Who will patch up the “whole” and who will buy a new bucket?:

A discussion on Mill vs. Rousseau

As these two heavy thinkers go head to head in this philosophical match it will be great to see who has the best ideas. Well that is all for now, back to you Pat.

In today’s world freedom for all is what we all want. That freedom will differ depending on whom one talks to, but in the end they want the freedom to do what they please. Living in a democratic world we are supposed to be able to vote on what should happen, and then the majority wins. The problem with that is, there will be a population of losers. It is very difficult to get a 100% winners all the time. Never will we have 100% winners. By winning, I mean everyone gets their freedom just like they get their Whopper from Burge King, “Just the way they want it.” The deciding factor about what goes on only confuses the matter. In John Stuart Mill’s time and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s time this confusion existed. With the general will being best for the sovereign and the freedom of everyone only when it will not harm anyone was the thinking, it was unresolved back then and it is still unresolved today.

According to Rousseau, the general will is 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, but the general will expresses what is best for the state as a whole. Putting that in to perspective, he does not worry about restricting the power of government externally at all, having confidence that the internal restraint of seeking always the general will should do the best job possible. When is the general will liable to restrict freedom in ways that Mill might object to? The general will according to Rousseau was the common good, the best for the entire state, not the individual. Mill rejects attempts, either through forced government or social pressure, to coerce people’s opinions and behaviors. He argues that the only time a forced government is acceptable is when a person’s behavior harms other people-otherwise, society should treat diversity with respect. The conflict between Mill and Rousseau lies in the details. For instance, the topic of slavery. For whites to enslave black slaves they were doing what was best for the whole, for the general will, which was to maintain white supremacy. The only problem Mill will have with that is where it was physical and emotionally harming other people. While the slave masters were enslaving the black slaves, they the slave masters were getting rich, all at the expense of the black slaves and that is where Mill has the problem. In Mill’s mind, diversity was not being treated with respect; it was not being embraced, it was punished.

Liberty and freedom, isn’t that what we all want? Two powerful words that can result in both positive and negative actions. How does it get to that point? How does it get to be positive or negative? As human beings we are born with a certain amount of liberty and freedom. Now, the meaning of these two words may be a little vague. Let me use the definitions of John Stuart Mill and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to get a better understanding. John Stuart Mill defines Liberty as  the nature and limits of the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. Mill argues that society can only exert authority over behavior that harms other people, anything else is an abrogation of individual freedom.[1] Jean-Jacques Rousseau says in the state of nature people have physical freedom., meaning that their actions are not restrained in anyway, but they are little more then animals, slaves to their own instincts and impulses. In most contemporary societies, however, people lack even this physical freedom. They are bound to obey an absolutist king or government that is not accountable to them in any way. By proposing a social contract, Rousseau hopes to secure the civil freedom that should accompany life in society This freedom is tempered by an agreement not to harm one’s fellow citizens, but this restraint leads people to be moral and rational. In this sense, civil freedom is superior to physical freedom, since people are not even slaves to their impulses.[2]

Mill justifies the value of liberty through a Utilitarian approach. He wants to show the positive effects of liberty on all people and on society as a whole. One interesting aspect of that is he links liberty to the ability to progress and to avoid a pause in growth. His view on liberty of opinion is very important. There are two main reasons why this is so: 1) the unpopular opinion may be right 2) if the opinion is wrong, by throwing it out will then allow people to better understand or better realize the opinions of others. Overall his basic argument is to respect liberty, to the degree it does not harm anyone else. This sounds good and well, but Mill still leaves us with a huge blank spot, he views are sometimes too vague when it comes to the limits of liberty. In all, he does provide an impassioned defense on nonconformity as a positive good for society, and an equally impassioned reminder that no one can be completely sure that his or her way of life is the best or the only way to live.

“Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” That is Rousseau’s famous phrase that asserts that modern states repress the physical freedom that is out birthright, and do nothing to secure the civil freedom for the sake of which we enter into civil society. That sounds similar the when the first car came out and FORD said, “You can have the car in color as long as it is black.” Well, Rousseau’s is a little more heavier, but the meaning is still there. We are free to choose as long as we pick choice “C.” Since he believes in the general will, it is hard to have personal freedom. The general will is the best for the whole, not the individual. While everyone should be free to observe their personal beliefs in private, Rousseau suggest that the state also requires all citizens to observe a public religion that encourages good citizenship

By definition the general will is the common good for all. Not the majority, but all. It is supposed to be the best choice for everyone in the sovereign. When asked will the general will always seek the least restriction consistent with mutual self protection? I would have to answer no. That may seem to be a little hypocritical in theory. If the general will is supposed to be the best choice for all, then is only makes sense for it to seek restriction that is consistent with mutual self protection. By going back to the example of slavery, it is clearly shown that is not the case. Slavery hurt and abused, it did not self protect the whole. With the type of mentality, “I want best for the whole” at all times, it will be hard to get a 100% agreement. It is possible, but unlikely. Possible, because I believe that everyone living does not want to be shot and killed. So I believe that everyone yearns to live their life without being shot. With that example it is a little easier to get a 100% yes, but on other maters, that is hardly unlikely.

Rousseau’s government is more liable to be much more interventionist, much more of an “Aunt Polly” in essence. By which I mean, always making suggestions about what is best. Always trying to manipulate the actions of others. When this type of behavior occurs and just goes on and on, what is left is a society that can not think or act for it’s self. It becomes solely independent on some other force. Once it has been brainwashed, it will no longer do what it wants to do, but rather what “Aunt Polly” wants to do.

Now that the general will has been discussed and the definition of freedom has anything changed? During the writing of this paper, debates about similar topics have occurred across the globe, in many languages. This idea of freedom and the best choice for all is a worldwide issue. It has gone on in the past and is current in my lifetime. We can ask questions all day long and debate about it for ever and ever, but we always end up in the same exact spot where we started. It almost makes one feel like there is no point, no resolution. Only a cat a mouse game that is here to take up time in out day. Don’t get me wrong this is important and interesting stuff, but honestly speaking, talking about it patches up the “whole”, but acting on it buys a whole new bucket.

Between Mill and Rousseau, which one patched up the whole and which one bought a new bucket? Well Bob, it is still too early to tell!

Commentary:

Home