Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his writing The Social Contract, (Rousseau), philosophizes about what a civil society implies. Rousseau shows a great capacity to let reason prevail over manipulation in his political statements. In the ‘On Slavery’ writing section, Rousseau examines the nature of conflicts and argues that war exists between states and not between man. Rousseau applies reason to man’s actions and states that it is a requirement for the existence of civil society. Following his logic, he assumes that the enslavement of individuals and/or entire societies cannot exist in a civil world because this contract would be invalid in the eyes of reason and nature. I believe that Rousseau’s ideas are sound in principle and should and should be partly incorporated into modern legal doctrines. The natural law acts subtly against those who violate it by natural methods. This sometimes takes its form in people’s consciousness and directs them to act by helping to regulate the natural order.
Rousseau tries in his writings to show that there is reasoning superior to man’s conscience, and this is expressed in his statement about men who voluntarily submit to a slavery contract, “since alienating the freedom of another is contrary to the natural order, …” (Rousseau 61).
Rousseau goes on to say that slavery is not a valid contract by reasoning that equity for both parties does not exist, in effect making such an arrangement in the eyes of common sense “vain and meaningless” (Rousseau, 61).
It’s easy enough for slaves to agree with this train of thought; but what is it that makes free people or slave owners find the truth in Rousseau’s beliefs?
Rousseau’s rhetoric involves presenting scenarios, often the views of others, and countering them in accordance with their philosophies. Using Grotius’s theory of rationalizing the enslavement of the vanquished in war, Rousseau briefly examines these justifications to lay a foundation of reasons, creating contrasts for his own views on which he then elucidates. Grotius held that it is the victor’s right to extirpate, referring to the vanquished, he followed this argument by concluding that it is within the victor’s right to “rescue his life at the expense of his liberty” (Rousseau, 62).
Grotius elaborates in his book On the Law of War and Peace, referring to enslaving the losers of war, “Neither is the commission of a crime required to reduce them to this condition, but the fate of all is the same, who unfortunately they are taken into the enemy’s territories, when the war breaks out” (Grotius). Grotius’s views give no merit to moral civility. The ruler or ruler who denies property and liberty to individuals of a defeated nation or group is fighting an uphill battle over civility and natural law, forces that are often underestimated by corrupt oppressors. The definition of natural law to which I refer is well defined in James A. Donald’s Natural Law and Natural Rights, which includes “Conduct that violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual violence unorganized to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of an orderly society, uses unorganized individual violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence (violence according to natural law) is a danger for a reasonable man” (Donald).
Donald and I agree that this theory of natural law is embedded in human nature and that government policies that go against entrenched human morality will always be subject to equal resistance to that opposed. By assessing the causes and definition of war, it can be seen that mass killing and enslavement are direct extensions of war, and because they are such, they will always face opposition.
Rousseau delves into what he considers reasons for war. He argues that men become enemies through war by accident, further stating that wars exist over property and not over the person (Rousseau, 62). This being so, he argues that a righteous victorious prince, in reflection of his own laws, will respect the lives of his captives and his property as individuals, but not the property of the fallen state. What I find most convincing of Rousseau’s points is found in his statement: “The object of war being the destruction of the enemy state, a commander has a perfect right to kill its defenders as long as their weapons are in their hands: but once that they have deposited and subdued, cease to be enemies, or instruments used by an enemy, and return to the condition of men, pure and simple, over whose lives no one can any longer exercise a legitimate right” (Rousseau, 62). This line This thought is followed in his next paragraph, “If war does not give the victor the right to massacre his defeated enemies, he cannot base on a non-existent right any claim to the additional right to enslave them” (Rousseau, 63).
I cannot sit and watch a defenseless child being beaten, I must intervene. This compulsion is a manifestation of natural law. To silently and unopposedly observe the rape of another person or the willful destruction of another person’s property, the lack of objection to such actions makes the observer participate in tolerating such oppression. As an individual and as part of a nation, I consider it an inherent duty to make an effort to reduce flagrant and excessive practices that would shock the moral conscience of free men by consensus (a method dictated by natural law), of nations and of individuals. individuals alike. Excessive exposure to violations of natural law is used to pacify their dominance by socially conditioning a dulling of man’s innate sense to critical violations of natural law by creating overwhelming conditions that can confuse and breed tolerance in the morally inclined. The portrayal of the wars conducted by the United States by the media is an example of this infusion of acceptance by overwhelming viewers with examples of rationalized betrayal.
In The Social Contract, Rousseau explains in detail what he believes are necessary virtues for a civil society to exist. His progressive ideas toward slavery contrasted with his current mainstream institution. While some would differ from his opinion, his carefully thought out and expressed views of him have been often considered during the 200 years since it was first published. Natural law was not invented or created, it was discovered. Intertwined with us from our conception, it is a law, though unwritten and underappreciated, violations of it, even the most sweeping and conspiratorial, are guaranteed to meet permanent resistance on all counts. Practices that do not contradict natural law have more than the sum of their parts (supporters), the permanent effects of reason will favor these applications.
© 2005 – David Oppenheimer – Performance Impressions
Works Cited
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract. The origin of civil society. A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2006.
Grotius, Hugo. On the Law of War and Peace. Constitution.org. Book II. Chapter 7, (1) Trans. CA Campbell. September 21, 2005
Grotius – On the Law of War and Peace
Natural Law and Natural Rights. Ed. James A. Donald. Index to the James Liberty Archive Collection. October 28, 2005 Natural law and rights
