The social contract & discoursesRousseau, Jean-Jacques
Philosophy
The social contract & discourses
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
Economics; Political science -- Early works to 1800; Social contract
The most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural
is the family: and even so the children remain attached to the father
only so long as they need him for their preservation. As soon as this
need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from
the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from
the care he owed his children, return equally to independence. If they
remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily;
and the family itself is then maintained only by convention.
This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is
to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which
he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion,
he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and
consequently becomes his own master.
The family then may be called the first model of political societies:
the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children;
and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for
their own advantage. The whole difference is that, in the family, the
love of the father for his children repays him for the care he takes of
them, while, in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place
of the love which the chief cannot have for the peoples under him.
Grotius denies that all human power is established in favour of the
governed, and quotes slavery as an example. His usual method of
reasoning is constantly to establish right by fact.[1] It would be
possible to employ a more logical method, but none could be more
favourable to tyrants.
It is then, according to Grotius, doubtful whether the human race
belongs to a hundred men, or that hundred men to the human race: and,
throughout his book, he seems to incline to the former alternative,
which is also the view of Hobbes. On this showing, the human species is
divided into so many herds of cattle, each with its ruler, who keeps
guard over them for the purpose of devouring them.
As a shepherd is of a nature superior to that of his flock, the
shepherds of men, _i.e._ their rulers, are of a nature superior to
that of the peoples under them. Thus, Philo tells us, the Emperor
Caligula reasoned, concluding equally well either that kings were gods,
or that men were beasts.
The reasoning of Caligula agrees with that of Hobbes and Grotius.
Aristotle, before any of them, had said that men are by no means equal
naturally, but that some are born for slavery, and others for dominion.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account