Im still stuck please help me....?

Question

Do you think that Jean Jacques Rousseau would have seen civil disobeciance as a legitmate course of action????

And why???

And why???

Answer 1

Part of the problem with Rousseau is that his political process was never realized. I mean, with Locke we can see the results of his ideas in the U.S., with Hobbes we can see the results of a monarchy in the past and even today. But Rousseau's works have always been just theory.

It seems that the answer you are looking for must lie within Rousseau's General Will. The GW is directed at the good of society as a whole - whatever is best for that society. So it seems that civil disobedience must be allowed or the government (or GW) might have no other way to know it is failing to promote the best for society.

Do you have to answer a specific question for a paper or essay? My BA was in Philosophy - please let me know if you need more help. You can email me if you like - best of luck!

included is a link to a site with pretty easy to understand Rousseau - i suggest reading the piece on General Will

Answer 2

He surely did - in his own words:

"MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer."

The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will — at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?
Suppose for a moment that this so-called "right" exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense. For, if force creates right, the effect changes with the cause: every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon as it is possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly, the word "right" adds nothing to force: in this connection, it means absolutely nothing.
Obey the powers that be. If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its never being violated. All power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor? A brigand surprises me at the edge of a wood: must I not merely surrender my purse on compulsion; but, even if I could withhold it, am I in conscience bound to give it up? For certainly the pistol he holds is also a power.
Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers. In that case, my original question recurs."

For more, please see the link below.

Answer 3

I'm intrigued.
Is it correct to do other people's homework for them, either morally or within the guidelines?

I hardly think that this is anyway to teach. Surely offering links to research material to allow the poster to draw their own conclusions would be better?

Answer 4

yes,.