Comparing Rousseau and Mill on Liberty

Comparing Rousseau and poor boy on Liberty1. Compare Rousseau and hero sandwich on liberty. In what way can moves argument be read as a critique of the fancy of exemption at the sum of Rousseau s argument in On the favorable Contract (especi aloney concerning the public every last(predicate)ow for )? Which account of liberty is more persuasive and why?Rousseaus principal train in writing The Social Contract is to determine how independence may be attainable in civil conjunction,The oecumenic pass oning expresses itself through the laws of the conjure.The disposal is distinct from the s all overeign, and the two are almost always in friction. This friction get out ultimately destroy the state, alone healthy states can last galore(postnominal) centuries before they dissolve.General will The will of the sovereign that aims at the common advanced. Each man-to-man has his own particular will that expresses what is best for him. The general will expresses what is be st 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 mountain value their personal interests over the interests of the state, the will of all may differ significantly from the general willRousseaus conception of freedom in The Social Contract is that people attain their freedom through a transformation from a state of nature to civil ordering. His contention is that we can be both free and subject to political authority Rousseau recollects 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 verbalism 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 w ishes or welfares of society as a whole. The aspiration 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 . grinds essay On Liberty is a strong counter argument to Rousseau s conception of freedom, especially regarding the general will . According to hero sandwich, 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 r isks becoming paternalistic a tyranny of the majority 1, where minority enamours 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 ill-use 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 atta ins when they follow the general will.I think the biggest problem at the heart of Rousseau s social assume 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 touch that individuality is something that should be protectedpassionate 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 built-in 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 efficiency 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 character 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 emergence 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 MillsMany 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 121251I think there s a certain amount of compatibility between the two ideas. All it would take is for the general will toHealthy cultural climateexemption 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.docWorks CitedMill, John Stuart. On Libert y 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.