How would Rousseau's General Will eliminate the tendency of individuals to distinguish themselves from each other that he had identified in the Discourse on Inequalities ?Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In the Discourse on Inequalities, Rousseau identifies that individuals have developed a need to distinguish themselves from others in unequal ways through the very act of living together. For a society to function, this must be controlled, which, according to Rousseau, is done by the presence of a general will. However, I argue that Rousseau's General Will does not eliminate the tendency of individuals to distinguish themselves from one another, but only controls it in certain aspects to allow society to continue. Rousseau identifies the origin of the tendency of individuals to distinguish themselves from each other at two points. In the social contract, this happens when human beings work together to promote concrete common interests (here he gives the example of deer hunting (Keohane 1980; p440)) and thus discover the enjoyment of the social. A competition between individuals then develops within this framework, leading them to distinguish themselves from each other. However, in Discourse on Inequalities, Rousseau identifies the invention of agriculture as the cause of this distinction, because it meant that people wanted two things: property and people who worked for them. Rousseau comments that “as soon as one man needs the help of another… equality disappears” (Gourevich 1997: p167). Here it refers to moral or political equality (Gourevich 1997), which is given by human consent, rather than physical (natural) equality. As humans continue to live together, these wants (property and people working for them) transform into needs (Gourevich 1997), meaning that it is no longer a desire for humans to distinguish themselves from one another. from each other, but from a need. This need to distinguish becomes a problem in society when it is not controlled. “Amourpropre” is the term used to describe an unnatural and factious self-love (Gourevich 1997: 218), which leads to the toxic inequality in society, which Rousseau warns us against. The rich are then only happy to have things as long as others do not have them (Gourevich 1997), because of this “self-esteem” where they must continually distinguish themselves from other humans. It is also not enough to own property, one must deprive others of it (Gourevich 1997), which leads to inequalities in society, in which people must constantly interact with each other. Furthermore, in societies, Rousseau identifies that desires become needs (Gourevich 1997), therefore the desire for happiness based on distinguishing oneself from other humans by depriving them of property becomes part of one's self-interest. The pursuit of luxury is the ultimate expression of this need according to Rousseau and it leads to despotism, which has the potential to "complete the evil that societies had begun" (Gourevich 1997: 202), namely that it will completely eradicate natural of people. and leave in their place “artificial men and artificial passions” (Gourevich 1997: p186). Therefore, for Rousseau, living in a society creates a process that could destroy it if left unchecked. His solution to this problem is the General Will. Rousseau assumes that men always act in their own self-interest as they interpret it (Keohane 1980), so it would not be natural for them to renounce their own interests to be part of a society. In the Discourse on the Economypolitically, Rousseau explains that to get people to follow the general will, it must be in their own interest to do so (Cole 1993). This is how the magistrate can maintain control and ensure that society does not become despotic. The sole use of violence and terror for Rousseau would also lead to the downfall of society, which is why the General Will, with the occasional use of violence, is the solution (Cole 1993). Keohane identifies that “to behave morally is to behave in a manner consistent with the common interest” (Keohane 1980: p487). These common interests are not a harmony of all personal interests, but certain goals that people agree to work together to achieve. It is the job of the legislator to create these common interests, which do not exist in nature (Keohane 1980). In this way, Rousseau's argument is slightly Hobbesian in that the authority to legislate lies with a single power, but it is opposed to the Hobbesian way, because it is entirely the choice of citizens to follow the will general and if they do not do so, the responsibility lies with the sovereign. (Cole 1993). The General Will is therefore the solution proposed by Rousseau to political inequality caused by the tendency of humans to distinguish themselves from one another, as identified in the Discourse on Inequality. However, the General Will does not eliminate the tendency of humans to distinguish themselves from each other, rather it helps control this tendency. I will argue this using Rousseau's ideas about property and particular wills. The fact that Rousseau does not suggest that property be prohibited means that the tendency of humans to distinguish themselves from each other is not eliminated. Keohane (1980) identifies that property is always permitted under the social contract (which allows the general will to be followed), and that individuals can therefore always be individuals. The limit set here is that all property belongs to the sovereign to ensure that people cannot buy each other (Keohane 1980), because slavery, in Rousseau's eyes, deprives a person of their humanity. It is a compromise between individual liberty and authoritarian moral equality. If, according to Rousseau, one of the aspects that makes us human is the capacity to be a free agent, then the sovereign having control of all properties will violate man's capacity to act as an agent free. As Rousseau explains in Discourse on Inequalities, it was property (after the development of agriculture) that led to the formation of families and then societies (Gourevich 1997) and it continues to be a key element of the way human beings define themselves within society. In the Discourse on Political Economy, Rousseau explains how the rich buy works of art (especially luxury items) to distinguish themselves from the poor (Cole 1993). The General Will could put an end to this, but Rousseau recommends against doing so (suggesting taxing luxury goods instead (Cole 1993)), allowing humans to continue to distinguish themselves from one another in terms of property. . Rousseau maintains that political society is made up of other smaller societies, which have their own interests, manifested by particular wills. People should follow the general will first, but they often go astray and follow the particular will, because it is in their own interest (Cole 1993: p133). One of Rousseau's basic assumptions is that people will always follow what they consider to be their own self-interest. But instead of citizens abandoning their own personal will to that of the general will, Rousseau insists that it is the job of the legislator to.