How does Rousseau argue that the exercise of force cannot provide a legitimate basis for social order? The areas of shared concern between Rousseau and David's Brutus.

Essay by arfpintUniversity, Bachelor'sB+, February 2007

download word file, 5 pages 5.0

Downloaded 85 times

Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that the exercise of force (physical power) cannot provide a legitimate basis for social order; some may say that the strongest always win, but how do they win and will they always win? The power produced by force doesn't create duty, only obedience. Let's take for example a wealthy land owner; do his employees work hard for him at all times or just when they are being watched? His power over them is their wages, they have no duty to him other than to produce X, Y or Z. No man is born with a right or power over another, however the man holding the gun holds the power/authority, but does he have the right. Others may do his will but do they do this out of fear/force or because they wish to? Take away the gun and there is no power, and others may choose whether or not to do his will, therefore the strongest is only able to yield his authority whilst that force is in place, it does not however, give him the right to authority.

The old saying while the cats away the mice will play is the best explanation I have for this, if the only thing that stops the society from not following orders, rules, regulations etc. is the force, what happens when the day comes, when that force can no longer be put in place, for what ever reason? Riots, disorderly conduct, revolutions call them what you will but they happen. Rousseau called this the State of Nature where man had natural born freedom, restricted by his own individual physical strength and power. Man could do whatever he wanted, when he wanted, with no laws and no government. When a man became old or to weak to protect his land...