MAJORITY OR INDIVIDUAL
Throughout the history, philosophers have emerged new ideas about how society govern and how people can be free two of these philosophers are that Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill who are significant philosophers in our world because their ideas about liberty and general will have shaped today’s world. Actually, these philosophers have a contrast about liberty since Rousseau has an idea about general will what he explained as majority’s ideas ignores minority’s and understanding of liberty for Mill is not the same with him. According to Rousseau, the whole political or sovereign entity established common will of all citizens. The interests of everyone and respecting the will of the general public, the private willpower are based on personal interests. Personal will or interest should be passive in front of general will. This is the only legitimate government of floating Rousseau's management has said that the general will. According to Rousseau, general will do not make mistakes so other ideas are not important; however, Mill said that every ideas have the same importance because there is human fallibility so people should share their ideas (freedom of speech). According to Mill, freedom of speech enables us to increase quality of freedom and every person should be listened because majority’s ideas may not be true. Rousseau and Mill have been conflicted each other about general will and human fallibility. There is a conflict between the ideas of Rousseau and Mill with regard to the obedience to the collective will. While Rousseau perceives the general will as a necessity to ensure the well-being of society as a whole, Mill points out that individuality is essential for development of the self which brings well-being to the society. Although their ideas are not the same about liberty, they thought that government should emerge by voting. In this essay, I will mention understanding of Rousseau about ideal citizens who accept general will as sovereignty , Mill’s ideal citizens who are open to new ideas, it is related to freedom of speech how creates ideal citizens and changeable world. Firstly, Rousseau said that ideal citizens should accept the general will, he explained it social contract. People accept the social contract since the beginning. Social contract involves general will; therefore people signing social contract obey majority’ decisions. General will reflects majority’s opinion so it creates ideal society even if other people did not obey majority’s ideas; they accept the social contract for society welfare. In this sense, according to Rousseau, general will closes to democracy (Rousseau, 151). Understanding of general will for Rousseau is not distant from today’s democracy. Rousseau explains general will is unanimous system, unanimous system is majority’s decision for him in other words general will should be sovereign (Rousseau, 151). Rousseau sees majority will as the sole representative of the sovereignty of the people. Rousseau expressing, sovereignty cannot be divided and cannot be transferred to another, depending of this idea he had seen also impossible on the rule representation of sovereignty which is only public for him (Rousseau, 151). Forming the basis of the sovereignty of the general will is “do not make mistakes, wrong, is always the right way, he is right and it is always for the benefit of the public (Rousseau, 88). According to Rousseau, the general will of the majority in only created by the provision cannot be represented. According to him, the rule holds a single person, group or minority, if majority manages society in the direction of social benefits, represents the general will is. When viewed from this perspective, Rousseau, the majority’s will, not the will of a single person or even a group can be the general will. So the majority is not everything represented (Rousseau, 152). Those in governing positions that are important for the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document