and politicaldecision-making to do well we're so saying well you know one possible way around this is let's make sure that people are well educated and looking out for the greater good and the general will perhaps this can get aroundPlato however one objection to Rousseau in response is this why should we think there's a general will that is a policy that affects everyone equally such as agents from different classes aren't there some issues that are relevant tomembers of a certain class that may not be relevant to members of a different class for example for the poor it could be the case at the poor the poor working class they're working right they're putting in their
hours of work but they're still not making enough money to get by maybe they might need some government assistance right to make ends meet to feed their children etc or it could be the case that they lack healthcare even though they're working they're not making enough to have sufficient health care looks like they need some kind of assistance here whereas these kinds of concerns don't really hold for those in the wealthy class so it lookslike based on differences in classes in this particular case it's unlikely that there is a kind of policy that affects everyone equally because people in different classes can have different kinds of interests and this can also hold fordifferent kinds of groups it could be racial groups different cultural groups etc they might have different kinds of interests so is there this kind of general will and only focusing on things that affects everyone equally when it looks
like members of different groups can have different interests such that you know we need laws but if these laws aren't going to affect everyone equally so it looks like there's a problem with the Russos account of only puttingforth laws that treat everyone equally because people in different groups can have different interests and they might need different differential kinds of treatment second objection is this if there's a general will it's unlikely to be easy to determinewhat it is someone might object to Rizzo and they might say you know we should have a state where people are voting in accord with the general will with what's morally right but is it sometimes difficult to seewhat's just and what's right morally right right and when it comes to politics and things like that people can debate and hold opposite viewpoints and it looks like it's very difficult to see what is the morally right thing
to do that a government should do in particular kinds of situations so isn't this not very easy to determine and if it's not very easy to determine we have a democracy and people are voting and it's very difficultfor them to determine what's morally just then maybe they might not vote according to the general will and it's gonna lead to problems right of problems in the state bad policies bad elected officials as Plato was afraid aboutso at this point I'd like to even press pause and think about what might be some possible responses that Rousseau might have to defend his theory okay and one thing that Rousseau does say is he says we needto eliminate classes or have a near classless society he says if we eliminate classes well then this will eliminate differences in interests such that there can be policy issues that affect everyone equally and there won't need to be
a need for laws and policy issues that provide differential treatment he says if we have eliminate classes or have a near class of society there'll be less issues to vote on because people are more homogeneous of the samekind of the same economic class so they'll have the similar interests so there'll be less issues to vote on people will be kind of like each other and members will have time to research the issues so this isone issue with direct democracy is that if people are voting on every single possible law and policy issue that's relevant to a state that's a lot of various possible issue and people have to be educated and informed aboutall the relevant facts of the case all the relevant things and considerations on both sides of the coin pros and cons for each policy issue that's gonna take a lot of time and then people won't have time to
live their everyday life going to work taking care of their kids etc enjoying free time relaxing they're gonna be have to constantly be working right trying to inform themselves about all these various policies policy issues that they haveto vote on in a direct democracy so that is one worry with direct democracies and we're so is saying well if we have an ear class of society there'll be an everyone's kind of homogeneous of the same stripeor the same flock so to speak of the same class economic class well then there'll be less age for issues to do research on and policy issues to do research on because everyone's gonna be similar enough that therewill be less issues to discuss so here are some more worries another objection against Rousseau is this will members be motivated to act on the general will it might be educated about the general will if it's easy to
discover or if or easier to discover than object what objectors might make out to be but even if people know about the general will will they still be motivated to act on the general will and vote in accordancewith the general will and that seems like it can be a very legitimate concern because they might actually vote in their self-interest we're in many situations it could be the case that people's self-interest goes against morality against what'sjust and what's right morally right and Rousseau says in response that there should be no political parties to eliminate tribalism so tribalism is this idea that people vote according to their tribes or according to their group and theyI kind of identify with a group such as identifying as being a Republican or if I with as being a Democrat and this effect which has been in large part psychologically verified given modern psychology shows that in large
part many people are tribalistic where they will stick with their group so we're social animals and we want to kind of conform to a group and the idea here is that even if your tribe puts forth policies thatare terrible or let's say the presidential candidate is a terrible person and in no way should be a president people will still vote right when it comes time to voting people the tribes align so to speak and peoplefall in line because people are we're social animals and we like being members of a group right consciously or subconsciously so whether we realize it or not in large part many of us will find ways to somehow justifythat this terrible person who our party has nominated should still run for office right this is the better candidate we'll kind of make things up subconsciously or perhaps even consciously to try to justify sticking with our tribe and
being a good member of the group falling in line right with our group and so there is this kind of bias that many of us have where we fall in line with our tribes so in order to eliminatethis Rousseau says there should be no political parties
Explains Rousseau's use of education, public censure, and religion to shape citizens toward social duty. It then develops his idea of positive freedom and the claim that people may need to be forced to be free.
Rousseau also says education must focus on the common good rather than self-interest again here's this idea of the weighing down on the importance of education at a very young age trying little children all the way up being taughtabout general will and what's just and what's morally right to try to get people to vote in accordance with that which he believes can help lead to a meritocratic government system where those in the executive branch have meritbecause people will be voting based not on their own self-interest or based on their tribal affiliation but basing their decisions based on what's more right based on what's just Rousseau also says that there should be this public censureagency in this public censure agency can publicly ridicule or discourage those who go against the general will it can shame people who those who go against the general will they can publicly ridicule them discourage them shame them in
front of everyone else in the country or in the state Rousseau also says that each citizen should be a member of a religion that promotes social duty and bonds and tolerance of other religions so there shouldn't be anyreligions that are intolerant of others especially other religious groups but rather it should be the case that citizens should be a member of religions that promote social duty in a kind of unification and unity among its members andRousseau believes that society religion itself can be used as an instrument or as a tool to help people fall in line to help people be good citizens and do what's morally right and morally just in these particular kindsof cases all right so at this point I'll allow you to press pause and think about there's some certain kinds of weaknesses that could arise with this kind of setup and Russo's response to this second objection all right
so here are some more objections and these are some responses to so on from the previous slide one is this there's no freedom to be an atheist the idea here with Rousseau is that everyone has to be amember of a religion you view beliefs of a relevant religion screw religious groups that are intolerant of others cannot exist in a state they should be disallowed however I've wanted to be part of religion because the religion especiallythose religions that promote social unity and harmony because this will help people vote more in accordance with the greater good with the general will however if everyone is forced to be part of a religious group then this meansthat there is no freedom to be an atheist Andrew so even how that atheist should be killed right so another objection is this that the public censure agency they can actually end up restricting liberties on different ways of
living so there can be different ways of living and different life choices that people can make for example you might have some people who might like dancing to music for example and there could be certain societies like Puritansocieties that don't allow for dancing right or sensual dancing or provocative dancing or things like that so there can be different ways of living and what you could have with the public central agency is that the public censurecould potentially restrict liberties on different ways of living such as saying no dancing or maybe women can't wear clothes that show their angles and things like that so if this could limit people's liberties and freedoms that it seemslike people should have the Liberty to have be able to do these things if they so choose so Russo's response to this is this he says this one has positive freedom what is positive freedom positive freedom is living
the life the rational person would choose to live so positive freedom is not being able to live your life as you freely choose so long as you don't harm others right you're free to you know dance provocatively orwomen are allowed to wear skirts that go above their ankles or dresses that go above their ankles things like that but rather positive freedom is you can live the life that the rational person would choose to live theidea here is that one must live according to the general will we look to the general will to determine what is rational what the kind of lifestyle that is rational to live and if people want to live adifferent kind of lifestyle that goes against what the general will which is this idea of what a rational person would choose to live then they must fall in line and be punished right such as by a public censure
agency in other words people have to be forced to be free that's Russo's term and you might think that this sounds like a contradiction how can you be forced to do something and be free at the same timethe idea here is that in order to really have freedom there's only really positive freedom in order to really be free you must be living a life that's in accord with what a rational person would choose so inthat respect if that's the only way you can really be free then you must be forced to be free right the government must step in and force people to be free and force people to live a lifestyle ina particular kind of way that is in accord with the general will or what a rational person would choose to live all right so what might be an objection against this so one objection against this is that highly
oppressive regimes can use this same kind of reasoning to defend themselves and oppress minority dissenters right you can think of an oppressive regime maybe like an authoritarian or dictatorship saying things like this is what a rational person wouldchoose to how a rational person would choose to live their life in this particular way and since you're living in a different particular way you are going to be punished or you're going to go in prison or you'regoing to disappear and no one's gonna hear from you again etc we're going to force you to be free it sounds like a highly oppressive regime and make this same kind of move in order to promote a kindof way of life that could be oppressive such as you're not allowed to criticize your government or go against your government or the dictator in any kind of way so this is one objection here against Russo's move trying
to make a move based on positive freedom
Raises further objections about unequal interests, difficult moral judgments, minority dissent, and the limits of discovering the general will. It concludes by questioning whether Rousseau's safeguards against bad democracy end up creating an oppressive state.
here are some more objections against Russo on many issues is unlikely there's a policy that's in the equal interest of all due to differences in race philosophy culture etc so this is actually you know we've touched upon thisbefore that you know there can be differences in things like class and different interests based on class that can lead to differences in kind of policies that will be needed for that particular group that may not apply tothat other group however here it goes a little bit further by saying you know we so try to answer that by saying there should be a classless society but it looks like there can be even more differences thanjust economic class there can be differences in race differences in general political philosophies and viewpoints that people hold different kinds of worldviews so to speak there can also be differences in culture where policies need to be put in
place that might require differential treatment based on differences in culture or philosophy or race so it goes the difference is in society that can exist go even further beyond class continuing along this general theme what can also happenis that women and other minorities even may not be viewed as citizens to receive equal treatment in certain societies and we know that this has happened at many points throughout the history recorded human history that certain minority groupshave not received equal treatment in large part because they weren't even considered as citizens also the general will will not be easy to discover at all times right so this is this continuing thread here this continuing line ofthought that a lot of times it takes a lot of deliberation it may not be easy to see at all times by thinking about women's rights it's only really recently that women have had the right to vote here
in the United States and for a long time in Western civilization women have been impressed in regards to being able to vote and have equal contributions in politics and a lot of times throughout this history many people havethought that of course women should not have the right to vote and so sometimes there are issues that require long deliberation it's not easy to see and it requires a long deliberation debate and thought until people come aroundto it and see that women actually shouldn't have the right to vote so the general will will not be easy to discover at all times there are issues such as the women's suffrage movement that shows that sometimes ittakes a long time there's women should have the right to vote it's just that it takes a long time and for everyone to figure it out even during much of the time that women were not allowed to vote
a lot of women even thought that they should not have the right to vote as well so what the general will is is not always to Percy to perceive at all times another thought here is this those whoare forced to be free in Russo's terms are not really free at times minority groups should continue to dissent rather than give in they are not treasonous as Rousseau claims when doing so there can be times where thegovernment says we're gonna force you to be free you're living your life not as a rational person would live it and certain minority groups they might be losing their liberties and their freedoms or being oppressed in certain kindsof ways because of this but and Rousseau says that they should not dissent because if they do dissent that's treason that's treason however there can be legitimate times where minority groups should continue to dissent rather than give in
because being forced to be free or what is perceived by the government to be what a rational lifestyle is could actually be too restrictive and it could be the case that there are different ways of living life thatactually that go against the government that actually are okay and that people should have the liberty and freedom to decide to live their life in that particular kind of way right and so in conclusion Rousseau claims that longdebates signify the decline of the state since only clouded perception hinders unanimity if there's no unanimous vote in a direct democracy and there's just long debates and it doesn't look like there's unanimous of a unanimous vote on theissue or Russo thinks that this just means that there's clouded perception this is an indication of the decline of a state because people aren't properly educated in ethics in order to see what the general will is and vote
accordingly however in response more debate is needed to hear certain minority groups sometimes debate and deliberation is good and if there's there's a quick unanimous vote it could be the case because there are certain people who are beingoppressed who may not have a proper say they may not have a seat at the table such that they can provide dissent and lead towards a long debate of determining what kind of policy issue issue is just orunjust sometimes more debate is needed and it's okay to have debates and have long debates also what's best for the state can be controversial and requires deliberation so the idea here again is that the general will is notalways easy to perceive there can be controversy and that's okay sometimes that there is controversy Rousseau thought that this was negative if there is controversy this just signifies the decline of the state however and many times it's good
to have controversy because here we can we can have relevant groups when the relevant groups to an issue have seats at the table then this can help lead towards a more equal and more fair decision and more fairpolicy because all the relevant groups including including relevant minority groups are being able to properly voice their concerns and a kind of general objection against Russo is that in order to make sure democracy leads to a good outcomeRusso has tight regulations that seem to lead to an oppressive regime so Russo is aware of Plato's critique of democracy that it can lead to a kind of tyrant a really bad leader could lead to very bad policiesthat are put in place given the masses but it could lead to mob rule so in order to try to respond to this and still advocate a democracy Rousseau's tries to have very tight restrictions on the people such
as having a public censure agency requiring people to be involved with a religious group these kinds of regulations making sure people live in accordance with positive freedom and with what a rational person would choose to live the kindof life a rational person would choose to live however having all of these tight regulations it seems to lead to an oppressive regime so there's this issue with democracy about this platonic problem with democracy in that it canlead towards say having a bad ruler but when people and philosophers try to tinker with democracy to tighten it up to try to make it very unlikely that democracy will lead to these bad kinds of consequences it lookslike it leads to a democratic state that is oppressive that oppresses the people so there once again we still have this question in light of Plato Henry so state actually lead to a system a political system that makes
it very likely that it will lead to good rulership good laws good policies and things like that all right so that's something to keep in mind as we continue looking at various theory on what the ideal state isespecially theories that put forth that are put forth democracies or a certain kind of democracy as the ideal state and with that I'll leave you until the next lesson