Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract

 

“Fear and flattery then convert voting into acclamation; no-one considers issues anymore; all they do is to fawn on those in power or to curse their rivals”.

I find it quite fascinating how Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote The Social Contract in 1762 with his strong political philosophical views but also with much discernment.  This quote regarding voting could not be more relevant to the last few elections, but now more than ever with the current election. He describes the general will as being indestructible, but it can be subordinated to other wills of each individual citizen especially in states that lack the simplicity of peace, unity, and equality. He talks about a healthy state being unanimous and a declining state being the dominance of the general will.  In this election, I have heard so many say, “ I do not support either party or agree with their views, yet they vote on which party best suits their individuals ideals and not for the greater good of the sovereign”. 

            I believe that Rousseau's most important insight for the contemporary debate can be found in his claim that the justification for choosing or drawing lots is as a result of the social contract.

“In any real democracy, magistracy isn’t a benefit—it’s a burdensome responsibility that can’t fairly be imposed on one individual rather than another. If the individual is selected by a lottery, the selection is being made by the law that establishes the lottery; but the law doesn’t lose its universality by itself picking out one individual, and no choice has been made that depends on any human will. In an aristocracy, the prince chooses the prince, the government is preserved by itself, and that’s the right kind of situation for voting. When choice and lottery are combined, positions that require special talents, such as military posts, should be filled by choice; the lottery serves for the likes of judicial offices, in which good sense, justice, and integrity are all that’s needed, because in a well constituted state these qualities are common to all the citizens”.

 

 

Immanuel Kant - What is Enlightenment?

 

“Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding”!

When Kant references self-incurred immaturity, I think of some people within our society that simply follow and believe what others do without further researching its validity thus being intellectually immature.  Throughout his essay on Enlightenment he challenges authorities both secular and religious to demonstrate that people who overthrow doctrines and view things in its original state of nature will enlighten one’s state of knowledge. Kant emphasized the natural order of things and how institutional structures change people’s mindsets or do not allow them to feel free to truly investigate and express fundamental basics and make public use of one’s reason in all matters. Kant is an optimist in the sense that he believes human beings can find their way through the natural order of things if not held back by these institutional structures and do not require divine guidance.

I find that Kant’s Categorical Imperative, “Act only to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” is similar to the religious principal of “do unto others as you want done to you”.  Yet when he wrote the Enlightenment, he struck down religious theory and imparted his secular views.   

For example, one that stood out to me was “Have courage to use your own understanding”! This contradicts Christianity and its values as what is stated in the Bible in Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”.

Kant’s theory on Enlightenment led me to reflect on Rawl’s Theory of Justice behind the Veil of Ignorance.  Behind the Veil of Ignorance, you are less likely to insert your personal biases and prejudices resulting in one being “more likely” to be rational, free, and morally equal, choosing principles of justice.

I think it is logical to say that behind the veil of ignorance it is a fair starting point for a social contract because some do not wish to remain in the status quo or be a participant of a disadvantaged group.  When a person is not aware of their position in society, they will consider the perspective of all members. Typically, people identify what is just and unjust by framing their decisions based on their own personal experiences.

“But the attitude of mind of a head of state who favors freedom in the arts and sciences extends even further, for he realizes that there is no danger even to his legislation if he allows his subjects to make public use of their own reason and to put before the public their thoughts on better ways of drawing up laws, even if this entails forthright criticism of the current legislation”.

Kant argues we need to be objective in reasoning under a universal principle. Therefore, should the public believe everything that Dr. Anthony Fauci has to say about COVID-19 simply because he is the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and has been the advisory physician for six presidents on global health issues? Trump and Fauci have gotten into heated debates over the topic.

The above example comes to mind when Kant says, think for yourself. When a doctor gives you a diagnosis; do you simply follow what he or she has to say? We are conditioned to follow what a doctor says because he or she is a trained human being in science and medicine, but that does not mean that humans cannot err in their opinion or diagnosis. 

 

The Declaration of Indepedence

 

“…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …”

This quote from the Declaration of Independence refers to when any government starts to undermine the very purpose of protecting the life, freedoms, and happiness of the people, then, they have the right to change the government or remove it if things are excessively destructive.  Although Thomas Jefferson cleverly wrote the right the people have, perhaps with good intentions, it is not a power the people exercise freely today.  Some out of fear that if they revolt, they will be charged with civil disobedience, and they will be punished; others for lack of knowledge.  Foucault asserts that to achieve such alteration or abolishment, it takes creativity, which he calls a system of rules: it is not a mixture of order and freedom.  So, you cannot be oblivious to the most substantial system of human existence: economic, power, racial, and religious relations. 

Power is exercised through institutions such as the administration, police, army, schools, healthcare systems, etc., and these institutions are made to implement orders, mandates, rules, or laws and to punish those who don’t obey. These powers do not imply justice.  The definition of illegal to the state may mean legal to a person or vice versa. 

For example, let say federal agents caught a suspected ringleader of a mass operation that was plotting to harm a given city or nation.  Is it just or unjust by force (i.e. torture or threat to harm the suspect) in effort to extract the information from the suspect as to the whereabouts of the other operation participants?  In Bentham view, the founder of utilitarianism, this action would be just to protect the remainder of society. This fails to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of persons in its attempt to maximize total social welfare.

Regarding violence in general, Chomsky would argue that the use of violence and the creation of some degree of injustice can only itself be justified on the basis of the claim and the assessment which always ought to be undertaken with a great deal of skepticism that violence is being exercised because a more just result is going to be achieved. If it does not have that grounding, he states it is totally immoral.  Well, morality and law conflict and in my opinion that is why we have such a dilemma over the powers these institutions have over the people.  Regarding our recent surge in police brutality, the administration lacks credibility when it comes to addressing issues of justice, fairness and race.  In cases where death occurs as a result of police brutality, the victims will often attempt to argue a civil rights violation. The issue is that the language of the law is so abstract and often justice does not prevail because from one interpretation to another based on precedent, the victim’s family does not receive victory.  For example, they are reviewing precedent of the Eric Garner case for the George Floyd case.  In Garner, a local grand jury voted not to indict the officer, Daniel Pantaleo, and the DOJ declined to charge him after a five-year investigation because they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willingly and knowingly (that’s the abstract loophole) violated Garner’s civil rights. Yet, NYPD ultimately dismissed the officer due to his use of an illegal choke-hold.