Activity 3
Read the following passage from The Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and tell us what's critique of the anthropological Hobbesian - present in the film in the figure of Jack - . Justify
CHAPTER I Purpose of this book
Man is born free, and yet lives everywhere in chains. The same love is considered, it remains so to be less a slave than the others. How has this transformation? I do not know. What can give it the stamp of legitimacy? I think I can resolve this issue. If
not serve more than force and the effects derived from it, say: "As a people is bound to obey and obeys, it does well, as soon as it can shake the yoke, and shakes him, works even better since regaining his freedom with the same right that was taken from, the test was created to enjoy it.
Otherwise, it was not worth never take it away. "But the social order is a sacred right which underlies all others. However, this right is not a natural right: it is founded on conventions. Try to find out what are those conventions, but before reaching that point, I fix or determine what I say.
CHAPTER II
of the first companies
The oldest of all societies, and the only natural, is the family, but children do not remain attached to the parent more than during the time they need it for conservation.
As soon as this need ceases, the natural links are dissolved. Children free from the obedience they owed to the father and this relieved of care owed to those, either come to enjoy the same independence. If you remain together, is no longer enforced and, naturally, but voluntarily, and the family itself can not exist only by convention.
That freedom is therefore common of human nature. His main law is to secure their own preservation, his first cares are those due to him. Reached the age of reason, being the sole judge of the means to be preserved, consequently conviértese master of himself.
The family is then, if you will, the first model of political societies: the head is the image of the father, the people of the children, and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty but not instead of its usefulness. The only difference is that, in the family, parental love reward the father of the care lavished on their children, while in the state, the pleasure of command who supplies or replaced the love that the boss feels for his constituents.
[...] CHAPTER III
The right of the strongest
Strongest ever is not enough to be always the master or lord, unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, ironically made and really looks set to start. But we never explain this word? Force is a physical power, and I see that morality can result from their effects. Yielding to force is an act of necessity, not will, at best, may be prudent.
In what sense may be a duty? Assume for a moment This supposed right, I say that it is inexplicable gibberish, because if the force is the right, as the effect changes with the cause, any force greater than the first, amend the law. Since it can disobey with impunity, we can legitimately, and since the strongest is always right, but is not attempting to be. What, then, a right which perishes when force stops? If we must obey by force is not necessary to obey out of duty, and if the force disappears, the obligation does not exist. It is therefore right that the word adds nothing to the strength or means nothing here. Obey
powers. If this means: yield to the force, a provision is good, but superfluous. I answer that will never be violated. All power emanates from God, I admit, but any disease as well. Will he be banned for it, seek medical advice? If a bandit me in a jungle, I will, not only by force, but may even prevent it, bound in conscience to give my bag? Why, in short, the gun he has is a power? Agree, then, that the force does not make right and that no one is obliged to obey only the lawful powers. So my question is always up early. CHAPTER VI
guess the social pact men arrived at the point where the obstacles to their conservation in the natural state than the forces which each individual can use to stay there. Then this primitive state can not exist, and mankind would perish if not change his ways.
However, as men can not engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, have no other means of preserving the form by adding a sum of forces able to surpass the resistance of them together with a one end and make them work together and conformity.
This sum of forces can not be born but the competition of many, but, being the force and freedom of every man the main instruments for conservation, how could engage without harming without neglecting the obligations you have for yourself? This difficulty, namely my view, can be stated as follows:
"Find a form of association which defends and protects the common force the person and property of each partner, and why each one, joining all not obey but himself and remain as free as before. " This is the fundamental problem whose solution gives the social contract.
clauses of this contract are in such a manner determined by the nature of the act, that the slightest modification would make them useless and void so that, even if they were never formally set out, are everywhere the same and have been everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until that violated the social contract each regains his original rights and recover their natural liberty, the conventional loss of which had given up first.
These clauses, well studied, are reduced to one, namely the total alienation of each associate with all his rights to the entire community, because, first, completely giving each of the partners, the condition is the same for all , and still the same, none has interest in making it expensive for others.
Furthermore, carrying out the sale without reserve, the union is as perfect as can be, without any partner has anything to complain because if there remain some rights to individuals, as there would be no common superior who could adjudicate between them and the public , each being to some extent his own judge, would pretend to be all over soon and consequently, the natural pregnant and partnership subsists necessarily become tyrannical or worthless.
In short, giving each individual at all is not given to anyone, and as there is a partner of which is not acquired the same right is transferred, earns the equivalent of all that is lost and more strength to keep what you have.
If discarded because of the social compact what is not of essence, we find that is reduced to the following terms: "Everyone puts together his person and all his power under the supreme direction of general will, and each member considered as an indivisible part of all. " This act of association
instantly converts the particular person of each contracting party, in a normal and collective body, composed of as many members as votes is the assembly, which receives from this act its unity, its common self, his life and will. The public person is, therefore, by the union of all others, once took the name of the city and today the republic or body politic, which is called state when active power compared with their peers. As partners, they take collectively the name of the people, particularly the citizens as participants in the sovereign authority, and subjects to be subject to the laws of the State.
But these terms are often confused, being taken for one another, enough to know when they are used to distinguish them precisely.
Read the following passage from The Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and tell us what's critique of the anthropological Hobbesian - present in the film in the figure of Jack - . Justify
CHAPTER I Purpose of this book
Man is born free, and yet lives everywhere in chains. The same love is considered, it remains so to be less a slave than the others. How has this transformation? I do not know. What can give it the stamp of legitimacy? I think I can resolve this issue. If
not serve more than force and the effects derived from it, say: "As a people is bound to obey and obeys, it does well, as soon as it can shake the yoke, and shakes him, works even better since regaining his freedom with the same right that was taken from, the test was created to enjoy it.
Otherwise, it was not worth never take it away. "But the social order is a sacred right which underlies all others. However, this right is not a natural right: it is founded on conventions. Try to find out what are those conventions, but before reaching that point, I fix or determine what I say.
CHAPTER II
of the first companies
The oldest of all societies, and the only natural, is the family, but children do not remain attached to the parent more than during the time they need it for conservation.
As soon as this need ceases, the natural links are dissolved. Children free from the obedience they owed to the father and this relieved of care owed to those, either come to enjoy the same independence. If you remain together, is no longer enforced and, naturally, but voluntarily, and the family itself can not exist only by convention.
That freedom is therefore common of human nature. His main law is to secure their own preservation, his first cares are those due to him. Reached the age of reason, being the sole judge of the means to be preserved, consequently conviértese master of himself.
The family is then, if you will, the first model of political societies: the head is the image of the father, the people of the children, and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty but not instead of its usefulness. The only difference is that, in the family, parental love reward the father of the care lavished on their children, while in the state, the pleasure of command who supplies or replaced the love that the boss feels for his constituents.
[...] CHAPTER III
The right of the strongest
Strongest ever is not enough to be always the master or lord, unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, ironically made and really looks set to start. But we never explain this word? Force is a physical power, and I see that morality can result from their effects. Yielding to force is an act of necessity, not will, at best, may be prudent.
In what sense may be a duty? Assume for a moment This supposed right, I say that it is inexplicable gibberish, because if the force is the right, as the effect changes with the cause, any force greater than the first, amend the law. Since it can disobey with impunity, we can legitimately, and since the strongest is always right, but is not attempting to be. What, then, a right which perishes when force stops? If we must obey by force is not necessary to obey out of duty, and if the force disappears, the obligation does not exist. It is therefore right that the word adds nothing to the strength or means nothing here. Obey
powers. If this means: yield to the force, a provision is good, but superfluous. I answer that will never be violated. All power emanates from God, I admit, but any disease as well. Will he be banned for it, seek medical advice? If a bandit me in a jungle, I will, not only by force, but may even prevent it, bound in conscience to give my bag? Why, in short, the gun he has is a power? Agree, then, that the force does not make right and that no one is obliged to obey only the lawful powers. So my question is always up early. CHAPTER VI
guess the social pact men arrived at the point where the obstacles to their conservation in the natural state than the forces which each individual can use to stay there. Then this primitive state can not exist, and mankind would perish if not change his ways.
However, as men can not engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, have no other means of preserving the form by adding a sum of forces able to surpass the resistance of them together with a one end and make them work together and conformity.
This sum of forces can not be born but the competition of many, but, being the force and freedom of every man the main instruments for conservation, how could engage without harming without neglecting the obligations you have for yourself? This difficulty, namely my view, can be stated as follows:
"Find a form of association which defends and protects the common force the person and property of each partner, and why each one, joining all not obey but himself and remain as free as before. " This is the fundamental problem whose solution gives the social contract.
clauses of this contract are in such a manner determined by the nature of the act, that the slightest modification would make them useless and void so that, even if they were never formally set out, are everywhere the same and have been everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until that violated the social contract each regains his original rights and recover their natural liberty, the conventional loss of which had given up first.
These clauses, well studied, are reduced to one, namely the total alienation of each associate with all his rights to the entire community, because, first, completely giving each of the partners, the condition is the same for all , and still the same, none has interest in making it expensive for others.
Furthermore, carrying out the sale without reserve, the union is as perfect as can be, without any partner has anything to complain because if there remain some rights to individuals, as there would be no common superior who could adjudicate between them and the public , each being to some extent his own judge, would pretend to be all over soon and consequently, the natural pregnant and partnership subsists necessarily become tyrannical or worthless.
In short, giving each individual at all is not given to anyone, and as there is a partner of which is not acquired the same right is transferred, earns the equivalent of all that is lost and more strength to keep what you have.
If discarded because of the social compact what is not of essence, we find that is reduced to the following terms: "Everyone puts together his person and all his power under the supreme direction of general will, and each member considered as an indivisible part of all. " This act of association
instantly converts the particular person of each contracting party, in a normal and collective body, composed of as many members as votes is the assembly, which receives from this act its unity, its common self, his life and will. The public person is, therefore, by the union of all others, once took the name of the city and today the republic or body politic, which is called state when active power compared with their peers. As partners, they take collectively the name of the people, particularly the citizens as participants in the sovereign authority, and subjects to be subject to the laws of the State.
But these terms are often confused, being taken for one another, enough to know when they are used to distinguish them precisely.
0 comments:
Post a Comment