Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract | Political Philosophy

In the Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau attempts to reconcile freedom with authority through his infamous theory of the general will. The text is explained with a summary and analysis here in this lecture.
Please Subscribe: tinyurl.com/y66geaf6
Twitter: / james_muldoon_
Facebook: / politicalphilosophy

[@nicholasmckenna8614]

This is the best video on The Social Contract that I’ve come across!! Thank you!

[@maverickstilwell9010]

Same I love rousseau😍

[@mplato4051]

I need to write an essay about Rousseau and this video answered many of the questions I had. The content of your channel its outstanding and I'm shocked that you don't have many more subs. Keep up the great work and I'm sure with time your channel will become more visible.

[@TheCommonS3Nse]

Great explanation! I find the easiest way to understand the general will in relation to the social contract is through analyzing a business contract. You start with a business deal between two people, person A and person B. Person A makes widgets, person B supplies the material for said widgets. In forming their contract, there are 3 parties involved. Person A has to consider what is best for them, and person B considers what is best for them, but they both have to put on their “we” hat and assess what is best for the “we”, ie. the general will, if they wish to cooperate again in the future. If person A only considers themselves and fleeces person B, then they won’t do business again. Person A will make a very healthy profit, but the business venture won’t be profitable for person B, so they will refuse to cooperate in the future. Same idea the other way around. But if they also take into consideration the “we”, then they will do what is best for themselves while ensuring that they can cooperate again in the future. Each one makes a little less than their maximum potential profit, but they can do the deal again in the future, which is a better arrangement than the failed business venture where only one person made a profit. Push that concept up to the level of the state and you have your concept of “general will”. If we only consider our own interests when we vote, the state will collapse. We must take both ourselves and the general will into consideration if we want the state to flourish. At least that’s how I understand it.

[@abhishekanshuwali3808]

Very informative video, best channel for Political Philosophy

[@garinmorris6455]

Reading The Social contract now, I appreciate the analysis of this book. Really helps me understand it in greater capacity. 👍

[@Raikodi]

So precise and so well summarized. Great

[@Katherine.west1230]

Love your content and videos. Well done and thank you!

[@TheDinnerTablePC]

Your videos are so helpful. Thank you.

[@rgjuliaaa2168]

I hope youcan have podcast. Would love to listen to this while travelling and cramming 🤪

[@analizatorslonaibakterija7819]

Your channel is perfect!

[@txpatriot7044]

So, he is the Borg. Got it. Thanks for the video. Best description I have found

[@mohamedsaidi5344]

Wow, thank you so much professor. Really good content.

[@humanbeing6933]

I’m neatly finished Rousseau’s Contract so thanks for the guide… I wish there was more similar study videos to each chapter as it’s to be studied rather than read the way I have done lol. Thanks for this

[@fyodor4436]

Look me in the eyes Muldoon! jk love u n this chanel

[@zekevfab]

Excellent presentation, thank you! I was not expecting the costume 😂 I think Rousseau’s philosophy of the General Will has the merit of highlighting that, for a society that protects its citizens liberty, everyone should be equal in front of the law. However, I agree that the political system proposed by Rousseau is not practical in our multi-cultural and large societies, and that some level of representation is required to define the legislations. I am also not in agreement with the disappearance of the “amour propre” after achieving social and political freedom. It seems very idealist to me, as I think inequality will always exist, if not social or political, at least physical or intellectual.

[@MuhammadShahzad-if1nf]

Thanks for the help Professor!

[@toshbel]

Very useful. Thank you.

[@dilbyjones]

Awesome points made really shows mastery of the subject matter

[@buttert5091]

Thanks for your Videos, love your channel

[@saraaltamimi7494]

Thank you so much professor!

[@priyatirkey4249]

Thanku so much , helped me a ton for my mid terms

[@SergioBecerraII]

Excellent video.

[@gregoriojaca1888]

great video.

[@EmilyIsabel]

Thank you for this in depth explanation!

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

A contract is by definition something that restricts freedom. Yes, you can freely enter into it, but once you agree to enter into it, then it imposes certain conditions and obligations upon you that will necessarily restrict your freedom to do whatever you want.

[@ihatedumbppl1826]

this was great do more

[@oldgreybeard2507]

I wish I had listened to this before reading the Social Contract. It would have made for easier reading

[@EddieStyle]

Awesome!

[@seanmoran6510]

Nature is A moral In my experience watching evolutionary behaviour is very enlightening !

[@TheFinalStarman]

do you guys have any scholarly sources I can cite for this? otherwise, great lecture, thank you

[@TheCrotchetyoldwoman]

As I am currently reading Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" the first major political tract on women's rights, I have been reviewing the ideas of Rousseau, whose ideas on the education of girls she spends a lot of the work attacking. If Wollstonecraft is quoting Rousseau correctly, he preaches the total submission of women. I am amazed that none of the commenters on Rousseau I found seem to address this major moral flaw in Rousseau theories.

[@YEDxYED]

Flaw?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

In Rousseau, you are not subjugating yourself to the will of an absolute sovereign, but rather to the General Will.

[@katiew532]

i owe you my life sir

[@kazbekmairbek5502]

Very very affordable. Much obliged

[@olaknight9133]

Pls add subtitles thank you

[@ignantxxxninja]

3:33 when he says might does not equal right, It sounds like he says mice and even closed caption said mice huhuuu :3

[@MattKeepsFish]

Is it ok if I reference this?

[@DebelaHateu]

How we can got the power point of your lesson?

[@tcorourke2007]

8:45 Sirens in the background. Cops out enforcing those "rational, therefore moral laws of the community", lolz.

[@benjisisler2579]

bro this is like the most complex philosophy on government yet lol

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Rousseau's ideal of the 'legislator' is clearly in conflict with his original ideal that man is originally moral. Of course, some would say that Rousseau saw man in the state of nature as being pre-moral, but you can't really argue, as Rousseau does in his 'Discourse on the Arts and Sciences', that civilization through the arts and sciences has a corrupting influence on morals, unless you believe men are moral in the state of nature to begin with -- after all, if they have no morals, then there is nothing to corrupt.

[@kristineleaguisinga1319]

10:53 it is

[@aidandawn2717]

conditions for democracy 18:16

[@moshefabrikant1]

8:46 Wow

[@maf6544]

can someone please tell what does he says at 3:37- 3:40?

[@tarunperera1181]

I believe what the professor said was "Might does not make right." It's a reference to Hobbes' social contract where citizens are more or less compelled to surrender a portion of their natural rights to the absolute sovereign, regardless of whether they like it or not. Hobbes argues that this sacrifice of natural rights is highly necessary so that the absolute sovereign can ensure the security of the state and also to hold citizens accountable for their actions if they violate the law. Rousseau fundamentally disagrees with Hobbes, as Rousseau does not believe that any individual can possess any natural authority over another. He also believes that individuals are under no obligation to obey a contract to which they are being forced to comply with under duress. The only legitimate way of establishing authority over another individual is through free consent.

[@maf6544]

Thankyou

[@aaronbains4199]

“is adamant that mice did not equal right. We’re under no duty to obey a sovereign even if it’s based on a contract..” [use captions] 1. Hover over the video 2. Locate the top 4 buttons on the right-top of your screen 3. Click the box with curved corners that has “cc” inside of it - cont. if “cc” box isn’t white - 4. Locate your language by scrolling thru the list - English is at the very bottom 5. Click on selected language

[@AVI___18]

I'm from India...

[@runthomas]

i think rousseau's aim was not to enhance the freedom that humans have in a natural condition, it was to enable a fair kind of freedom in a society or state...which may not be as much freedom as you would have in your natural condition, but it was a good way to ensure that you had a reasonable freedom when taking into account that the freedom you have will be based on being beneficial to everyone and that , everyone in that society will have the same freedom....equality in society, and the decisions about that equality is made by deducing the general will of the people...which may in fact go against your own personal will.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

No person is actually born free. The newborn is basically powerless, and his dependence upon others for his very survival necessarily restricts his freedom. As the newborn grows into childhood and his abilities to move around and do things increases, his behavior is restricted by parents and/or guardians who impose upon him certain rules, restrictions, and punishments that are supposed to secure his safety and well-being. As he gets still older, he is hopefully taught to become responsible for his own actions, and usually is given more rules to follow and duties to carry-out in order to help his family -- for example, he might be required sometimes to look after his younger siblings. He might be given more freedom as a teenager, but there is usually more duties and responsibilities that also go with becoming a young man -- as opposed to just being a child. For example, he might be required to get a part-time job to help-out the family -- or just to learn the value of hard-work, and to reinforce in him a need to do well in school and get an education that will hopefully lead to a career some day. Then, of course, as an adult comes more rules, duties, responsibilities. So, all this 'born free' stuff needs some perspective. We are social animals by necessity, not the lone individuals in nature that Rousseau sometimes imagined.

[@PP-qq5zb]

Does the general will not encourage tyranny of the majority?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

In truth there is more rhetoric than reason in Rousseau. I'm not saying he was not a great thinker nor that he doesn't have any valuable insights to offer on political philosophy and the philosophy of man. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking he has some kind of clear rational argument that necessarily leads to some inevitable conclusion as to the best form of government. Like Nietzsche, Rousseau is at heart a romantic -- although his romantic ideas are obviously somewhat different from those of Zarathustra. Nonetheless, like all romantics, what matters most to Rousseau is not clear rational argument (see Descartes for that), but rather an artistic vision of his own romantic ideals expressed in such away that it appears to be rational (without necessarily being rational) and that the language in which this vision is conveyed is at once eloquent, profound, and persuasive. There is definitely some truth and reason in Rousseau, but not nearly as much as there is art and rhetoric. Of course, much the same can be said of Nietzsche -- and, indeed, most great thinkers. We are not so rational as we pretend. Whom among us truly enjoys reading the dry discourses of Aristotle ? Not many, right ?

[@naqibsarwary1448]

Great channel - look us in the eyes please lol

[@ignantxxxninja]

lol

[@aaronbains4199]

He is reading the script from the screen as the words scroll down. That’s why he can’t look at the camera while reading out

[@gdedi]

Humans still exist in a state of nature - we always have and always will

[@commonlawrights9514]

I actively do not vote for this very reason, I have not contractual obligation

[@dabnrights6482]

Why is he looking above the camera

[@ignantxxxninja]

that struck me also... I'm convinced he's reading

[@aaronbains4199]

He is reading as the words scroll from the screen above the camera using an app

[@lostintime519]

I think people confuse Marx with Rousseau. The political movement of the left today is not Marxist at all, it's not to say that it is inspired by Rousseau but it cannot go beyond liberalism. People need to find out more about Marxist theory and research the Marxist critique of Rousseau (Think it is Grundrisse - where Marx writes against egalitarianism). Rousseau seems to be an inspiration to the anarchists, who want to start a commune guided by morals laws after the destruction of the state. Meanwhile, Communism is achieved through class struggle (identity is based on class), and through the technocratic state that sees over the material needs of the people.

[@amatoriidecultura7844]

where does Rousseau talk about atheism?

[@tensevo]

Popular Sovereignty (Self-Sovereign Individual): Governs Private life Common will or general will: Governs Public life Cynical aristocrats, who are themselves a minority, side with actual minorities to convince them that democracy is bad for them. Democracy, if held to standards of individual liberty, will be better for those minorities if they think of themselves as individuals rather than an oppressed group.

[@marieconstant6452]

EXAMPLE = REVELATION PIGS ON JAIL AT MR BUDDAH TELLING THEM TO COME GET ME

[@2tehnik]

so, why couldn't christianity serve as the civil religion?

[@Broox327]

I would say that, the reason Christianity couldn't serve as the civil religion is for the problem Rousseau suggests that is man's natural need for self preservation and interest. There is nothing to say that the will of Christianity is that of the common will. Furthermore, Christianity has instituted its own governing body and hierarchy, separate and unbound to the will of the body politic creating by nature a three way split in the interest of self, state and religion. Rousseau, by my understanding, solves this problem by allowing for many different religions with the idea that no one religion has a governing power and that none have conflicting moral basis, such as "thou shall not kill" vs "It's okay to kill". In my assessment he is suggesting that people should choose state over religion, and that religion should support moral laws for the sovereign, but not govern itself..

[@bradleymcdonald6273]

@@Broox327 A true christian does not seek to oppress or control others... The church should not seek to force dominance over individuals in this kingdom... But individuals who make up the church, who are the temple of God, under his government should seek to bring others into HIS Kingdom... we should desire for them to know him and the love he has for them... This is done through self sacrifice... Denying one's self... Seeking the need of others before yourself... By loving your enemies, just as Jesus has shown his love to a world that rejects him - he is good even to those who are unthankful... Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. We are to be gracious, as our Father in heaven is gracious Man cannot govern man If a single human being struggles and wrestles even with himself, what hope does he have in governing an entire nation? If the blind lead the blind they fall into a ditch God bless you

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

In a sense, of course, Rousseau is right. A state should exist primarily to ensure the fundamental rights of man to his own life, property, and well-being. However, in order to do so, a state must have the power to make laws that restrict our freedom to do whatever we please, and it must have the power to enforce these laws -- even going so far as to take-away the lives, property, and/or well-being of those who willfully break those laws. Of course, all punishments must be proportional to the severity of the crimes committed; but the general ideal is to ensure the fundamental right of a man not to become a victim of his unscrupulous neighbor who might otherwise steal his property, or do him harm. There is no actual peaceful state of nature outside of a civil society -- in that, Hobbes was right. The only choices are civilization or chaos ! But the state -- which is obviously a product of civilization -- does not have absolute authority to do whatever it pleases. As Rousseau indicates, it's legitimacy depends upon the extent which it acts to preserve our fundamental rights as men.

[@roberts5890]

.

[@jeffmoore9487]

The @8:47 He says: "What makes us moral is our capacity to choose differently from our natural instincts". A individual suddenly alone on an island isn't experiencing instincts (food isn't an instinct as much as a bare necessity) or morals but worry and likely panic. We're herd animals. My instinct is to get away from Trump, but I can't because our herd is so huge that I'd have to leave the continent. Luckily I have a herd instinct to organize for the day that the 99% take the reins of power from the 1%. I think its the only option. The idea of an individual separate from the herd makes little sense except as an abstraction. By the time a baby is 12, it has been thoroughly socialized. It's "individuality" is all within the context of people and its individuality doesn't exist as if it had somehow raised itself. That plainly isn't possible. Humans don't know themselves at all outside of a permanent envelope of others. It's just an idea like a flat earth or perhaps a moon pie?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

In a sense, of course, Rousseau is wrong. Even if there is such a thing as a General Will (or Common Good), it surely must include the right of a man to speak his mind and to openly disagree. Absolute conformity is not healthy for a society as it is purely artificial and represses of our natural need to express our individuality. It is among our fundamental rights as men to speak our minds, openly disagree, and to express our individuality. There are, of course, limits to everything. But to require our absolute conformity to some abstract and dubious thing called the 'General Will' is a dangerous and repressive ideal that can only lead to an autocratic state -- a state that is far from the individual sovereignty Rousseau imagined in the beginning as the legitimate foundation for the existence of the state and its authority.

[@MA-go7ee]

It's all Rousseau's fault... Has any man been so right while being so wrong

[@nuqwestr]

Where's Hobbes, what have you done with Hobbes? The left, again, goes too far.