So, this is a part of an essay I did on Jean Jacques Rousseau back in 2009 for a political philosophy class. I will not post the whole essay as its 15 pages long and tedious, but long story short, I read a bunch of stuff Rousseau wrote and did an essay on it. This is the result of my actual reaction part.
Personally, I largely do not agree with much of what Rousseau says. I think he makes valid points at times, but I disagree with parts of his worldview as well as some of his conclusions. First of all, I question the validity of natural right and natural law (Rousseau, 4-6; Class, 3/23/09-4/1/09). I do not think that such things exist on their own. I may be turning this into a theological argument, but I believe that a god would have to establish natural right and natural law himself. This appears to be a rather American understand of natural rights, since this is what the Declaration of Independence seems to argue (Declaration of Independence). While one can make an argument that humans should have a right to life because their instincts drift toward self-preservation (Class, 3/23/09-3/30/09), I do not necessarily think that this has to be a case. Animals themselves often do not grant every being the right to live; some eat each other for food. I believe the same with natural law; without a supernatural being, who says that certain laws are so simple that they exist in nature and must be followed? Again, nature itself is silent on the subject in my opinion. I do believe that such rights and laws exist, but these come from my religious beliefs; I do not think they just occur naturally.
I also do not think that there is a man in the state of nature as Rousseau claimed (Rousseau, 11-34). I do not think that humans can survive on their own, at least not for long. If a human gets injured or sick in this state, which is very likely considering the hazards of living without civilization and medicine, he or she has no one to care for them and no one to turn to for help. When I was in high school, I dislocated my knee. The reason I am better today because we have a society that has health care and my parents and school helped me get around. If I were in nature, I would be lying there on the ground, not able to move, exposed to the elements, and I might even attacked by some wild animal. This is the complete opposite of what Rousseau thought, since he believed that it was possible for humans to recover from even serious injuries (Rousseau, 14). Life in nature, according to scientific theories, appears to be centered around the idea of natural selection, meaning those best able to survive in nature do, and the others eventually die out (Darwin and Natural Selection). While a man in nature probably is fitter than one in society due to constantly exercising his body in the fight of survival, I agree more with philosophers like Ibn Khaldun who thought that humans needed to be in groups to survive (Khaldun, 45-46). Like Rousseau, I think that families were some the first groups found among humans (Rousseau, 37).
The idea that people need one another and function in groups also removes the issue Rousseau had explaining language (Rousseau, 22-25); it probably developed among these groups as he eventually concluded (Rousseau, 37-38). These groups could have agreed to a language rather easily; many would be raised learning the language of their parents and group like we do today. Considering this, I do not think the creation of language was really that difficult. We do need consensus on what the words mean like Rousseau said (Rousseau, 22-25), but if someone in a group decided one day that this brown and green thing should be called a tree, are people really going to argue with him and say “no, I want that to be called a skunk”? I seriously doubt it, since the group would need a uniform code of communications to interact with one another. We can observe this behavior in the creation of pidgins, which are makeshift languages between groups of people who share no common language and need to communicate with one another for some purpose (Pidgins and Creoles). In modern times, it is observed that these languages come from the participants’ original languages (Pidgins and Creoles), but even in the absence of that, I could imagine people still agreeing on using a common sound to communicate if they needed to for some purpose. While coming up with grammatical rules is difficult, it probably happened naturally over time, since this also happens with pidgins that do not die out (Pidgins and Creoles). Languages probably started out as being very primitive as Rousseau described, and then became more complex over time (Pidgins and Creoles; Rousseau, 25).
I also do not agree with Rousseau on the issue of human nature and his views on passions and sentiments (Rousseau, 27-29). I do not think that there is really a difference between Rousseau’s two kinds of drives regarding the self (Rousseau, 27-28). While humans do show empathy, or pity as Rousseau put it (Rousseau, 28-29), they ultimately care for themselves in my opinion. People show pity because they can put themselves in that situation; if the self could not experience such a situation, there could not be pity (Rousseau, 28-29). Therefore, even in actions of putting oneself in another’s shoes, there is still an aspect of the self involved (Rousseau, 28-29) I thought Rousseau made a good point though when he said that a person does not “beat his mother when she is too slow in giving him her breast” or “strangled one of his young brothers when he inconvenienced him” (Rousseau, 27). Nevertheless, this does not mean that humans are not self-interested; it just means they are generally not extremely malicious for no reason. I believe reason merely changes the nature of a person’s passion regarding self-interest (Rousseau, 29), since then humans can actually think about what benefits them while limiting the amount of negative consequences they induce (Keel). This is often considered acting rationally (Keel). In other words, I believe it is the same passion regardless; reflecting on it merely takes it to a whole new level. I also think humans are malicious to an extent when the right stimuli are present. I am currently taking a course on criminal corrections and I have recently learned about all kinds of horrible methods of punishment people used in the past (Welch, 16-61; Lash, 2/5/09-2/12/09). Some of these methods of punishment remind me of something that belongs in the Saw movies, which is an extremely gory horror series (Welch, 16-61; Lash, 2/5/09-2/12/09). I do not think that Rousseau’s “timid” human who has a soft spot for human suffering (Rousseau, 12-29) can invent such horrible yet innovative methods of punishment throughout history (Welch, 16-61; Lash, 2/5/09-2/12/09). Moreover, in ancient times, people watched gladiator fights in the Coliseum for the fun of it (Lash, 2/5/09-2/12/09), and even today, much of our population has an interest in violent media such as movies and video games.
However, I largely agree with Rousseau on how societies developed beyond the family (Rousseau, 34-57). Eventually, families probably got so extended that they needed to work with one another and divide the labor among each other (Rousseau, 39-41). Moreover, it makes sense that the population eventually got big enough where the earth no longer had enough food for subsistence cultures (Rousseau, 35). After all, with the amount of food remaining constant and human population increasing, something would have to be done to prevent people from starving (Rousseau, 35). Moreover, I could see self-interested actors acting rationally and trying to secure advantages for themselves (Keel). I could see natural inequality being transformed into civil inequality among people; after all, some people are more productive than others (Rousseau, 41). I agree that this conquest of property could lead to a form of despotism as Rousseau described (Rousseau, 55). After all, I do not think the rich care about the poor, only about their own interests. I could also see this conquest develop out of a more legitimate form of government, as some people do try to bend the system to their own advantages (Rousseau, 46-55).
I agree with the main concept of a social contract, but I do not like Rousseau’s interpretation of it (Rousseau, 91-118). I agree that the best form of government is when people come together to form their own community, and give up some of their freedom found in nature to obtain security and be able to live freely within the confines of the law (Rousseau, 92-93). However, unlike Rousseau, I do not think that a people necessarily need to consent in order for a government to be legitimate (Rousseau, 87-93). After all, as long as the strongest tyrant remains the strongest, that government is legitimate enough since opposing it means that it will still succeed (Rousseau, 87-88). While a stronger force can defeat a tyrant (Rousseau, 55, 87-88), the same is the case among governments set up by a social contract. A tyrant can still defeat a social contract if it is stronger militarily. I think the social contract is the way government should be run and that it is best to live under a social contract as opposed to under any other form of government. In a way, I believe it is the “correct” form of government, although others are also “legitimate”, since I see force as legitimate enough (Rousseau, 87-93).
I also strongly disagree with Rousseau in terms of equality and how it relates to the social contract (Rousseau, 115-117). I do not see the social contract as a society where everyone relies on each other (Rousseau, 46-47, 92-93). After all, our own government is supposedly also a form of social contract in a sense, or at the very least it was based off of it in the sense that the Founding Fathers fought against a “despot” in order to establish themselves as independent and free (Declaration of Independence). However, we do not have equality, nor do I think that we should. I think the social contract is merely giving up some liberties found in nature to live in a more secure existence, much like what Hobbes described (Class, 3/25/09).1 While I understand why Rousseau wanted to make everyone equal so that we do not have people wield more influence than others and therefore become masters, I do not think it can be avoided (Rousseau, 46-47, 92-93). Society is like an organism. In order for it to be strong, people need to do different tasks. This is why division of labor began to begin with (Rousseau, 39-41). Moreover, not all jobs are equal. A doctor is not equal to a garbage man, but we need both for society to function. If we did not have garbage men, we would live in a really unsanitary society. However, one has to admit that becoming a doctor is much more difficult than becoming a garbage man. One needs to study for years to be a doctor while little education is necessary to pick up garbage. Therefore, there should be higher incentives for people wanting to become doctors; if everyone were to receive equal pay, why not just choose the easier job? Ibn Khaldun mentioned in his book that attacking peoples’ property can damage society (Khaldun, 238-239); I agree with this, and I think that trying to make everyone equal damages society because it takes away peoples’ will to excel (Khaldun, 238-239). While Khaldun was mostly speaking of injustice in his quote (Khaldun, 238-239), I still think taking away that which one has earned his unjust. Society, at least in today’s day and age, is not as simple as Rousseau seemed to think. People need to rely on one another; that is how society works. We cannot adopt a subsistence culture like Judith Skhlar described (Rousseau/Skhlar, 267); even if we could, why would anyone want to? It would require hard labor anyway (Rousseau/Skhlar, 267), and society would have nothing to show for it. In an unequal society, people might work for other people, but people would have to work anyway and in this case, progress can be made. Some people need to lead and some need to be led. In corporations, there are employers and employees. Not everyone can be an employer; if this were the case, nothing would get done. Without employers, the employees would not know what to do. While the rich or the strong do exploit the poor or the weak (Rousseau, 41-55), this does not mean that the system of inequality is necessarily bad; there just need to be limits on what the rich and the strong can do in order to protect the poor and the weak. This is where I agree with Rousseau’s idea of a sovereign (Rousseau, 94-95). Since the sovereign makes up everyone, and since the majority of people are not rich, the general will should have a distinct bias against the rich and powerful to an extent (Rousseau, 94-95).
I do not really agree with Rousseau’s attitudes toward life and death and the role of the state (Rousseau, 104-105). Rousseau said that if a state said that one should die, he should because the state provided the security he or she had lived in until that point (Rousseau, 104). While sacrifice in war is sometimes necessary, I support an all-volunteer military in most situations. I can understand such logic in a war like World War II, where the U.S. was facing an enemy that killed millions and wanted to take over the world. However, what about wars like Vietnam and Iraq? I do not support sending people to their deaths involuntarily over such operations. In Vietnam, many people opposed the war but were forced to fight anyway. They were basically sent to the grinder against their will in a war that posed no imminent threat to U.S. security. I believe this is morally wrong. No one, not even a “legitimate” state, should send someone to their death against their will. This breaks Rousseau’s own golden rule regarding “doing what is good for you with the least possible harm to others” (Rousseau, 29), which I agree with. I agree with Rousseau on the death penalty though in the sense that I do not think it should be used unless there is no other alternative (Rousseau, 105). However, in modern society, I think that the death penalty is not needed since prisons can hold people and stop them from becoming a threat to society.
Overall, I disagree with Rousseau on the public will (Rousseau, 100-101). I do not think that we can really count on people to do what is best for the community as a whole, although we should definitely try (Class, 4/1/09; Rousseau, 100-101). I like what Judith Skhlar said: “the force of things is always against it” (Rousseau/Skhlar, 271). For example, in the current economic crisis, I see a lot of individuals wills, but no general will. The unions do not want to cut back when it comes to the government bailing out the auto companies, the AIG executives want to keep their bonuses (CBS News), and the politicians seem to have their own interests. For example, Chris Dodd, who received money from AIG, actually signed the amendment that let the AIG executives keep their bonuses (Chicago Tribune). In the midst of this economic crisis, most people appear to more about themselves than the public good. Even if people did want the public good, who is to say which public good is correct? Many people have different ideas of what is best for the country. Some people might want small government and a strong defense, while others might want a larger government that provides goods to its people. There are different orientations of the general will, and not all of them are compatible with one another and are sometimes polar opposites.
1 I agree with Rousseau though on the fact that we should maintain as much of our liberty as possible within the social contract, as long as it does not harm other people (Rousseau, 29). On other words, I agree with the phrase: “do what is good for you with the least possible harm to others” (Rousseau, 29).
Reaction
Okay, so...a few things before I begin. I tried to read some of the material I read for this class again before doing this response. And my god, I remember why I hate Rousseau. He his so fricking long winded and a bit of a blowhard IMO. Like, I think I'M long winded at times, but here I am trying to cut down my own work for the sake of readability and this dude just rambles for dozens of pages before getting to the point. It's insufferable to me. I hated reading him at the time, I had to reread him so many times just to understand him, and yeah, my brain just turns off trying to read this guy. it's the very definition of TLDR.
He also seems to do a lot of speculation. Ironically, there's a lot more I agree with him now on than back then. he emphasized how humans were free in the state of nature and then someone made property and now we're all slaves. I actually agree with that. However, I came to that conclusion from studying Widerquist and McCall. And those guys used anthropology mixed with philosophy to build their worldview. Like, they actually attempted to study how humans behave. A lot of these enlightenment guys they just speculate, and even though Rousseau kinda got it right, I can't help but read his stuff and be like "where's the evidence?" It's like he's just spouting his mouth off and pulling this stuff out of you know where than actually basing his views on evidence.
Still, I have to say, I've grown to respect the hustle. The state of nature is important, prehistory is important. A lot of enlightenment myths actually are based on a christian worldview, and if we're gonna do an atheistic perspective we kinda need a explanation for how we got from like, tribal societies to capitalism. And that's going to give us a Rousseau like understanding of that prehistory and property being more a force that enslaves people than something that's "natural." Like, if you properly understand history from a secular worldview, it actually does bolster that aspect of Rousseau. So Rousseau, despite being a bit of a blowhard, kinda got it right IMO.
To go into what I wrote, I kinda like how I was evolving away from the Christian worldview even by this point. Like, I was basically saying natural rights are BS. Because they are. If you have a state of nature based around natural selection, crap just dies all the time. There are no natural rights, they're a convenient fiction we created later on. And while I support some variation of them (without property mind you) based on secular principles, yeah, I fully recognize that these are simply values that I believe morality should seek to advance and that failing to do so betrays the entire concept.
I would uphold my rejection of humans as a solitary individualistic creature in the state of nature. We're more pack animals who operate in groups because it's a survival strategy. However, we largely operated in small band societies prior to the modern age of states. And while we were a lot freer in some ways, life was a bit more nasty, brutish, and short in others. Despite my heavy criticism of states and property, I'm not going to claim that life without states was, on the whole, better. It wasn't.
On human nature, I'm going to offer a compromise. Humans are complex. I still agree humans are ultimately selfish, but at the same time, they are capable of pro social behaviors and empathy. All of this is related to the fact that we are animals with survival instincts, but sometimes those instincts extend beyond ourselves to what we consider in groups. There is complexity there. And yes, we are capable of great evil. However, most of the worst anti social behavior is geared toward out groups. people who exhibit extreme negative behavior toward in groups are often retaliated against and kicked out of the group or killed. Ya know, like murderers and the like. But a lot of the worst of human behavior is based on dehumanizing and "othering" people, where people don't see them as human. That's how the nazis treated people during the holocaust. And such views are common today where white nationalists are all about the in group and protecting it from outgroups like immigrants or those of otuer races. Meanwhile in my own ideology I consider racial minorities part of the in group in the group, "Americans." And I'm even accepting of immigrants who want to come here and genuinely be a part of our society.
I actually think it takes a lot of effort to develop universalist tendencies, but if we follow kohlberg's stages of morality, that's essentially what it is. Preconventionally moral people are selfish and only interested in themselves. Conventional people are interested in the in group. Post conventional people like myself become more universalist. Although being universalist, like, TRULY universalist is hard, so we end up being in between in group and universalist. That's why so few stage 6 thinkers exist. Because it kinda means overcoming one's own nature of selfishness and bias toward in groups and it's hard to consistently operate at such a level of moral thinking.
I think that Widerquist and McCall did a good job explaining how we got from band societies and families to larger societies. Societies settled down, established property, as societies became more complex, surpluses happened, leading to more inequality. The ruling class themselves developed their own in groups that favored themselves over the rest of society, and the ruling class became more and more isolated from the people. And societies also turned to conquest and enslavement where they took over other societies, forcibly integrated people into their societies against their will, and often practiced negative things like genocide and slavery. So again, I pretty much agree with Rousseau and what I wrote, but I prefer the more sociological and academic approach of reaching these conclusions rather than, ya know, pulling it out of one's behind, which is kinda what I felt like Rousseau did. Still, for some dude who wrote during the 18th century, his model of how societies arose holds up surprisingly well. So well I feel like Widerquist's work kind of bolsters his model, while refuting those of others, like Locke with his Lockean Proviso and natural rights to property.
On my views on inequality, we gotta keep in mind, it was 2009, I was still very much conservative and defended my views within structural functionalism a la sociology. I bought into the line that if we didn't make people work, and we didn't basically punish people with poverty for not working, that people wouldn't work, and I also believed that we need some level of inequality to motivate people.
I have evolved quite a bit on this issue over the years. I still accept some level of that functionalist argument, but if one can tell, even in 2009, I had this skepticism of the wealthy, and pretty much admitted that the wealthy "job creator" types abused their positions for their benefit. Over time, we can see how my skepticism of the wealthy and need for income inequality have ultimately been reconciled. I have come to understand that the functionalist aspects are very overblown. Even if we had, say, a UBI and every proposal I call for, there will still be significant income inequality due to meritocracy. Like, a UBI and the like doesn't necessarily mean rich people will no longer be rich, or that there will be different classes. As I said, I think some level of class difference based on a division of labor and the rewards associated with those different jobs is inevitable and healthy for society. BUT....a UBI would basically be compatible with that, while greatly reducing the poverty and suffering of the poor while reducing the ability of the wealthy to exploit people. Still it is interesting to see how 2009 me squared that circle. I can see how my current views evolved from there, but yeah I was still about 3 years out from leaving conservatism here, and about 5 years from evolving into my current views.
On the draft, I still agree with what I wrote and am categorically against it. Only when we face a life and death crisis on the level of Russia invading Ukraine can a draft even be justified in my view. And even then I did feel some sympathy for those trying to escape Ukraine. It's natural to not want to die in war. And I don't support people being forced to fight in meatgrinders.
Yeah I would agree that American society is very pluralistic and individualistic. We have no "class consciousness." Of course, this is by design. The wealthy are invested in ensuring we don't develop a "public will" and keep us uneducated and divided amongst ourselves over BS issues that shouldnt matter like race and gender. A lack of education is a huge part of it, as discussed recently, Reagan killed off free college because he didn't want an educated working class to arise. And of course, there's the worldview issue with the fundie Christians in their own little world and liberals in a completely different world. While I agree more with the liberal view, as the conservative one is literally a cult, well...yeah. I would say we're even more divided now in the 2020s than we were in the 2000s. And we're to a point we can't even agree on basic scientific facts like vaccines being good things. It's messed up.
So..yeah. Looking at what I wrote 16 years later...eh....I can see where I was evolving away from my Christian worldview a la 2004-2005ish and toward my current secular humanist one of 2012 and beyond. 2009 is where I started seriously having doubts of my perspective, and to be honest, a secular education did poke holes in my worldview quite a bit. I already basically gave up on bibical literalism by this point and was a far more conflicted and liberal Christian at this point wrestling with a lot of contradictions. We can see how some of the contradictions were bubbling up. And while I still had this edgy conservative worldview at the time that seemed to assume the worst of the world and human nature, ultimately, I can see why, when I left Christianity for good, and I finally reconciled some of the conflicting thoughts I had here, why I ended up where I did.
That's why I'm revisiting old essays like this. Because they are kind of fun for me to revisit, given what I believe now.
No comments:
Post a Comment