Plausibility of the “General Will” ______1

CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the the for requirements the of fulfillment In partial Plausibilityof the“General Will” Central European University, University, European Central Master of Arts in Philosophy Philosophy in Arts of Master Department of Philosophy Philosophy of Department Hungary, Budapest, 2011 2011 Budapest, Hungary, Nemanja Todorovic Todorovic Nemanja Andres Moles Moles Andres Submitted to: to: Submitted Supervisor: Supervisor: By: By:

degree of of degree 1 CEU eTD Collection be a possible strategy to reject Estlund’s objection, but tha but objection, Estlund’s reject to strategy possible a be epist contentious some on rests it that conclude I plausibility, that recognize I Although, autonomy. personal and authority political 20 the of much for outdated democrat and to commitment obscure his writings, his in clarity of lack to consta was effort theoretical his day this to and life his throughout been has philosophy political and social on influence Rousseau’s

objection against Rousseau’s political society. In the conclusion, I conclusion, the In society. political Rousseau’s against objection criticis t the like seems it against that argue and Estlund, account David by introduced theories, Rousseau’s test I however, end the At a generate fact in a that constraints set has ofsatis undersupport, normative been the assumptions can society ideal Rousseau’s that argue I and considerations epistemic these introduce I for. accounted be to need level of moral epistemology. poss the – problem’ ‘fundamental the to solution a as in role its s will, general the of its idea the of plausibility the test I determine Second, that constraints normative specifying society, to background conceptual a providing by first concern, this address I majority)? conflate necessarily it does or ideal, political consistent a important most soci the the of idea the is : namely criticisms, those all underline with myself address will I paper this In s criticisms. will, and serious general some received the has society of legitimate of conception concept his accompanied that misunderstandings

Abstract: th century, and especially due to to due especially and century, with the ‘will of all’ (will of the the of (will all’ of ‘will the with t it requires resolution at the at resolution requires it t ety regulated by a general ill ill general a by regulated ety in principle, by questioning questioning by principle, in ibility of reconciliation of reconciliation of ibility emic considerations that that considerations emic usin ht em to seems that question ubsequent framework. framework. ubsequent ic ideals that seemed seemed that ideals ic ntly re-evaluated. Due Due re-evaluated. ntly argue that there might there that argue porae epistemic ppropriate eigy devastated eemingly omdbe ad yet and formidable, he most compelling most he in the last chapter, chapter, last the in this idea has some some has idea this m of correctness correctness of m Rousseau’s ideal ideal Rousseau’s Rousseau’s fied. 2 CEU eTD Collection

Literature: ______53 Conclusion ______49 ______3.4. The Problem of Deferral– Estlund’s Criticism46 3.3.1 The problems with Condorcetian argument ______43 3.3. Condorcet’s Jury Theorems ______41 3.2.2. Substantive Interpretation of the General Will ______39 3.2.1. Purely Procedural Interpretation of Generalthe ______Will 3.2. Procedural Substantive vs. interpretation General of Will ______3.1. The Constraints on the deliberation of the Popular Assembly ______3. How do we know the “General Will”? ______31 ______272.5. Rousseau’s account of the common good 2.4. Self-Determination under the authority of General Will ______222.3 General Will vs. the ofWill all 2.2. Common Good ______as a foundation of rights within society the ______2.1. Society Regulated by Generalthe 17Will 2. What is Generalthe Will? ______16 ______151.4. The Background to the Social Contract 1.3 Background conditions Social Contractfor ______13 1.2. Rousseau’s Account of ‘Natural Goodness’ ______11 1.1. ______1. Background conditions the to society of General Will7 ______4 Introduction ______Abstract: 2 Plausibility of the “General Will” ______1

Historical account of the NatureState of and rise of the ‘Amo ur-Propre’ ______ur-Propre’ 9 ______36 ______37 ______32 24 19 3

CEU eTD Collection Not so long ago, Rousseau’s normative political theory, or more spec more or theory, political normative Rousseau’s ago, long so Not the positive conceptthe positive of liberty. b articulated famously most was thought of line particular This problem deeply as project political Rousseau’s describing in imposing their real self on their actual self we self actual their self on real their inimposing t and thereal ,but self actual the not questionis 2 the suppose to in sufficient is It not. is or legislature question in authority political the whether difference liberty the jeopardize eventually will authority political of constitutional substantive absent that, is concern underlying The 4 3 the lack of explicit concern for the liberties of the ‘modern’the of liberties the for concern explicit of lack the of conception the of nature obscure the writings, his in clarity of cont the of nature pluralist multi-cultural, the with incompatible outdated an as discarded largely was good, common the of conception the c and politics participatory of account His credibility. its appea will’, ‘general a by regulated society of account an tenet, 1 Rousse Contract” “Social the In legislature. the of activities soc the of member Each autonomy. political full with compatible legitimacy political of standard demanding press highly a specifies more even an pose to seems choice collective majoritari of the matters of prospect the theory, Rousseau’s of context the In enactedof the legislature be will majorityby As Berlin indicates, from the notion of the self-g the ofnotion fromthe indicates, As Berlin conscience and person of liberties simple or qualified qualified simpleor does himself Rousseau as

2 (Berlin 1969,134) Introduction he rational self , and another short step to the co the to step short another and , self herational can ‘force people to be free’. (SC: 166) free’.166) (SC: to be people ‘force can overnment it was short step to the claim that the s the that theclaim to step wasshort it overnment 3 4 that when it comes to voting, the decisions the voting, to comes it when that , leaving the minority exposed. exposed. , leaving the minority

ivic self-governance, focused on on focused self-governance, ivic atic and implicitly totalitarian. implicitly and atic 1 - all seemed to play a part in part a play to seemed all - of its citizens. It makes no no makes It citizens. its of – a conception of authority of conception a – y Berlin in his criticism of criticism his in Berlin y u rus ht society, a that argues au emporary societies. Lack societies. emporary the ‘collective will’, and will’, ‘collective the red to have lost much of much lost have to red limitations, the exercise the limitations, ing concern. Rousseau Rousseau concern. ing hands of democratic democratic of hands iety participates in the in participates iety n ouin n the on solution an ifically its central its ifically political ideal, political nclusion that nclusionthat elf in elf 4 CEU eTD Collection polls votes, “when…the opinion contrary to mine prevails, this proves m proves this prevails, mine to contrary opinion “when…the votes, polls authority. authority. t ought processes fair such of results thatthe and p to chances fair have to laws to ought subject are self-determination the legislature within exer membersIn ofwhat dothe the minority sense then 2.4.8). reconciling their only of but one, no “obey way members the which a in society a autonomy, presents will, general a by regulated p contractual the of consent unanimous generating of capable society w general by regulated society the Rousseau, to according Since, inherentof has theplausibility. general some will criticism principal the resist to be will paper this in socie the of possibility of problem the as understand I This general will? of decisions the that confidence Rousseau’s of basis the is what will ‘the to conflate necessarily it does or majority, current some it Is ideal? political intelligible an will general consistent? internally and coherent is will general of account his Rousse regarding concern principal the to us brings however, This, m 2.3.1.)action. (SC: with members its supply and right” always is “which will exp give legislature the of decisions the Thus, 4.2.8.) (SC: error.” in 5 that and will” general the “reflects procedure voting exercised tha indicates he epistemi contract, social the Throughout an procedure. democratic introduces Rousseau problem this resolve to order In It is important to bare in mind that Rousseau is n is thatRousseau mind in bare to isimportant It 5 ? ?

o be authoritative – but this strong requirement of requirement strong this but – authoritative be o articipate in the processes from which those laws i laws those which from in theprocesses articipate ot arguing for the democratic requirement thatthos requirement thedemocratic for arguing ot

and to argue that Rousseau’s account account Rousseau’s that argue to and thing over and above the will of the the of will the above and over thing ty of general will. My concern concern My will. general of ty of all’? And consequently: And all’? of rly orc rao for reason correct orally the legislature reflect the the reflect legislature the every time the assembly the time every ill is the only account of of account only the is ill oiia atoiy and authority political Is the concept of the the of concept the Is au’s theory: whether theory: au’s dmnin o the to dimension c arties, “taking men “taking arties, t the appropriately appropriately the t eso t general to ression erely that I was was I that erely own will”(SC: own cise their political political ssue, ssue, e who e 5 CEU eTD Collection but I take it that, since some of the accounts presented in the c the in presented accounts the of some since that, it take I but oiia sadrs Etud 20) Atog sm o te betos o pos do objections the of some Although 2008). (Estlund, standards political cons politics, participatory of tradition the throughout persistent have does equals and free of community this that argue I problem. be compatible with some account be compatible some of liberties. with personal genuine 2001)have (Cohenappeal. 1997,Pettit some ide Rousseau’s on heavily draw to appear democracy deliberative of desirability of issues with myself concern not specifi do I standpoint. a on dependant be pri might it (in though can even – will objection general consistency of account his that and Roussea misguided against appears directed criticisms the of much that conclude I devastatingaand answer Rousseauian them. propose to way try I project, political Rousseau’s to challenge considerable 8 7 context pre-political the of account explicit an provides Rousseau soci the to background giving by start I 1.0), SC, are”( they as In h vtn poeue Chn 21) ad t psil cneune o hs norm his on consequences possible its and 2010), (Cohen, procedure voting the Rousseau’s to objections specific more the of some introduce also I ( democracy deliberative of account contemporary of core very the 6 epistemic some presupposes it that arguing will, general account Rousseau’s since overemphasized, appears totalitarianism cl I critics, the counter and authority political of account an as appropria the as plausibility general its about argue then In as well as paper, writings, background sketch to order in this context. that in made points his on draw I Inequality’. ‘How do we know ‘the general will’?’ general ‘the weknow ‘How do will’?’ general ‘the ‘Whatis development human of thehistory Chapter 2 Chapter Chapter 3 Chapter 7 8 , I start by giving a rough sketch of a society regulated by a by societyregulated a of sketch rough a giving I by start , I try to give a more detailed account of the procedure that le that procedure the of account detailed more a give to try I

te solution to the pre-political pre-political the to solution te to argue that they are not not are they that argue to aim that the accusation of of accusation the that aim osdrtos ht seem that considerations al contract in in contract al ontemporary tradition of of tradition ontemporary such a political project, political a such drtos ht tn at stand that iderations of political society can can society political of Bohman, Rehg: 1997). 1997). Rehg: Bohman, 6 some genuine appeal appeal genuine some in his ‘Discourse on ‘Discourse his in epistemic account of account epistemic n e o hs other his of few in ’ pltcl account political u’s as, they do seem to to seem do they as, cpe rss the resist nciple) general will and generalwill meta-ethical c Chapter 1 Chapter ads to the to ads ative e a a e 6 . CEU eTD Collection b) There are usually some set of standards of set some usually are There b) ai o pltcl biain a b cnet f n niiul Of individual. an of consent be can obligation political of basis capacities their of much realizing of capable be wouldn’t humans distinct and society the of absence the in that, is problem The on thecooperation, idea principles of this as their misguided. and discarded the to pre-socialcontractualbe regards canwith specified, situation historical accountRousseau, his in of rejected of nature, the the state possib the ofcooperation, pre-political to natural interests regards men. with 12 11 10 9 are commonly understood to arebe to able optimal provide understood to commonly an theseIn standards, eschewed contract tradition, the pre-poli the from social generate orderin these for obligations. to it ruet o te eiiay f oiia authority political of legitimacy the for argument social the Rousseau, for tradition, the within predecessors his As freedom day lackand the circumstances its in of present societies. R both specify to need will we claim, this specify To 1.1.1) (SC every and free, born was “Man one that possible it addressed is how have concern: to appeared Rousseau opus, political his Throughout a) There are conditions under which the apparent actsare ofapparent consenta) which null under the There are conditions generatesobligations, because: consentassumed any that of kind these i.e. coercion coercion i.e. For Locke, these interests specify pre-political r pre-political specify interests these Locke, For nature ofthe state a to theory political normative fromone differing 1. 1. Background Conditions to Societythe Generalof

equirements of justice. justice. of equirements 10 nother nother that an institutional arrangement has to meet, to hasarrangement institutional an that – – specifying that the only legitimate legitimate only the that specifying 12 account of human ively social development, development, social ively ousseau’s conception of of conception ousseau’s where he is in chains”? in is he where , including their rational rational their including , men who deliberatewho men otat evs s an as serves contract ore i ws never was it course, 9 . Will tical context ility that ility that

distinctive distinctive 11 7 , CEU eTD Collection by doing that, we will be able to specify fair principles fair specify to able be will we that, doing by and cooperation, of forms just securityfundamental in as and self-determinati interest freedom, understood in engaging of which capable in interdependent, situation contractual the to background the sketch also will distinctively‘social these ofnature the is what and freedom, lack members the sense what in see will We 1.1.1) chapter.(SC the of the beg from chains”, in is everywhere he and born free, was of “Man the quotation consi a poses this and consistently histerminology ‘Soc and ‘Emile’ whichare of mostimportant works, be cannot anthropology his of account comprehensive account speculative more a contractua the is to background normative the fix to order in Rousseau anthropology, to according needed, is What result unforeseen choices an occurrences. conjoined contingent natural with rather is but men, of essence the to inherent the egoism, societi psychological of day account his present with compatible strangely in corruption human the though even that argues H Against individuals. of conduct the regulate that nature of laws nor context pre-political the that argues Rousseau Locke, Against triggers,havesituation pre-soci inaccessible cognitively to been would requirem conceptual the and problem contractual The nature. moral and 13 state of nature, and about human anthropology in general in anthropology human about and nature, of state that remarks important the present will we chapter this In their interests with fundamental andmen wouldagree capacitie compatible to, Although it is in ‘Discourse’ that we find his onl his we find that ‘Discourse’ isin it Although

derable interpretative difficulty. difficulty. interpretative derable y elaborate account of the state of nature, a more a nature, of state the of account yelaborate ial Contract’. Rousseau himself was not always usin always not was himself Rousseau Contract’. ial given without including the content of his other other his of content the including without given of human cooperation that such that cooperation human of 13 Rousseau made regarding the the regarding made Rousseau , and try to make more sense more make to try and , knows no natural rights, rights, natural no knows ’ chains. By doing so we we so By chains.doing ’ of the present societies societies present the of corruptibility is not not is corruptibility of a series of free free of series a of al men. obbes, Rousseau Rousseau obbes, ents, that such a such that ents, l situation. Only Only situation. l es seems to be be to seems es niiul are individuals on. s. s. f human of sharing a a sharing inning inning g 8 CEU eTD Collection propre. propre. not capable of its elaborate use (SC 1.2.1). He is motivated by motivated is He 1.2.1). (SC use elaborate its of capable not Hobbes as reason, his abuse cannot He with. begin to moral not is morally neither is him, understands Rousseau as nature, of man The

s the in and respect, of worthy as recognized be to society, the important is It interdependence. of conditions the in self-love from that sense the in fundamental, psychologically is Amour-propre 14 wh is – love or admiration approval, esteem, the seek to - others the and self-worth my for concern general This respect. with associated an and self-worth, our for concern a into transmutes now conce our self-love, and – others with himself comparing starts He other without humans (indesires principle). satisfied cannot that be dis to rise gives consequently capacities, moral and rational their huma in cognitivedevelopmenta induces socialization ofprocess This as at more the first, but cooperation continues.simple complex in menbrings cooperation continuous The freedom. of loss his to step This independence. natural his looses man a that needs, basic his of easi engages for which he in others, cooperation with continuous his It by is other humans. He free. is nature of man the sense this in and cooperation, he without self-sufficient, is nature of man A survival. his to means the in need basic a as itself manifests which being, well own his amour-de-soi amour-de-soi 1.1.

Historical account of State the Nature of and rise

Propre’ securing his protection and protection his securing desire to be recognized by by recognized be to desire self-love ociety, one of the primary primary the of one ociety, at Rousseau calls amour- calls Rousseau at tinctively social desires - desires social tinctively thought, because he is is he because thought, , for every member of of member every for , rn for our well being, being, well our for rn it follows ‘naturally’ ‘naturally’ follows it can satisfy his needs needs his satisfy can bad, nor good, for he he good,for nor bad, concern to be treated treated be to concern seems to be the first the be to seems of theof ‘Amour- a form of societies, of form a ns, development of developmentof ns, is independent of of independent is 14 , concerned for concerned , er satisfaction 9 CEU eTD Collection property, because prior to it, the differences between men w men between differences the it, to prior because property, preference reflects a sense of self-worth, then we also “demandpreference ofa also others thenpr self-worth, sense we to reflects But,generates if we recognitionpublic discontent. - “prefer ourselve public confirmationpublic forms the can actual in twodistinct societies. take publicly recognized - transforms into desire that I am held i held am I that desire into transforms - recognized publicly by creating numerous opportunities to satisfy their desire to to desire their satisfy to opportunities numerous creating by n h sceis ht eonzd h poet rgt te diffe the right, property relevant the recognized that societies the In h rs o te nlmd mu-rpe apnd hog instantia through happened amour-propre inflamed the of rise The … evils of array an of source conflict,domination), vice, misery, 2) and self-estrangement” (Neuhouser:2008, principal the “is amour-propre S (Plamenac:1965,380). us” of slaves makes Vanity break. to impossible us binds yet enemies, and rivals our neighbors our makes “It others. worthy of regard then others. And, as in the caseworthy thefailure And, prior regard as the form, then in of others. of the Butamour-propre, ofform oneself the think inflated the to of other is self-worth, a equaland we regard. take will in them impossibl make won’t we then form, this takes wi self-worth of par sense a on account, into equally being well and judgment his take to mig He others. as worthy equally himself regard might person A It does not only provoke inner anxiety and discontentand anxiety inner provoke only not Itdoes themselves, 214). which impossible”(Emile, is differ reflecting as regarded werethen differences 16 self-w my of confirmation public gain to be will motivations

15 tha desire natural the And others. over advantage establishing through to others. It presents a powerful incentive for humans to invent new invent to humans for incentive powerful a presents It others. to of signs recognized publicly and external establish to aim exp the at happens desires these of satisfaction the that be to They became perceptible and with deep and pervasiv and with deep and perceptible They became sati to hard are that desires generates it because 16 . In such social circumstances the only way of gaining recognition recognition gaining of way only the circumstances social In such .

sfy sfy ences of worth. worth. of ences e influence on the lives of individuals. The The individuals. of thelives on influence e 15 , the more pressing problem seems problem pressing more the , their worth for and in relation relation in and for worth their n higher regard then others. It others. then regard higher n ere of no social significance. significance. social no of ere gain recognition in the eyes the in recognition gain ense of others. Individuals Individuals others. of ense ht think that others ought ought others that think ht rh Bt ti die for drive this But, orth. rences became socially socially became rences e demands on others, on demands e s to others” and this and others” this to s forms of inequality inequality of forms to them by chains chains by them to tion of individual individual of tion t my self-worth is is self-worth my t enslavement (or (or enslavement th theirs. If our our If theirs. th o, this inflamed this o, efer to us appears to beappears to to gain this gain this to s more more s 10 CEU eTD Collection benefits i beand sense to beingand his benevolent just him of disposes well becomes an “ardent desire to raise one’s relative fortune less fortune relative one’s raise to desire “ardent an becomes because of my remorse” (E:280). (E:280). myremorse” of because he realizes it, every time his actionhehis falls - every short of realizes he it it, dis experiences time and once conceiveprocess to other with the men. of development, He in of his it comes to refer to a certain form of development of men’s natural referto of capacitiesa development and certain form of men’s to goodness the s man refer of However,to nature. ‘innocence’ ‘Emile’, in natural of to InequaliIn two different ‘Discourse senses.He term at least in uses this on onemen is ofThe phil goodness the of of more natural Rousseau’s obscure parts naturall that solely men become(MI institutions by 1135-6). wicked”. is man “The nature: human to inherent characteristic infl any the of circum social to down rise is it that be to the seems argument Rousseau’s suggest societies present-day in Situation order others” above 171) oneself place to (D2 18 to listen only I weakness, this for myself reproach 17 blt t: eit inclinations resist to: ability self-det as understood freedom for capacity a – capacity human of aware become men development, natural his of course the During ofotherkind innateprinciple,consc regulatory seems suggest a namely, to our be to capacity human fundamental a is One goodness. natural of account are that elements two distinguish to here importance of is It impulsion of external objects objects external of impulsion accor act I temptations, myself to abandon I “When 1.2. Rousseau’s1.2. Account ‘Naturalof Goodness’ 18

mk jdmn aot h bs am f u cnut and conduct, our of aim best the about judgment make , my will. I am enslaved because of my vices and fre and vices my of because amenslaved I will. my ding to the impulsion of external objects. When I I When objects. external of theimpulsion ding to at the essence of Rousseau’s of essence the at out of genuine need than in in than need genuine of out ermination. Namely, the Namely, ermination. stances, rather then to to then rather stances, md amour-propre. amed y good, and that is is that and good, y satisfaction passions, which passions, the distinctively distinctively the ty’ he uses it uses it ty’ he n his dealingsn his free and the the and free ience. ience. osophy. 17 . eems e e 11 CEU eTD Collection because it is a requirement of reason, not because the conscience conscience the because not reason, of requirement a is it because political theory. It theory.political considerable onany a constraint puts normative subs because it induces the feeling of remorse. Conscience here see here Conscience remorse. of feeling the induces it because a inflatedamour-propre? society form dominated an by of histor human of account Rousseau’s that come how So, equals. and free as recognize people which in one amour-propre, of form egalitarian be would which society a ideal, political his of possibility the Roussea explain to seem goodness’ ‘natural of aspects two These use ofwill. of and reason our exercise free dis morally, act to disposition natural a of part a as conscience thoug of line main Rousseau’s with issues these reconciling of way s action right the Rousseau For considerations. other Rousseau’s of some be to seem doesn’t this However, sentiment. moral of idea Hume’s (E:280) judging”. of power his faculty, intelligent ishis It judgment will? his determines which cause judgment. that of light in conduct our regulate The freedom understood as self-determination stands at the norma coreTheas Rousseau’s self-determination stands freedom understood of virtuein of as are which constituted moral we agents. specia humanity’s of source the be to considered is (D2:141) choosing’ 19 a understood be to not here is ‘principle’ course, Of (E:289). bad” or a men’s other or own our judge we maxims, own our of spite in which, a justice of principle innate an is “conscience goodness: natural figure which principle second a distinguishes also however, Rousseau, a man, of and the duties” rights humanity even (SC:1.4.6). arrangement, for renounceinstitutional quality “to to renounce freedom one’s is one’s “One chooses the good as he has judged true; if he if true; hehasas judged good the chooses “One

.” And the cause that determines his judgment is “h is hisjudgment determines causethat the And .” judges wrong he chooses badly. What then is the is then What badly. hechooses wrong judges 19 hs pwr f iln o rather or willing of “power This ms to be strangely akin to to akin strangely be to ms position activated through activated position odcv t te more the to conducive pulls us towards it. As a a As it. towards us pulls nd virtue, according to to according virtue, nd u’s optimism regarding optimism u’s themselves and others and themselves ht, we could regard regard could we ht, in accordance with with accordance in s a rule of reason, reason, of rule a s of account his in s equent equent ctions to be good good be to ctions l worth, and it is is it and worth, l eems to be right be to eems y ends up with with up ends y is is tive tive as 12 CEU eTD Collection products of their labor (D2:169). Somethat thought (D2:169). labor their of products determi are only right and The requirements of context. justice political people deliberate on the content of the social contract. Since indi Since contract. social the of content the on deliberate people their labor, etc. labor, their such a claim in pre-political context, this is to b to is this context, inpre-political claim a such exclusiverigh – land that over right fullproperty mo of thelanguage using who started right.People, rights, fostering the circumstances of subordinatio of thecircumstances fostering rights, spea to so Contracts (Social society formpolitical pre Rousseau as Now, will. his to them subordinates impose venture, thecooperative in arrangement such 21 n just than (rather entitled are they think that to thems regard to start they , interaction continuous interestsof m to people of tendency natural the of because However, contract. specifiable not is ‘justice’ of content The account. historical appears that confusion conceptual certain a to down is reason other The easily strengthgivesconsiderable it and itself, way in that motivational conscience that is One reasons. relevant two are there that think I 20 t of specification the on consequence significant a has point This otherssubordinating their to own. of the will present-day humans that experience in c distinctively‘social chains’ which the wewith Rousseau’sThereare understand concern should in twosenses an is for contractualcondition Rousseau’s situation. this And equality. manifest of position a from deliberate Contrac Social of content the on debate their in claims antecedent I will explain what I mean by this: Let us think f usthink Let this: mean by whatwillI I explain mor as themselves of conceiving start people Once 20 wih r bud o per n n coeaie etr - people - venture cooperative any in appear to bound are which - 1.3 Background1.3 conditions for Social Contract

eed) to the goods that meet their needs, to the pro the to needs, meet that their goods the to eed) e understood as an act of violence. Person, who imp who Person, violence. of anact as understood e t of usage of that piece of land. Since there isno there Since land. of piece that of usage of t elves as subjects of rights and obligations, and th and obligations, rightsof and subjects as elves k) have been made on the background of prior proper prior of background madethe on been have k) n. n. or example about Rousseau’s treatment of theproper of treatment Rousseau’s about example or rals, started thinking that they are entitled to th to entitled are they thinking that started rals, their continuous work on the piece of land, gives land, of piece workthe on continuous their sents his course of history, the actual agreements agreements actual history,the of course his sents s his will (his understanding of right) on others. others. on right) of understanding (his will his s 21 al beings, and this happens in the context of context in the happens this and beings, al

n rnil i te pre- the in principle in viduals cannot have any have cannot viduals he fair context in which in context fair he doesn’t seem to have a a have to seem doesn’t motn background important ircumstances. ircumstances. oralize their conflicts their oralize t, contractual parties parties contractual t, to temptations. temptations. to ned through social ned in Rousseau’s in ducts ofducts basis for for basis e e n up end ey start start ey oses oses He He them them to to ty ty 13 CEU eTD Collection between human that leads to a subordination of a will of unjust. one awill is to another human of subordination to between a leads human that non-subordinat of requirement the is this and context, pre-political osbe otata areet ay eiiae oil arr social legitimate any agreement: contractual possible by their reflective judgment. judgment. reflective bytheir fro thatemanates universaljustice a doubt without principl the for content the determines which that as - to agree huma what - itself convention a of idea the of think should we maybe So, In an important sense I take Rousseau to recognize at least one least at recognize to Rousseau take I sense important an In of human agreements. have and fixed are which reason of principles are there that doubt seems Contract’ ‘Social the in says Rousseau what so, more Even principle anthrough of have innate (E:justice we 289). that work, his namely, t and here, introduced we that quotations some with conflict in be to the in accessiblenot is justice of content the that claim, The autonomya political full each freethat – stays “as exercises of them the to subject equally be must citizens that imply only not does extent same the to and possible degree greatest the to freedom presents self-determination for capacity our Rousseau, for But arbitrary to resentment (Pettit,1999:165) and of regulations. rules subordination seems This be to a thought distinctively Rousseau’s in of republican line theor 23 24 (D2:176) discretion” inflamedamour-propre form of People are theyare ruled are that because theby un-free desires 22 i theirwhich not own. is are that regulations and rules obey to obligated are They foreign a action) way to of right (about judgment the which their they surrender in engage they that sense the in un-free also are people But gain recognition from them. They are ruled by the d the by ruled are They them. from gainrecognition “Whatever is good ... is so by the nature of thing of thenature by isso ... good is “Whatever th worst the man and man between relations the “In status social withtheir solely concerned They are 24 23

22 . m reason alone.” (SC:2.6.2). (SC:2.6.2). alone.” mreason s and independently of human conventions; ... there ... conventions; human of independently sand and their relative gain over others and only in or only in and others over gain relative their and esires that are not in their fundamental interest, fundamental innot their are that esires at can happen to one is to find himself at another’ at himself find to is one to happen can at angement must preserve this this preserve must angement pre-political context, appears context, pre-political psd n hm y will a by them on mposed es of ‘universal justice’. To To justice’. ‘universal of es the social arrangements in in arrangements social the a difficult challenge to any any to challenge difficult a induced through an induced through requirement of justice in in justice of requirement for all individuals. This individuals. all for laws of their state, but state, their of laws validity independently validity s before”(SC:1.1.6). . before”(SC:1.1.6).s . to indicate without a a without indicate to ion. Any interaction interaction Any ion. hat Rousseau makes Rousseau hat n beings can can beings n y - the authority.

and not and der to to der is 14

s s CEU eTD Collection principle, since the content of right is unavailable. Consequently, ofhuman right principle,content much unavailable. of since is the put the point differently - we might say that a correct acc correct a that say might we - differently point the put Not any type of cooperation will do, however. The problem is that is problem The however. do, will cooperation of type any Not that would adjudicate in case of the conflict. the of case in adjudicate would that c the determine would that authority common a for need a is There of awill of human the another. being will to necessarilyinteraction s to the later in leads human development stages of The problem in the pre-political context is that these that is context conflictsThe are not theproblem in pre-political another. theythat can onone make views about the c legitimate havesince individuals contested and differing highly conflicts of into andinterests rights entitlements easily confl transmute and openswhile a onthe other thepossibility Confl conflicts hand of of it interests. interdependent, indicates others they that order need inter which in satisfy their to Individualstheir are goods. concerncommon offor and preservation security primaryActions ofconsiderations individuals, of indic self-love, by motivated regulatecooperation. (Neuhoser:2008, 206) their the on agreement reach to able are positions) equal manifestly individua rational the which under conditions the of analysis an from 25 solution. arrange autonomy of political full satisfy essentiall is requirement strong this institutional any And freedom. in interest and protection in tr adequate no is There arrangements. institutional (legitimate) significant puts freedom) exercising in interest fundamental (our “for…the opposition of private interests has render interests private of opposition “for…the 1.4. The1.4. Background the to Social Contract

ed necessary the establishment of societies”(SC:2.1 of establishment necessary the ed

25

Cooperation is therefore the only optimal only the therefore is Cooperation ount of what is right, follows follows right, is what of ount ade-off between an interest interest an between ade-off principles that ought to to ought that principles limitations on possible on limitations our capacity to be free free be capacityto our y suboptimal. resolvable in in resolvable ls (deliberating from from (deliberating ls ontent of rights and rights of ontent et ht al to fails that ment ubordination of icts oficts worth, ate icts oficts laims laims ests, .1) .1) 15 CEU eTD Collection be regulated by it. be regulated it. by rbe, n da o lgtmt scey ht l contractual all that society legitimate of ideal an problem,

interpretation of the general will, andinterpretationgeneral meanswhat consequently will, of it analyze the beplaus to Ibe the provide most to what My chapter think will this in aim 179). D2:141, (SC:1.4.6, duties.” mora a demanding without person each to unacceptable of their freedom alienation protection providing of capable b protection, their social legitimate ensure a So interests. to of conflicts order irresolvable in cooperate to need they that and protection and security in interests fundamental the specified In of of vicediscouraging follow and inflamedand conflict amour-propre the forms experience the foster to need circumstances sociopolitical funda these satisfy to is society the if that aware are and just distinguish to capacity some with endowed also are People 26 n h “oil otat Rusa peet a eemnt soluti determinate a presents Rousseau Contract” “Social the In (S.C:1.1.6) rem and alone, himself obey still may all, with himself uniting whi in and associate, each of goods and person the force common whole defend will which association of form a find to is problem “The fundamental brings“Social And this Contract”. theproblem to of us all his powergeneral his all under of common in the direction the will”.(SC:1.6.9) supreme us of “each which in one the is Rousseau by envisaged society ideal “To renounce one’s freedom is to renounce one’s qu one’s renounce to freedomis one’s renounce “To hpe 1 Chapter e dniid h bcgon cniin t te oil otat We Contract. Social the to conditions background the identified we 2. 2. What is the General Will?

26 . ality as a man, the rights of humanity and even and its humanity man,of rights the a as ality mental individual interests – the the – interests individual mental arrangement would be the one one the be would arrangement parties could agree to. The The to. agree could parties of goods that people share share people that goods of from unjust arrangements unjust from ain as free as before.” before.” as free as ain others as equals, thus thus equals, as others n o hs contractual this to on n poet ih the with protect and puts his person and person his puts for a society for to ible ible ch each, while while each, ch cue f the of ecause ing from it. ing from it.

lly lly 16 CEU eTD Collection oua lgsaue Te, wl epan n eal o Roussea how detail in explain will I Then, legislature. popular I (whichvaluegeneral will doin of leading the will the procedure to account to need we that but principle, in plausibility some has conclude I liberties. personal of portion some with compatible Rousse that argue and good common the of account an present to try I fundament Rousseau’s resolves will general a by regulated society unde us help will This considerations. those to primacy give to ought popular the within deliberation public of context the in figure speci to try will I afterwards sections two the justificat In society. political of standard fundamental as functions good common a sense what in and society) the of member every of (good good common commitme a into transmutes interests own our further to commitment equals of community free of account the - problem fundamental the Rousse of sketch short a giving by start will I so, do to order In 27 It (gathe content: citizens all andgeneral its from in form comes its in sa he when means, Rousseau what of part is This will. general the legislative assemblylegislative poli its exercises t parties), contractual through all constituted of (comprised been has that association the body, Political life, (SC:1.6.10) will.” and its assembly same which voices, act unity, this co receives and its has its from composed of as andassociation body, many membe a collective produces moral the particular“Righteach placecontrac in away, individualityof of In determining the laws, the votes of each citizen each of votes the thelaws, determining In 2.1. Society2.1. Regulated by Generalthe Will 27 . The decisions of the legislative assembly (laws) are expr are (laws) assembly legislative the of decisions The .

must be counted (SC:2.2.1 footnote) footnote) (SC:2.2.1 counted mustbe tical authority through popular popular through authority tical fy what kind of considerations of kind what fy assembly and why people people why and assembly au’s proposed solution to to solution proposed au’s that Rousseau’s solution solution Rousseau’s that for the high epistemic epistemic high the for al problem. After that, that, After problem. al ting party, this actting this of party, ys that general will is is will general that ys Chapter 3).Chapter red in the assembly) the assembly) red in rstand in what way, way, what in rstand udrto that understood u au’s society can be be can society au’s e oil contract social he sebe i the in assembled nt to further the the further to nt o wti the within ion mmon self, its self, its mmon conception of conception essions of essions rs as the

17 CEU eTD Collection b) they make collective decisions givingbyb) considerations theyto priority decisions collective make Neuhouser 2008: 194) 2008: Neuhouser suprime political authority. (LM: 247-8) 247-8) (LM: authority. suprimepolitical appropri their as well as laws the of interpreation t to accountabile held constantly it’s and assembly of enforcement to isrestricted role its Rousseau, i there Therefore, cases. in particular theoflaws The supreme political authority political supremeThe individuals.all 29 ofwhich the members the particular interests agree. the the doubt without on is of it good,point common that specifies the content exact chapter,Although, determine will as ever the of course Rousseau in we this hardly (SC: exist.” could society no - agree can interests b social the whatforms is common in have different 30 bec – possib degree greatest the to freedom freedom preserve must contract in interest fundamental the by entailed is equality cit all to equally apply that rules general only enacts it and 28 good, a) and memberscommon of its an share their understanding conditions: case these two they satisfied be to a regulated societycanOn said one b interpretation, plausible be a what to in group sense will weRousseau m specify can didn’t attribute of is: wi ha other general the On 2.1.1). the (SC members. its that of good common is the of advancement about clear be to seems Rousseau What agent through general – constituted (SC:1.6.6) having a its will. uni a as understood but individuals, of aggregation mere a as understood not

good. deliberate and make decisions on the basis of a com a of thebasis on make and decisions deliberate Because it is “the agreement of these same (privat same these of agreement “the isit Because recognize capacity, legislating in their Citizens, r making is decision popular society Rousseau’s In 29

28 in Rousseau’s society, therefore, rests with the ‘people’,the with rests Rousseau’ssociety, therefore, in s a need for executive government. However, accordi However, government. executive for need sa the laws. The government ’represents’ the popular popular the ’represents’ government The laws. the ate enforcement. In that sence, the popular assembl popular the sence, that In enforcement. ate 2.1.1.) 2.1.1.) the interests that they share with others and they and withothers share that they interests the he popular assembly – both for the adequacy of its of theadequacy for both – assembly hepopular mitment to advance these interests. (Cohen 2010: 62 2010: (Cohen interests. these advance to mitment ond, and if there were no some point on whicht all on point some wereno if and there ond, e) interests which made it possible. What these What possible. it made which interests e) estricted to votes on laws, rather then implementat then rather laws, on votes to estricted 30

izens (SC:2.6). This political This (SC:2.6). izens le and le to the same extentsame the to ll is directed to the the to directed is ll of that common common of that ause the legitimate legitimate the ause y in general will a en? en? tary, moral moral tary, nd, what nd,

y is the yisthe ng to he ion for , , 18 CEU eTD Collection e ofae b sm o Rusa’ critics Rousseau’s of some by conflated be be reduced to a single one, namely, the total alienation to the whole to be community namely, reduced alienation the a of total to one, eac single (SC:1.6.6.) associate rights”. his all with 33 y for easier mightbe waythat in a such instituted y factthat very the by but did: they as Government 32 of renunciation “complete requires that society a diffe distinguishbetweentwo to point this at helpful be Itwould n dutyand c transcended ever will intere general of citizens private the that their expected – considerations of kinds different by actions they that account, intotake citizens that consideration supreme s the of good common the though even that suggests idea former The generaldirectionwill. of the by regulated is society that and will, general the of direction 31 contractual understands as he it. position st commitment a such how of problem the address will we section s the of member each of interests the to consideration equal give t furthercommitment good, to commitment Rousseau,This the the suggests for common nt, n h scey f eea wl, s o aqie through acquired not is will, general of society the in unity, theref thought Rousseau’s with line in more seems It (SC:2.4.2). it” are naturally freedom that and life a have person public who the constitute t himself concludes Rousseau unity. civic complete of ideal Plato’s According to Rousseau, all the clauses of the social contractAccording theall clauses members that Rousseau, of to the social common good, over their private good,common interests their over matt public conduct to effort shared their through but citizens, Cohen calls this “unity through ordering” (Cohen 2 (Cohen ordering” “unitythrough this Cohen calls youwere,c people’s ancient the as beingidle Not Roussea presents Cassirer Ernst hisIn criticism, 2.2. Common2.2. Good as Foundationa Rights of within t 32 ad ht oseus con o sca cmat i ta sne rese sense, that in compact, social of account Rousseau’s that and ,

ou to see its intrigues and provide for abuses” (LD abuses” for provide intriguesand its see to ou all the particular desires” (Cassirer:1963, 52) 52) (Cassirer:1963, desires” particular the all 33 ou can less constantly keep watch over it, it shoul it it, over watch keep constantly less can ou u’s account of the society regulated by a general w general a by regulated theofsociety u’saccount annot ceaselessly occupy yourselves withthe yourselves occupy ceaselessly annot . 010: 40) 40) 010: 31 ta scey s euae b a supreme a by regulated is society that – onflicts between inclination inclination between onflicts ers by giving priority to the to priority giving by ers can also be guided in their guidedin be also can rent ideas, that seemed to to seemed that ideas, rent a ‘complete’ (exclusive) (exclusive) ‘complete’ a complete ociety, and in the next next the in and ociety, ems naturally from the from naturally ems ore, to argue that the that argue to ore, hat “private persons persons “private hat t. t s o t be to not is It sts. ocial compact is the the is compact ocial he Society independent of integration of of integration agree“can to 67) 67) d be be d mbles mbles ill as ill h h 19 o CEU eTD Collection protecting his own interest, being motivated primarily by self by primarily motivated being interest, own his protecting there to be a limitation on fishing all fishermen fishing all limitation a on be to there theseego of out wesubtract If minuses) . and limit the obey must fishermen other that all Off will all suffer. "cheats," fisherman each cat they fishthat few those since, advantage, a limit on the number of fishes that they can catch can that they fishes of number limit the a on 35 suppose usLet Dilemma. Common's of illustration conditions wishAll the justice. always interestis “no making others.” to them burdensome (SC:1.6.6) – all” for equal “are that conditions establishes contract equa notional of position the from claims right their of content the tha than other nothing suggests alienation’ ‘total about clause This affect come members. all and from members all deci collective the – parties contracting the all of comprised of context the in held is rights those of content the on deliberation the of agreement an through established be to are claims such jus of claims or claims right antecedent any recognize not does contr the of account Rousseau’s chapter, previous the in argued we As 34 and remainswill as ofanother, the the sum differencesgeneral and the pluses the (interests) wills (private) same these from that observation interesting an by indicated is off, consist it agreedup is interest common theshare to commitment a such how And g man each preference the accordingly (SC:2.4.5). of nature the man.” very in in originate creates equality such and rights of equality that proves ”This associate. other every inte agent, every - ourselves on impose to want not would we constraints burdens limit to onothers under shared and on othersSo, impose this not the commitment

equality”. (LM 301) 301) (LM equality”. Gildin (1983, 55-57) provides anexplanation provides 55-57) (1983, Gildin t from Written “Letters hisin says Rousseauas Or

course, each fisherman would prefer that the rule thatthe prefer would fisherman each course, (this peculiarities can be understood as Rousseau’s as understood be can peculiarities (this ch will not extinguish the fish population. And fishpopulation. the extinguish not will ch . Private wills in this sense are for example conce example for are sense willsin this Private . centric peculiarities, the "common" preference "common" the peculiarities, centric to be equal for all, and justice is nothing but th but nothing is justice and all, for equal be to and this limit is determined by a long-run social by long-run a determined is limit this and of what Rousseau might have meant, by providing a providing by meant, havemight Rousseau what of he Mountain”: “The first and the greatest public public greatest the first “The and heMountain”: that a group of fishermen is fishing on a lake. Th lake. a on fishing is fishermen of group that a 34

Rousseau makes: “take away away “take makes: Rousseau love, acts for the benefit of of benefit the for acts love, minuses which cancel one one cancel which minuses sions of such an assembly, assembly, an such of sions the idea of justice which which justice of idea the contractual parties. The The parties. contractual one has any interest in in interest any has one 35 tice, but rather that all all that rather but tice, vs o isl, and himself, to ives t people deliberate on on deliberate people t ” lity. Since the social the Since lity. legislative assembly legislative on, and what does what and on, actual situation situation actual is is yet, if yet, etd in rested specifies specifies rned with rned is for for is pluses pluses

ere is ere n 20 CEU eTD Collection being made by a unanimous vote, there is a possibility of that vot that of possibility a is there vote, unanimous a by made being 38 37 36 the bear to other all want but protection, securing thecon determine and society thewithin justice of regulatio The interests. shared their to connection good common the of conception the sense this In aeb sml mjrte. n i ec stain n hc te col the which in situation each in And majorities. simple by made t Rousseau, for even cases, the of most in that is problem the so, E good. common of consideration a be to has conduct individiual’s for reason cl not still is it - good common the of conception a share to come that think Rousseau made that thought of line the recognized we Although appearthe inflated will amour-propre reciprocation pervasive m equality ofThis and political experience good.” common 83).2010: the on founded equally o are my obligations those acknowledging since to member, committed equally “I’m will: general the of mem a as my rights I claim when good.So, that of of understandingshared authority ultimate the on good, common their of considerations the on founded make legitimately can citizens that claims right the All good”. (SC:2.3.1) si right” always is will general “the that says Rousseau intere common advances what about judgments become right, is what justific political of standard fundamental a as and society, within content the explain to is aim my chapter, next the in consequences addre Ithough Even will. general the then rather all’, of ‘will the common interest. (Gildin: 1983, 55 - 57). 55 1983, (Gildin: interest. common ist to agree can they that all position Rousseau’s makes them conceive of the common good in the sense in the good thecommon of conceive them makes own. his wellas as interests hasin association in the individual sense this In The context in which the associates choose and spe and choose theassociates which contextin The likely onlywill ever people circumstances suchIn share can people that Interests 38 . his everyday experience the other member promoting promoting member other the experience everyday his hat they bear equal costs, i.e. that they ascertain that they i.e. costs, equal bear hat they costs. How ever in the context of cooperation from cooperation of context in the However costs. ns of the society of the general will constitute th willconstitute general the of society nsthe of tent of rights. rights. tentof agree to establish those rights that are in some in are that rights those establish to agree cify the basic principles of the society of general of society the of principles basic the cify of giving equal consideration to the interest of e interestof the to consideration equal giving of 36 serves as a standard of political right political of standard a as serves nce it “always tends to the public public the to tends “always it nce on one another are therefore therefore are another one on ation. he law proposals will be will proposals law he ss this possibility and its its andpossibility this ss akes it less likely that akes less it e being a reflection of reflection a being e of distinction, and try try and distinction, of ear why the supreme supreme the why ear lective choice is not is choice lective 37 Judgments about Judgments ber of the society the of ber sts. In this sense sense this In sts. bligations as a a as bligations people can can people ven more more ven what is in whatisin e standard standard e (Cohen (Cohen

will his his the ach. ach. 21

CEU eTD Collection process of popular assembly. process assembly. of popular could be interpreted as his preference. preference. could be interpreted as his input his considerations, self-interested his to according acts and t according when Now, will. private a to actingaccording acting means considerations that suppose and considerations, self-interested people of comprised is legislature the that suppose us Let i distinction this explain us let will, general the reflect socie the of legislature the of decisions legitimate the Since interest ofindividual everyone. all to common is that good a will to supposed is will general The t community the of interests the advance to best how on judgment of an as aggregation mere a as understood be general the (SC:2.3.2), wills” particular of sum a “ considerations, to is all of will the While of much the as procedures the character in about. them that brings subst the mind in baring all’, of ‘will the and will’ ‘general interpretation straightforward rather a be to seems There will.”(SC:4.2.8). counting the obtained generalthereupon; is the declaration the of of and the votes from the their generalto own;each is castingexpresse in which will, one vote his exactly whether but whether or they approve the reject it, proposition it “When the a assembly in what asked law proposed is people, is of of them the the general will. legisla the in deliberations people’s sense what in understand to 2.3 General2.3 Will vs. the Will allof vru o te eiin making decision the of virtue n of the distinction between the between distinction the of antive difference in content as content in difference antive who act according to purely purely to according act who ty of general will ought to to ought will general of ty tive assembly give rise to to rise give assembly tive into the voting process process voting the into , a good that serves the the serves that good a , will is best understood best is will a person deliberates person a conforms or not conforms o self interested interested self o self interested interested self aken as whole. as aken s his opinion opinion his s is not not is 22 CEU eTD Collection pressing prospect that the collective choice will be madepressing collective aby be vote will of choice the that th prospect mi of interest the for disregard continuous with agreement, of points produce an outcome that represents the interest that is common to to common is that interest the represents that outcome an produce (i wills private of aggregation the can is: question the process, challenge chapter theoryI m and Rousseau’s in the next in for it address will i good. areabout the This what common citizens advances expected disagree to that by way,Itprocedure mind bear in this there to in constituting important is accords the good common with members. of the 3) Members theirwhether judgments are voting que in regarding the proposal theequal interests to of considerations each member; goodgiving2) Thebe of understood (whatever common the content) sense in its should good1) Members their is; common of an have what understanding characteristics: distinctive leads anThe of therefore to general expression voting will that has procedure fail considerationprovide to equal interests to of each. will The majority). qualified (or majority current of interest – everyone of interest the serve to procedure a such of essence i everyone’s in is enacted law the that guarantee can unanimity majority.good the of it that procedure aggregating an such of essence the in is It of“will “general all”, rather will”. than the a such of outcome The so. do to fail must laws) the all almost the b to is (which unanimity of short falls outcome whose procedure making is will general the sense) important an in least (at Since 39 The outcome it produces aims at pleasing as manyi as pleasing at aims outcome produces it The 39 If an input is a preference (a self interested consideration) only the only self consideration) interested (a preference a is input Ifan

ndividuals as possible (Estlund, 1989: 1317). 1317). 1989: (Estlund, possible as ndividuals of all would issue very little little very issue would all of is directed to advancing the the advancing to directed is revealed through a voting voting a through revealed nterest, but it is not in the the in not is it but nterest, .e. personal preferences) preferences) personal .e. it is devised to serve the serve to devised is it all? Well, any decision any Well, all? ggregation reveals the reveals ggregation nority, and therefore therefore and nority, e majority, since e expected for expected e ore detail. ore detail. three stion stion is still a still is s alsos a 23

CEU eTD Collection prescribe ourselves to my in though interest. be law that might aggregative sense. sense. aggregative There seems to be an obvious difference,There betweenbe to an however, obvious seems the following la rule. wil general the reflect which laws with complying by will, 1.8.3) liberty.”(SC is ourselves to prescribe we which law a to appetit of impulse mere the for himself; of master truly him definit a provides society li moral state, civil his the in acquires “man problem: fundamental that thought Rousseau said, we As remainsas asbefore? free sol proposed Rousseau’s of component onl obeying individual an sense, what in namely: problem, fundamental essential the to us brings This goodconsiderations have interests of they that those (over common still private sure each still not to give is whyalways –it member they priority should gives goodEven agree considerata though that might equal common people further to determination. selfIn ofconception freedom as discussed chapter Rousseau’s we the previous judgment, our upon act and them on reflect action, 41 eq giving each, of interests fundamental satisfying utilitarian. and not cannot thegood, that is Rousseau’s be of account self-regarding the common however, distinction, This highlightsconsiderationsgener lead that the that a to 40 Cohen highlights this point by saying that common g common saying that by point this highlights Cohen As we mentioned there, the essence of self-determi of theessence there, mentioned weAs d the benefit) (net maximizing talkisofno There

2.4. Self-Determination under the Authority theof 40

41

42 and following even enactment the law whose participated, in we

ual consideration to the interests of each member. member. each of theinterests to ualconsideration or as Rousseau puts it - act upon our will. our upon - act putsit Rousseau as or esire satisfaction of as many as possible, but rath but manypossible, as asof satisfaction esire ood is to be understood in the distributive and not and in thedistributive understood be isto ood nation consists in our ability to recognize reasons recognize to ability our in consists nation

l, I’m having my own will as a a as will own my having I’m l, e is slavery, while obedience while slavery, is e . In the society of general general of society the In . berty, which alone makes alone which berty, General Will e answer to the the to answer e y the general will will general the y to the to w which we

to fr a for ution - al will al will ). ). er er Joshua Joshua in for for ion ion 24 CEU eTD Collection presupposed that every member of the society of gen of theofsociety member thatevery presupposed Each member of the social compact shares a set of reasons f reasons of set a shares compact social the of member Each private a has individual that (SC:1.7.7). as a he the“contrary general Citizen” has will or from to differing conclusion the to us brings which action, provi do, cases of majority in and can, interests different These of member every with shares he that interests of considerations 44 43 th on conducted making is decision and deliberation 45 on matters of policy.public differentRousseau’s considerations society has uses when different wills he meansBroadly capacitywill - for having having a a act reas speaking, to wills. multiple can andunderstood citizens that he have consequently will, by thought how what have Rousseauof explain might In thought should we line trace to order this understa shared this adopt to be would conditions specified the under a to him for way only the if as appears It self-determination. interest fundamental a has member every before, said we As 2.4.8) “theira alone (SC:1.8.3, rule”. will as ofge theIn society their citizens constant will, acting by upon way, that of the lawto (SC:1.8.3) himself he to has prescribed wil own his follows he judgment, Consequently, that to according conduct his regulates judgment. that of basis the on votes and good common the advance refle member Each reasons. those of basis the on act to motivated will” “constant calls interes particular private, his of considerations the by guided is deliber his when – will private a have therefore, can, citizen A 42 Since, as we argued in one of the previous section theprevious of in one weargued asSince, 4.2.8.) will (SC: general the of his share ranking for reasons “different it Cohenas puts or self-determinat of understanding whichcommon isa 44 when his deliberation and decision making is guided by by guided is making decision and deliberation his when 43

social outcomes” (Cohen, 2010, 61) 61) 2010, (Cohen, outcomes” social e basis of considerations of the common good, it is it good, common the of considerations of basis e s, there is a strong requirement that the public public thatthe strong requirement a is there s, eral will has a ‘constant’ will. will. ‘constant’ haswill a eral ion ion in exercising his capacity of of capacity his exercising in or actionor ation and decision making making decision and ation hee self-determination chieve the political community. community. political the de different reasons for for reasons different de ts, and what Rousseau Rousseau what and ts, cts on the best way to to way best the on cts 45 ons. A person in ons. l, and is obedient is andl, and is primarily is and neral have will in deciding in nding of the the of nding

will that is is that will

25 he he

CEU eTD Collection r-ntttoa cnet w cn ny tan oa fedm y e by freedom moral attain only can we – context pre-institutional 47 consent. popular gain can advances which order the only Contract, Social the action. for reason primary his as good common 46 right judgment are good common the advances what about judgments the Since according thevote, decisions to and assembly. of conduct my such my in an regulating proces the in both good, common the of considerations to according acting follow means will, general the of society the in autonomous, Being soci political the fundamental to Rousseau’s problem. proposed solution organized through achieved be can self-determination, other that assurances some basis need the on act would to motivated (institutionally) I appropriately aim, primary my the make society to myself for order In problem. assurance the is One problems forgeneral the can societyWe two distinct distinguish wil of Igeneral that w reflectlegislative and the will, assembly will li less is it satisfied, isn’t conditions two these of any If (SC:8.3) regulatedgeneral will. a by not-specif are morality of requirements the how Seeing morally. as we argued in the section 2.3 2.3 thesection wein as argued self-love, by motivated is individual every Since b) a) However, whether I am in fact autonomous depends on two important conditions: ontwo important I factHowever, whether depends autonomous am in 47

we I c acrig o h cnieain o te omn od Im ac I’m good, common the of considerations the to according act I when – don’t do so don’tby doso accident. of the society interests andThat they institutions that common advance fact doin common good. good. common That other of the according considerations members society to also act of

and since no antecedent right claims enter thecont enter claims right antecedent no since and common interests (interests that he shares with oth with shares he that (interests interests common 46 In this sense, freedom, understood as understood freedom, sense, this In kely that the regulations of the the of regulations the that kely ill be autonomous. ill f ht od I ol also would I good. that of iable in principle in the in principle in iable common good of the the of good common ing my constant will, will, constant my ing ntering the society society the ntering l here. l ety, and this is is this and ety, s about what is what about s s of assembly of s epe are people ent of of ent ting ting ers) ers)

26 CEU eTD Collection presents a serious difficulty for Rousseau’s proposed solution. I solution. proposed Rousseau’s for difficulty serious a presents society are not capable of acting from these consid fromthese acting of capable not are society il r cpbe f aig h frhrne f omn od their good common of furtherance the making of capable are will membe the that presuppose to need we Firstly, will. general of p conceptual a present conditions two these importantly, more But, so, then the society can not governed by the genera the by governed not can society then the so, in of theproblem not isit here problem, assurance 49 52 51 of interpretation procedural purely why the reasons 50 advanceby they that those interests, and accident doso donot societyarecapabl the of institutions the that assurancesneed Chapter 3. Chapter be to appear arguments those if or arguments, such provide cannot we i will assembly legislative the of decisions the that claim b to arguments some provide to need we importantly, more and Secondly, 48 deliberationassembly the to prior specified c the as understood Rousseau what whether is terms broad in issue The an account resting on the substantive interpretation of good. common interpretation substantive an resting account onthe pur of terms in understood be should will general the of content the fram theoretical regarding Rousseau’s disagreement of theOne points of those of account share.members compact of the social an get detail, much in not and rarely, We society. of content the regarding clear entirely not was himself Rousseau in which case the decisions of the legislature pro thelegislature of decisions whichthe case in share society the of members that interests ser a presents specification definite oflack This wou I free, factbe wouldnt in ,I ifdont they For t makingprocedure thedecision of thatthe output

2.5. Rousseau’s2.5. Account of Commonthe Good

ious flaw in Rousseau’s theory and is probably one one isprobably and theory Rousseau’s flawin ious ld be subordinated to the ’will of all’. Unlike the Unlike ’willall’. of the to subordinated be ld centives to act for the common good. If members of Ifof members good. thecommon for act to centives erations, or if they are not appropriately motivate appropriately not if they are or erations, vide the right way to advance that common good good common that wayadvance to theright vide l will. will. l common good gained some plausibility. plausibility. somegained good common racks the common good good common theracks 52

or whether the decisions of the legislature the of decisions the whether or n fact reflect the general will. If will. general the reflect fact n e of tracking the right way to to wayright the tracking of e 48 rs of the society of general of society the of rs . the common good of the of good common the address this concern in concern this address roblem for the society society the for roblem e proceduralism or as as or proceduralism e 50 neet ta the that interests

ommon good ommon ework is whether is ework rmr goal primary inconclusive, is is inconclusive, ack Rousseau’s Rousseau’s ack

d to do do to d of the the of the 51 27 is 49 . CEU eTD Collection judgment figures as an important aspect of the institutional pos institutional the of aspect important an as figures judgment osblt, n ty o pcf wa ae hs cmo interests common those are what specify to try and possibility, here I will proceed as if the matter is already res isalready matter ifas the will I proceed here 54 good. common and will general the define actually foste addressed, explicitly never is issue the although that, think I interpretation”.which one, removesexcept (LM:154 namely, that liberty of competent They interp all and judge tolerate for tolerated to they ought himself. continues howabout of Protestants” the all reformation, he as them acknowledged a each Ta provide favorfor a in toleration. religious seems consideration Rousseau to it of Rousseau doesof the seem importance the recognize independence judgment, to of a generalthe supremacy the will. of liberties these of protection some that and will, general considerations im an as liberties) these with associated closely of is (which types two provide independen regarded toRousseau that indicate could like that work, Rousseau’s would I may, it as Be liberties of person.libertiesand of conscience guarante institutional explicit provide to independence,consequently an and fails individual in explicitlyHowever, a interest shared Rousseau recognizes never chapter: goodspecifications made simplycommon the reiterating by t points of the we that specification, can seems Regardless it provide of of definite lack share.individuals 53 it is not a question of maximizing aggregate utili aggregate maximizing of question a isnotit

In the next chapter I will provide an argument in f in anargument willprovide I nextchapter the In - -

requires equal consideration for each member. therequires interest of consideration equal a fundamental interest in exercising freedom understood asa autonomy. exercising fundamental in interest freedom understood far,andSo recognized protection security in we of a resourc interest shared Common goodbe understoodCommon Rousseau’s aggregatively in not society should

olved. olved. ty ty avor of the more substantive interpretation, howeve interpretation, moresubstantive the of avor

53 seems to be internally related to to related internally be to seems portant element of the society of of society the of element portant ee etran h former the entertain I Here sibility of the society of of society the of sibility ring independence of independence ring ht Rousseauian that some that figure in in figure that hroughout this ce of judgment judgment of ce )

retations e of the es, and lking nd 54 r, r, . It. 28

CEU eTD Collection esnl iete i qeto, y t ntrl osiuny Stat constituency. natural its by question, in liberties personal from the societythe from rel civil the of dogmas the rejects who society the of member assurance of requirement a be citi to appears reliable simply this considered conscience, be to are they if beliefs certain tha requirement a than more nothing like seems this But society. the whic religion civil the profess publicly and legislate to ought t towards attitude thi ambiguous Rousseau hand, one the On Contract. Social the in expresses Rousseau apparently an explains constraint This 58 56 59 4.8.32) (SC: his duty” lov sincerely of “incapable heis “ because subject (SC:2.4.4). so.” do to will even cannotit subj the cannotburden itspart, for Sovereign “The 2.4.2) (SC: it” of independent naturally epistemic procedure standards assembly legislative ou of the that the pr is judgmentof independence the of importance The generalwill. odc tesle i ay a ta i nt pcfe b general by specified not is that way any in themselves conduct Individuals laws. rules, general of enforcement through exercised 57 55 be to has will general of expression se to seem does will general the of society the hand, other the On competencepopular of legislature.out of concern the epistemic for the in protected be to have question in liberties the that seems it assoc closely is conscience of liberty the that recognizes he judgme of independence the of importance the indicate does Rousseau Since is not a not principledis Rousseau’s objection to account of the society. said that atheists are not to be tolerated simply b tolerated be to not are thatatheists said they lack one of the strongest motives that make memake that motives thestrongest of one theylack This reflection is similar to the one Lockeprovid one the to similar is reflection This : laws withthe comply to upon relied cannotbe He ration sufficiently not is justification a Ifsuch whoc “privatepersons”, that underscores Rousseau chapter next the arguethroughout I as 57

58 . If the problem of assurance can be amended in different manner, different in amended be can assurance of problem the If .

appropriately al or inadequate, the decision in question is not l not is question in thedecision inadequate, or al ecause they are not to be trusted, since not believ since not trusted, be to not are they ecause ing the laws, justice, and if need be sacrificing h sacrificing be need if and justice, the laws, ing ects with any shackles that are useless to thecomm to useless are that shackleswith any ects ed in his Letter Concerning Toleration – in which h which– in Toleration Concerning Letter in his ed n trustworthy. (Locke: 1965) 1965) (Locke: ntrustworthy. It is impossible to be either a good Citizen or a a Citizen or good a either be to isimpossible It onstitute a public person, “have a life and liberty and life “have a person, public a onstitute justified in regard to the common good good common the regard to in justified 59 . zens. Not being a matter of of matter a being Not zens. iated with this independence - - independence this with iated h holds principles useful to useful principles holds h the society of general will, will, general of society the igion ought to be excluded be to ought igion e coercion can only be be only can coercion e rules. . Consequently, every every Consequently, . esupposed by the high high theby esupposed ght satisfy. to are left at liberty to to liberty at left are t citizens must share must citizens t ue oe f the of some cure 56 vr genuine Every nks that people that nks lrto that oleration nt and since and nt egitimate. egitimate. ing in God God in ing is life to to life is 55

loyal unity; unity; e e

this 29 CEU eTD Collection proposal in question conforms to the previously defined account of the the of account defined previously the to conforms question in proposal 61 importa is burdening unless such burdened be to not tha wouldbe naturalresponse that a thenindicates some of is regulation public that just than rather theco to important is regulation that show to need th whydoes questions He Cohen. made by observation the society, independencewithin some protection for provides individual geneofwhich dependant the actual sovereign the is supremacy onthe of power, relatedIn which internallyessence, t is the justification-constraint, being its 4.8.32– 252).without know the them.” of business (SC: the Sovereign to good, common reaffirmsas to may he the commitment pl “each such have opinions 4.8.31). Outside (SC thematter practicepublic the community. to the reli of insofar opinions Sovereigntheir“Subjects…only opinions an as of those the account owe religion,Oncivil the other of hand, these Rousseau the t discussing suggests matters 60 sodo to order In good? common the advances it whether the to “conforms proposal the whether on opinions poll people which will general self the to by rise gives guided that procedure The being considerations. a as understood is good common the of conception a makes that procedure the of explanation The provides. interpretation clar conceptual possible the hereis mention to I like would What epesos f h gnrl il - ol jdmns bu hw b how that about judgments procedure polls - the will” general while the of considerations, “expressions interested self by guided ma of terms in conducted procedure choice collective through defined concep the that is indicates interpretation substantive what So interest. of considerations the to priority giving by guided is and good, common According to substantive interpretation interpretation substantive to According per interestin shared theof favor in Anargument

public benefit, however minimal? (Cohen, 2010:48) o 2010:48) (Cohen, minimal? however benefit, public mmunity – important in advancing the common good good common the advancing in important mmunity– t individual independence is an important political animportant is independence individual t sonal liberties is provided through an interesting interesting an through isprovided liberties sonal nt. nt. e case for collective regulation, made by citizens, made regulation, collective for case e 61 they reason on whether the whether on reason they tion of the common good is is good common the of tion ification that substantive substantive that ification is understood as one in one as understood is o the proper exercise o the proper s t advance to est people able to share share to able people nifest equality and and equality nifest general will”, i.e. will”, general 60 common good. good. common . gion, which leads to the the to leads that common common that -interested -interested ral will eases, eases, value, value, hat hen that

30

CEU eTD Collection to those criticisms. In the end I present what seems to me to to Rousseau’sobjection to (1997) by account Estlund David of legitimacy, provided me to seems what present I end the In criticisms. those to to inherent difficulties a well as some criticisms possible identify I and are interpretation there that concede I However, regardi optimism Rousseau’s competence legislation. of the popular understand to way best a as Theorem i findings the on draw I and will general the for of account argue substantive I procedure). that of independently (defined good common the advance regulati enacted the that confidence epistemic significant give appr legislature, decisi the whether or society, the in will general the define the of decisions the whether namely, chapter, issue the address I specified, been have constraints the After presu epistemic character deliberation. of popular intuitive some on rest to seems making decision under collective Rousseau’s that argue also I deliberati equality. substantive assembly of that conditions guarantee to aim constraints these g the of expression an be be to to assembly popular need the of that regulation constraints four the discussing by start I Here, givesthat general will. rise the to lhuh h cnieain w poie gv sm spot o h plausi the to support some projectRousseau’s give provided we considerations the Although 63 withfullpoliti compatible authority legitimate of 62

I address this criticism in the in criticism this address I will,thatprovides general a by regulated Society 62 3. How 3. How do we know the “General Will”? , there are still important concerns about the nature of the proc the of nature the about concerns important still are there , Conclusion

. . cal autonomy. autonomy. cal a solution to the fundamental problem, the only ac the problem, thefundamental to solution a

s possible Rousseauian answers Rousseauian possible s ons of the legislative assembly legislative the of ons on presents the best way to to way best the presents on niae i te previous the in indicated under held being is on e h ms compelling most the be eneral will. I argue that that argue I will. eneral opriately constrained, constrained, opriately met in order for the the for order in met pstos bu the about ppositions n Condorcet’s Jury Jury Condorcet’s n the Condorcetian Condorcetian the g h epistemic the ng standing of the the of standing bility of of bility 63 . edure count count the 31 CEU eTD Collection e oiae b piae neet, uodntd o atoa conf factional to subordinated interests, private by dominated be background conditions needs to be satisfied: needsbackground be to satisfied: conditions Ro as factionalization problem of The misconstrued. 65 self-int of the basis on vote to not ought assembly po through “revealed” iswill general since the and 2.3.). (SC. interest. common no is there which on issues as legislative the ref may deliberations those since will, of general the reflects decision every not that aware was Rousseau h oua asml t euti h epeso fte genera the of expression the in result to assembly popular the all. ge the between distinction the in stipulated is condition first The common the of society. good 1) 64 2) rathera preference. then the of outcome the that implies this Trivially, will. general of que in proposal whetherreasonthe thus and preferences, personalover cons to priority give to ought voting) as well as deliberation to vote their independent opinion onthe matter voteopinion theirto independent They ofbasis factionaloughtconsiderations, vote oug onthe to they not interests. also Although ofbasis condition. self-interested ought vote people onthe to not a theSecond Rousseau first that in sense, highlights, condition, is of a qualification members as and not factions. of This condition is commonly interpreted as Rousseau as interpreted iscommonly condition This (Se different inherently will is general Sincethe The members of the sovereign body ought to deliberate and vote on the basis of the of the The members of sovereign andvote onthe deliberate body basis to ought The members of the The members of sovereign ci decisions individual their make as body to ought 64 iies novd n h poes f eilto (nldn te proc the (including legislation of process the in involved Citizens 3.1. The3.1. Constraints theon Deliberation of Popthe

erested considerations. considerations. erested e 2.3) from the will of all (an aggregation of pref of aggregation (an willall of fromthe 2.3) e pular legislation, the members of the legislative legislative the ofmembers the legislation, pular usseau sees it is somewhat different. different. issomewhat it sees usseau ’s denial of the right to assemble, but this is but assemble, to theofright denial ’s 65 .

lect insufficient information, or or information, insufficient lect In order for the deliberation in deliberation the for order In iderations of common good good common of iderations deliberation is an opinion opinion an is deliberation l will, a set of set a will, l neral will and the will of will the and will neral ular Assembly lict, or addressed to to addressed or lict, sembly necessarily necessarily sembly stion is an instance is stion s o public of ess necessary erences), erences), tizens tizens ht ht 32

CEU eTD Collection by definition change the way assembly members regard each other. changebyway regard assembly each members the other. definition so none and another, buy can he that rich very so be citizen no but…, absol be should wealth and power of degrees that mean to understood be equally worthy of respect. respect. ofworthy equally motivationalst appropriate an sustain itscitizens ise it hand, other Onthe ideal. anempty mightbe

individual opinion opinion individual infl to rise give might inequalities social large of reality sense this In 2.11.2). (SC himself’’ sell to compelled re ‘‘with citizens: the of equality political the threaten ec considerable that is here expresses Rousseau concern The 3) 68 co genuine the reflects it and societies democratic reduced be will well-of less those of theinfluence use t to willtend well-of considerably Those will: interp be -to oughtwhole a as theofsociety good gothe communitywhole, as they against a the 1 “particular relation taking the in 2.3.). the State”(SC. to By consideration into not of taking faction,that the the will faction consideration deliberate into by whic factions part within andPeople who united by interest common are organized the 67 66 society. that of stability the for condition necessary a as comm the of conception citizen’s to inherent not is requirement this his in requirement distributive a introduce does therefore, Rousseau, theirto independence of judgment. independence their secure to means a as figures citizens the of advance common interests. It not only nullifies the nullifies onlynot It interests. common advance there majority, forma to factions few of agreement majo a we have where circumstances the In factions. to was concern main Rousseau’s However, condition. factions who are relatively equal in power (SC 2.3. (SC in power equal relatively who are factions that two possibilities: embraces however, Rousseau, the deliberation, to prior made has been agreement it value,but epistemic itspotential and assembly It is obvious how considerable economic inequaliti economic considerable how isobvious It 2 the to since (according is in question group thatthe us let suppose But, Every member of the sovereign body is guarantied aneconomicminimum. bodyEvery the guarantied member of sovereign is nd condition) it is necessary that individuals vote o vote individuals that necessary isit condition)

ructure, which they deliberate, regarding each othe each regarding whichdeliberate, they ructure, blatantly disregards the arguments of minority. If minority.If of thearguments disregards blatantly ncern that a purely formal account of political equ political of account formal purely a ncernthat heir influence to support their agendas, while at t while at agendas, their support to influence heir to marginal importance. This is the common problem common isthe This importance. marginal to ssential for the stability of the society of genera of society the of thestability for ssential reted. That seems to be perfectly compatible with t compatible perfectly be to seems That reted. united by a particular interpretation of how the co how the of interpretation particular a by united significance of the deliberative process withinth process deliberative the of significance 4.). are strong reasons to doubt whether the legislatio whetherthe doubt to reasons strong are deliberation itself seems redundant. redundant. seems itself deliberation there are no-factions and that there are numerous numerous are there that and no-factions are there rity faction, or a possibility of an “behind thedo “behind anof possibility a or rityfaction, es can prove to be devastating for a society of gen of society a for devastating be to prove can es

prevent a possibility of intrigues and majority and intrigues of possibility a prevent st condition. gard to equality, this word must not not must word this equality, to gard 67 some level of economic equality economic of level some ated amour-propre, which would would which amour-propre, ated 68 There is a deep concern that a that concern deep a is There 66

– since it is closely related related closely is it since – onomic inequalities might inequalities onomic n the basis of their own own their of basis nthe on good – it is issued is it – good on ideal society, but but society, ideal utely the same, same, the utely poor that he is is he that poor h is h is icular to l will that that will l will of will he same hesame the r as r ality ality e e mmon he1 ors” ors” n will n eral eral in 33 st

CEU eTD Collection particular proposals, that these justifications are are justifications these that proposals, particular points regarding public deliberation, points that are highlighted are that points deliberation, public regarding points outcom its of value epistemic an as well as poll, the preceding justifications for reference justifications be policy made will t by proposals justifications people tend to reflect on, and if necessary, t necessary, if and on, reflect to tend people justifications proposal acceptable to others” (Cohen:1997, 76) proposal acceptable (Cohen:1997, 76) others” to theofpeople. good his present j to needs He considerations. regarding tha verynotlikely isit his justification, accept 70 1327) 1989: (Waldron proposal particular a supporting for considerations provide people that requires context public the in discussion The proc deliberative of understands it: nature the and we character conditions the four about these assumptions mind in Baring politics. participatory of on draw to seem introduces Rousseau that constraints background These matters. public be to able deliberate on to body sovereign the of members the that presupposes Rousseau that it be, to ought constraint informational this demanding how clear deliber the of nature cognitive the emphasize to ought condition This information. 4) 69 s oe age: Wie my ae y rfrne o e s a be f to can I that preference requires deliberation my public proposal, a take advancing may I While argues:” Cohen As usqet oig s esnrsosv. y rvdn ad itnn t di to listening and providing By reason-responsive. is voting publi subsequent of process the of outcome anticipated the in is it Also,

Since it is commonly assumed that every citizen co thatevery citizen assumed commonly Sinceis it justifications scrutinyof thepublic meaning that Members of the sovereign body ought to deliberate on the basis of adequate deliberate body the of to Members of sovereign onthe ought basis

t he will succeed to do so if he justifies hisprop if heso justifies do to succeed willhet ustification as appropriately connected to thecomm to connected appropriately as ustification s - “prejudice fares less well than reason in open reason than well faresless “prejudice s- ought, at least ideally to eliminate unreasonable unreasonable eliminate to ideally least at ought, nducts his deliberation in order to convince others to in order deliberation his nducts intelligible ransform their judgment, and and judgment, their ransform o the common goodo the common o others to ind reasons that make the make that reasons ind c discourse that people’s people’s that discourse c e. While it might not be be not might it While e. throughout the tradition tradition the throughout are competent enough competent are is nevertheless clear clear nevertheless is ufficient reason for for reason ufficient can make these these make can s a Rousseau as ess utfctos for justifications 69 few important important few n ta the that and ative process process ative osal by osal self- 70 debate” debate” . fferent fferent on on to to 34 CEU eTD Collection factions, more specifically the emergence of the majority fa majority the emergenceof the specificallymore factions, intrigues with communication without deliberation contrasts himself “ controvers this of following sentence type the In exclude. the to tries of Rousseau explanations possible other are there Thirdly, ci could matter, practical (Cohen 76) ofinformed 2010: communication? the absence in a as how, claim: this with opposition Secondly, the condition of sufficient information (the 4(the information sufficient of condition the Secondly, issues the on wisely decide addressing. will as they and good that intrinsic likelihood an the as improving both citizens, among dialogue on emphasis democ participatory of tradition the with odds at is it Firstly, interpretation,This theory some aspects however, does for account not of Rousseau’s any570)Feldgroup (Grofman deliberation” and 1988, reached independently his about polled is voter “Each competence. his for t privatively tends dialogue widespread his of influence the reflect since interest, common should vote citizen a claimed, they the of effect the regarding pessimistic to rather was Rousseau quote this used have Feld and Grofman 1988 from article famous the In had citizens the deliberation, its held information, adequate controver some people, when caused “If, deliberation: public Contract to commitment Social Rousseau’s the from passage a However, 2009) their of basis the on then rather judgment, that of basis the on vote the be decision would always good” (SC.2.3.3 give always would differences small the of total grand the another, emphasis addedemphasis th condition) seems to be in direct direct in be to seems condition) popular deliberation. Instead, deliberation. popular ction. So rather then requiring then rather So ction. racy, which has placed great placed has which racy, no communicationno ) e jdmn about judgment med communication” that that communication” the general will, and and will, general the tizens be adequately adequately be tizens being furnished with with furnished being and the formation of formation the and ial claim, Rousseau claim, ial o be detrimental to detrimental be o preference. (Peter, (Peter, preference. choice, without without choice, ht hy are they that y regarding sy a way of of way a li that claim with one with . . 35 CEU eTD Collection indications of the shared interest in personal inde in personal interest shared the of indications compact do share (namely: the interests in security interests the (namely: share do compact tha grasp can We good. common the of hisconception members; but this important matter would require a a wouldrequire matter important this but members; whichGovernmen the [motions], discussing dividing, dangerous? is the very in himself, speaksbook same about importance deliberat public of citizens among discussion the if a decisions, an in collective together come citizens that require Rousseau would why is: Fel and Grofman by provided argument that issue, biggest the But 72 73 C deprive can nothing which of right a sovereignty; undermined. try was he grounded onreason that likely more is of deferral - others of judgment to it deferral blind and manipulation communication, no is there that one’’ (SC 4.1.7). 4.1.7). (SCone’’ 71 introduced “ his Rawls in by between“pure”Theand distinction procedural and “perfect imperfect” would alwaysgood”number (S differencesbe of and small the deliberation would alwaysgeneral deliberations…theinformation, fr held its will result “If,an being furnis instance people, when ofproceduralism: pure the a about talks the sense legislative proceduresometimes be which in might The interpretative problem ofThe general will interpretative problem the general will? of society, that will decisions (satisfyingconditions) four background the that forHow the appropriately optimism, constrai does his Rousseau account

The problem is that (as we discussed in section 2. section in wediscussed (as problem isthat The few a reflections quite offer could ‘‘I Rousseau:

It is with the satisfaction of the fourconstraints the of withsatisfaction is the It 3.2. Procedural3.2. vs. Substantive interpretation of t

71 . Theory Justice of

pendence, but hardly anything else. else. anything hardly but pendence, we mentioned that such influence is significantly significantly is thatinfluence such mentioned we 73 and the protection of goods) and that there are so are thatthere and goods) of protection the and here on the simple right to vote in every act of act every in vote to simpleright the on here itizens; and on therighton and itizens; 4) Rousseau never provided a determinate account of account determinate a provided never Rousseau 4) separate treatise, and I cannot say everything in t everything say cannot I and treatise, separate becomes even more complex since even becomes complex more Rousseau t always takes great care to allow only to its own to allowonly to care great takes always t t there are some interests that members of theofsoci members that some are interests there t ”. (Rawls,1971:85) ”.

of voicing opinions, proposing, proposing, opinions, voicing of he General Will judgment which is not not is which judgment d cannot account for, account cannot d hed with adequatewith hed ism wasism primarily sml t make to ssembly in fact in reflect interpreted as interpreted vn Rousseau Even ing to exclude exclude to ing om the largeom ion C:2.3.2) ned 72 . me his his al al 36

CEU eTD Collection procedure,a case of we imperfect proceduralism. have rcdrl ares “htvr h rsls f icsin deliber discussion, of results the “Whatever fairness: procedural properties inherent to the procedure about. properties that brought it the to inherent through satisfies that the background specified procedure conditions. voting genera generalprocedural ofAccording account the will, the to purely it if proceduralism, perfect of that case a guaranties is it that then reached, procedure a design to possible is it If relationincorrect standard. virtue that in to of their are assembly legislative the of decisions the and – correctness 75 considera equal into member -every of independence com the on focused members as – will general of interpretation substantive provi we 2.5 section In evaluated. being are procedures actual the of ot upon the correctness, of criterion on independent procedure a proceduralism, to reference imperfect and perfect of conceptions The concerned of the the procedure. values with ‘backwar as understood be would procedure legislative the sense, this of a wasprocedure a if arelegitimate makingprocedure decision outcomes the - proceduralism pure of conception the to According

of democratic decision-making is ensured as long as the process process the as long as ensured is decision-making democratic of proce pure on rest that accounts theoretical to according Usually, 74 vlae. hs en ta we te eea wl i ‘right’ is will outcomes general the the when which that means upon This correctness evaluated. of standard independent no is There We specified four such conditions that figure in R in figure that conditions foursuch specified We inter thetakebasic to commitment a as understood 74 3.2.1. Purely Procedural Interpretation of Genethe Ti acut f omn od hn iue a a idpnet tnad of standard independent an as figures then good common of account This .

ousseau’s context of popular deliberation. deliberation. popular contextof ousseau’s ests in security, freedom and possibly even persona even possibly and freedom security, in ests tion tion

is not possible to design such a a such design to possible not is uh n ucm wl be will outcome an such ppropriately constrained. Inconstrained. ppropriately – it is ‘right’ due to the the to due ‘right’ is it – understood as correct or or correct as understood duralism, the legitimacy the duralism, meets some demands of of demands some meets to, n decision and ation, which the decisions the which l will is defined is will l ral Willral ded an account of account an ded o go o its of good mon s okn’ as – looking’ ds her hand, make make hand, her h democratic the 75

a be can l 37 CEU eTD Collection point, especially in the late 20 late the in especially point, procedure. (Christiano,1996:35) procedure. (Christiano,1996:35) appropriately procedure. constrained matter by ‘fair’comes of of is Whateverjust out fact. that procedure t an inde fix to isn’t account Butpurpose as of we the purely seen, have procedural fact. word, the matter use common in “an of of the a onan is opinion” judgment independent Iget wrong, ontheIf matter was affairs my state that wr of opinion then about something, is state opinion usually of affa an meant about independent such that In concept, usecommon is someone that of we‘opinion’, it the has when the say an benot understood as a preference. mistake and that what I took to be general willisgeneral be to took whatI that and mistake Purely procedural interpretations of the general will have been have will general the of interpretations procedural Purely 78 77 legitima made are results The legitimate. are …they making 76 Iclaimed here the seems question be:an whatSo to we opinion? can as understand generalwill. conformson whether the to the proposal ‘opinion’ an assembly legislative is of the the voting in the input procedure ‘correct’ but ‘fair’ considered not are Rousseau, the of outcomes the that is mind to comes that thing First will. procedural the interp purelythe of plausibility However, question us let (Riker:1982) (Plamenac:1965) In the last chapter (2.3) as well as in one of the wellas of inas one (2.3) theInlastchapter when the Therefore proceduralism pure of thetradition unlikein 78 that an input in the voting in an that assembly legislative mus of input process Rousseau’s opinion contrary to my own prevails, it proves nothing mor nothing proves it myprevails, to own contrary

th century, and were usually critical of Rousseau’s account. account. Rousseau’s of critical usually were and century, preceding sections (3.1) (3.1) sections preceding not (SC 2.3.2) 2.3.2) (SC not 76 . This point is even more obvious since obvious more even is point This . te by being the result of the the of result the being by te democratic procedure, for procedure, democratic a common interpretative common a e than that I made a I that than e he virtue of he virtue retation of general of retation ong. Therefore, 77 – an opinion pendent t t irs. irs. 38 CEU eTD Collection procedure –and beget since correct will ‘cor he naturally is inclined the to prediction, he can be shown to be mistaken. He thou mistaken.He be to shown hebe can prediction, good?” common t “Does assembly: legislative a in posed question the to answer i procedure a is there account, substantive the On opinion. an as vote The substantive account substantive The 80 constrain a strongtoo of be would thatthat though vote majorityhe – bythe rejected be will question of the regardingeach vote. outcome prediction votes his the member const ofout Since whatever the that each (appropriately comes knows member the 2010,75). result ofgiving the vote about (Cohen: a prediction Incase,as Cohen argues, would be that interpretation plausible th the most understood as as be a a nor understood it judgment. preference, can It be to understoodcase is theproceduralism? general as pure will a of if opinion” everyone wean how “giving should Rousseau’s is So, understand claim that 79 decisions. of past oneno content. be there could Also, require no onwhich basis a revision would about “what the good, with public do” to the disagreements persisting since Even ofproblematic is the more equate democratic to voting it so, theproc output -votes oncertain as predictions of vote. of the question collective the outcome Ita think (Cohen: perverse to 2010,75). uncommon quite voting of is view individual of I me whenRousseau’sgoes it am be shown against to a claim wrong, - vote that Even of can general interpretation though sens will procedural make the purely would probably require that each regulation ought t ought regulation each that require probably would d these If it. advance to policy best the choosing disa still are e there good, and common the consideration.- of conception equal them of each gives that requires members the of good Common good. common of As we said earlier, on the substantive account - g - account substantive the on earlier, said we As vot resultthe of a that ifbelieves citizen a So, 3.2.2. Substantive Interpretation of Generalthe Wi 80 of general will provides a more appropriate interpretation appropriate more a provides will general of

e will be negative – if he believes that a proposal a that he believes if – negative will be e s against it. Now, if the collective choice goes ag goes choice collective ifNow, the it. sagainst t on a legislative body. legislative a on t isagreements were not so deep and pervasive, Rousse pervasive, and deep so not were isagreements ght that it would be negative, but it wasn’t. wasn’t. it but negative, wouldbe it thatght o be decided by unanimous vote. However, he himself he However, vote. unanimous by decided be o eneral will is concerned with the shared understand shared the with concerned is will eneral greements on numerous interpretative issues, such a such issues, interpretative numerous on greements ven though the members of the assembly share a a share assembly the of members the though ven satisfaction of the shared interests in the way the in interests shared the of satisfaction

his regulation advance the advance regulation his 79 ndependent, correct correct ndependent,

cannot be cannot ll rect’ answer, at a person is - would have rained) e of is clearly is in edure ainst his his ainst of a of ing ing 39 au au s s

CEU eTD Collection perfect proceduralism. Ifperfectthe procedure proceduralism. appropriatelyconst is proceduralism or of imperfect proceduralism? orproceduralism of imperfect proceduralism? as competent more are majorities surely andcaseincreases this size, make in a it ofprocedur doesn’t pure the of votes that thought Rousseau si by not (SC matter. the of endorsed, importance the on depending majorities, qualified be to are matters important on laws the that R satisfied, are constraints the that assumption the under even Second, (S.C:2.6.10). the good, always it” no means by sees of it but itself it -”Of basis consistent a on outcomes correct yield to likely actua the that certain never was Rousseau like seems it First, interpretation this problemsI with are significant there neverthe think –theinfallible votingmajorityalway procedure epistemically is a voting procedure? regardingepiste of Rousseau’sSecondly, the optimism the basis is what Firstly, whether Rousseau’s account of general will is a is conceptiongeneral of account perf Firstly, will of whether Rousseau’s However, need that are issues there be to resolved: two myasto epistemically superior own. I that givesfact wrong.judgment majority was The think of me to reasons the I then when -So very and that mine prevails, contrary to the opinion, vote opinion my about a whichopinions question has the answer. right the voting to the Rousseauthat collective procedure. seems attribute to choice A compatible cognitive with is ex interpretation more this requirements and so, made amistake” proves more it that nothing than contrary mine to anopinion claimprevails, His “when point. at this Letaddressfirst problem the us 1 : Feld ”(Grofman, “JuryTheorems in his Condorcet 82 A vote reflects an opinion 81 We shall address this problem later, by drawing on drawing by later, problem this shall address We jugdement a (SC:2.3.2) 82

81 of the citizen regarding of independent that of the citizen fact. matter Even

seems to suggest that Rousseau was defending an seems of Rousseau suggest that account to was defending

findings of Rousseau’s contemporary, Marquis de de Marquis contemporary, Rousseau’s of findings 988) 988) rained, judgment of the the self the people wills always wills people the self l democratic procedures are procedures democratic l s gets the correct result. gets the correct result. s 4.2.12) It seems that that Itseems 4.2.12) mple majorities, but but majorities, mple less. less. alism. alism. mic charactermic of ousseau requires ousseau ect ect h majority the pectations is regarded is n pools n pools 40 I CEU eTD Collection rcs o pbi dlbrto, elce i te oe o te me the of votes the in reflected deliberation, public of process being right and it will have a progressively greater chancer being a have of progressively being will and right it b) Do reachingby so an judgment independent blindly deferential toward others others toward deferential blindly a) Vote their opinion on an issue that has a determinate “yesana) has answer that issue a or Vote no” on determinate their opinion Ifand(necessary satisfied suffi the the these members collective of Feld:given(Grofman 1988) and JuryTheorem’s. Condorcet’s by the of competence” “judgmental in optimism this for reason One accountgeneral will? of in proposal the whether about evidence good provide will assembly, o o de Rusa acut o te piim ht h appropriate the that optimism the for account Rousseau does how So 84 case proceduralism. of imperfect Jury Condorcet’s on Rousseau’ vote) assembly resting the of below, character epistemic see shall we As procedure. voting the regarding optimism his for account to able be must Rousseau Fourth, can“sufficient be provided. information” t whether concern genuine a is There principle. in specifiable t and vague too are mentions Rousseau constraints the that think I Third, 83 broughtThengre their collective a aby rule, have majority decision, will getting of answer right better chances c) than has the random And each of them group increases. they might form their opinions on the basis of dia of thebasis on opinions formtheir might they legislative in Rousseau’s posed likethe question 3.3. Condorcet’s3.3. Jury Theorems

assembly does have have does assembly logue with others, but none should vote in a wayth a in vote should none but others, with logue

84

he definite specification of of specification definite he hoes mks t a it makes - Theorems cient) conditions: conditions: cient) br o te popular the of mbers ight as the size of the the size as ight collective bodies is is bodies collective question is in fact an fact in is question s argument (of the the (of argument s the infallibility of of infallibility the ater chanceater of hat they are not not are they hat ly constrained constrained ly 83

, , at is at 41 CEU eTD Collection political autonomypolitical assembly of the members. esn il hoe h rgt lentv. n ht es a theorem a sense that In alternative. right the choose will person provide a strong enough argument for whyisn’t this for argument strong enough a provide epistemically justified reason for deferring to jud to deferring for reason justified epistemically from that perspective, by getting the result of the of result the getting by perspective, that from votin to prior thought have might member a although do regulation legal every that is wills essentially action that he shares with others (directed to adva to (directed withothers shares he that action 86 unde Rousseau absur fact in apparent what The remember we free. once resolved be is conclusion fact in wouldn’t he prevailed, had opinion t suggests, passage previous the as and, wrong, was he that suppose (epistemically has vote, majority a receive not did opinion whose member a that suggests Theorem’s Jury from drawn conclusion The compet the than deciding ofas members approaches the majority, number simple inc by 1 0.5, than greater is group a of comp competence average group and competence individual between relation mathematical 87 pr reliable reasonably a presents it since laws, of theoflegis procedure the that Namely correctness. endor be to Rousseau take- willI general meetthe guar cannot procedure voting the thendefinition by given (that probability the as simply defined is Competence that, for Rousseaufor that, It purpose. its fulfills will general of society the that and 85 assemb legislative the of decisions the that judgment, own his than much has majorities i community the of member each of takes that regulation a advancing judgment the because is It consideration. his because or process the in participated also minority a in free as stayed still legitima not is voting the but of outcome the – ideal majoritarian himself, to law give literally did the community of every member not the that accounted fact for how Rousseau is And this Under the assumption that four background conditi background four that theassumption Under willas general of account Rousseau’s take SinceI co his to according acts he if free is member Each 87 , epistemic character of the voting procedure renders the decis the renders procedure voting the of character epistemic ,

es in fact advance common interests of the communit the of interests common advance fact in es ocedure of getting the correct result . result. correct gettingof the ocedure gment of the majority. majority. the of gment vote he now considers this new evidence as an adeq an as evidence new this considers now he vote ncement of his fundamental interests). What each me each What interests). fundamental his of ncement lative assembly can secure legitimacy for thegener for legitimacy secure can assembly lative sing an account in which legitimacy is weaker than than weaker is whichlegitimacy in account singan antee that every regulation of the popular assembly popular the of everyregulation that antee so) so) a conception of imperfect proceduralism, and since and proceduralism, imperfect of conception a nstant will (the general will in him) and his reaso his and him) in will general (the will nstant ons are nominally satisfied (or at least that weca thatleast at (or satisfied nominally are ons 85 g that he was right and he reasoned an deliberated deliberated an reasoned he and right was he that g

is also important to note here note to important also is argumentation was taken into into taken was argumentation te simply because a member member a because simply te s eoe Ti i nt a not is This before. as dcooos hie a choice) dichotomous a n equal consideration, equal n ly have legitimacy have ly justified) reasons to to reasons justified) hat if his particular his if hat ne f group, a of ence simply asserts a a asserts simply more chance of of chance more reases. reases. of an assembly, assembly, an of rstood as a full full a as rstood etence: if the the if etence: iy f this of dity ions of ions y, and and y, al run run al ns for for ns will nnot nnot mber mber uate, uate,

42 86 , CEU eTD Collection by no means always sees it.” (S.C. 2.6) 2.6) (S.C. seesit.” means always no by point, Condorcetian interpretation of Rousseau’s p Rousseau’s of interpretation Condorcetian point, he didn’t do so he would merely obey the will of th ofwill the merelyobey would he so do hedidn’t 91 90 89 92 legislation? of system a as enterprise difficultan know rarely it because wills, whatit knownot does as popular the ofmembers the of competence average 1997) (Estlund: legitimacy. democratic of right a as majority the of this judgment theadopt rightgetinstance of it vote will i it though even general, in legitimate assembly legislative reason, not on the basis of blind deferral) as a right way deferral) reason, ablind conduct. right onthe of as not basis of endor I that but conduct, of way right the follow I that necessary 88 competence. ee s o te ak f rpr motivation proper of lack the not is here a) interpretation. Condorcetian There with arefew difficulties obvious procedure the merely then rather majority, the of judgment that the to judgment their and t of members the satisfied, expect to plausible are it is appropriately, listed we that constraints Provided background. the in looms however, problem important more The subsequent ofand the evidence. legislature, revising past decisions upon possi a have to need assembly the of members procedure, voting the thepossibility admitted Rousseau himself that mind Baringin First of all, the competence of the members cannot simply be simply cannot members the of competence the all, of First imperfect-proceduralism. imperfect-proceduralism. probabil Condorcetian to isessential This correct. Social the throughout that is isinteresting What whenwe’lldis later, for will issue this leave We t citizen a for in order – specifyconcern this To but good, provide majorities made by decisions The “ the issue of competencethe of issue Of itself the people wills always the good” (S.C. (S.C. willsgood” the always people Ofthe itself 3.3.1 3.3.1 The Problems Condorcetianwith argument

88 . Of itself the people wills always the good, but of but good, wills the always people Ofthe itself way of conduct, and conduct himself accordingly. Fo accordingly. himself conduct and conduct, way of istic interpretation of a voting procedure. To reit To procedure. voting a of isticinterpretation o be self-determinate, according to Rousseau, hene Rousseau, to according self-determinate, be o cuss it through Estlund’s criticism of correctness correctness of criticism Estlund’s through it cuss Contract Rousseau expressed skepticism regarding th regarding skepticism expressed Rousseau Contract opular legislative procedure makes it a case of case a makes it procedure legislative opular e majority, and would not be free. free. wouldbe not and majority, e s what is good for it, carry out for itself so grea so itself for carryout it, for good whatis s 2.6) 2.6) sembly: “How can a blind multitude, which often often which multitude, blind a can “How sembly: not infallible reasons that the outcome of theofvot outcome the that reasons infallible not 92 bt eun dut n h epistemic the in doubt genuine but , e oil opc t surrender to compact social he s not to be expected that every that expected be to not s of the incorrect outcome of of outcome incorrect the of assumed. obey it?obey 90 se it (on the basis of of basis the (on it se

bility of criticizing criticizing of bility was conducted conducted was 91 89 The problem The It is not only not It is that all the the all that itself it itself erate the erate t and and t theories theories eds eds r if if r e is is e e e 43 CEU eTD Collection uget nt ny n h qeto wehr h plc pooa i the is proposal policy the whether question the on only not judgments presupposed that voters are aware of the necessity of the clos the of necessity the of aware are voters that presupposed b) represent indeed does enacted been has that decision the Supposing good. interpretati the about disagreements the but good, common the advance ups ta a asml, eieaig n priua ise r issue, particular a on deliberating assembly, an that Suppose 80) Rousseau’s 2010: society. (Cohen, democ a on restriction a of much to pose to seems it so doing by and members that disagreements possible be of scope the to reduces seems interpretation Condorcetian for difficulty further A competence. t deliberation, public constrained appropriately the of nature als is It on. deliberate they that proposals the for relevant atal, hs s rspoe b te osrit o te legi the on constraints the by presupposed is independence this to Partially, conducive atmosphere create they that member and the assembly, of competence the enhance and foster appropriately ge of society the of attribute necessary a therefore, is It subject thi which to prejudices in found be only can reason The random. at would one he decide why for reason a be must 0.5there bellow falls a opinion voter’s a of “When truth a of probability random. information or voting of lack come down the to average, on competence low have can citizens why reasons the And mor are they average on if pessimism for reasons provides also r a get to likely more are average on voters that assumptions the majoritar about optimism providesargument Condorcet’sas much As 93 (Found in: Waldron: 1989) 1989) in: Waldron: (Found the requirement of underlying unanimity (Cohen’s objection) underlying of unanimity the requirement 93 .” .”

ea wl, ht t institutions its that will, neral o presupposed that it is in the in is it that presupposed o of the assembly might have, have, might assembly the of hat it has an effect of raising of effect an has it hat e scrutiny of the information the of scrutiny e slative procedure. It is is It procedure. slative e likely to get it wrong. it get to likely e ight solution then not, it it not, then solution ight fet te differing the eflects ht t considerably it that does not necessarily not does s of the legislative legislative the of s ian decisions, under under decisions, ian on of the common common the of on ratic character of of character ratic the best way to way best the s less well than less well than s of judgment. judgment. of best way to to way best s voter is is voter s 44 CEU eTD Collection popular deliberation. This line of argument might not be entirely be not might argument of line This deliberation. popular disagreement of kind this that be probably would answer Rousseau’s concernat all. doesn w majority own the of his decision the “followsince terminology, andRousseau’s judgment majority to defer cannot he Therefore, as theythat much shared asconsider prosperity in they shoul the don’t interest common the of interpretation the regarding stake disagreement substantive at issue the regarding competent is majority current the might member the although Now, prosperity. of good common the constrains secur advance to way best the being although proposal, policy the the within someone supposing However,security. advancing caseof is Majority security. – good common of aspect certain a advance enactment of social contract, it still doesn’t mean that it cannot be resol cannot it that doesn’t be mean still contract, it enactment social of a expected be might disagreement the though even And socialization. of disagreeme cangeneral reasonable will society transcend this the of arg might He ‘deep’. very necessarily not is disagreement the for devastating necessarily not is criticism this course, Of disagr political una which internal a legitimacy, is presupposes of to strong account underlying reasonable the for account to able be to seem Rousse sense, this in And good. common the of understanding specified and of account strong ashare to need citizens possible, be to that For good. thetheir relevanttheir sense in own owncommon view will if they of follow the political incompatible with the society, autonomy.with it’s Citiz since 94 unfounded.conflict not actual is with it democratic but experiences, disagreement regarding the content of common good good common of content the regarding disagreement

Rousseau. He might think that that think might He Rousseau. ue that the citizens of the of citizens the that ue community, with agreed agreed with community, , he nevertheless has a a has nevertheless he , eement. Self-legislation Self-legislation eement. plausible, and in some in and plausible, ’t pertain to settle his his settle to pertain ’t ity, still unnecessarily still ity, nt through the process through thent process the best judge in the the in judge best the minority objects that that minorityobjects ens can only follow ens only can ved through active throughactive ved good. He objects objects He good. 94 t the moment of moment the t ut o arise not must d. l” t use to ill”, respect that that respect nimity. nimity. au doesn’t doesn’t au 45 CEU eTD Collection because my to j voting epistemically superior is individual procedure the eemnto I uh t at codn t te euain o general of regulations the to according appropriately legislativeconstrained procedure act to ought I determination straightforward: seemingly is claim this behind rationale The I was in error and that I should deferII was their should to error judgment in and that contra is majority the of opinion the when that paragraph famous tried we will, general of account substantive a defending By 98 97 meancompet a have assembly the ofmembers thatthe 96 it. 95 Rousseau: a to is slightlyversionThis of objection Estlund’s altered correctness of account legitimacy. di with us lives still that amended, be can flaws those provided But Rousseauof interpretation Condorcetian corre a calls Estlund legitimacy 1997) (Estlund: what endorses Rousseau compact, social the c be assembly impose legitimately be to them for order in legislative standard) independent of decisions the that requiring By sufficiently is procedure enacts. it policies legitimacyand the laws to that will, general the reflect de yield sometimes might assembly the of voting the though even So, i it because simply majority the of judgment the to defer I

the proclaimed epistemic assurance in the decision in the assurance epistemic theproclaimed answe thecorrect get moreto likely therefore and th other nothing means constrained” “Appropriately ac to reason epistemic sufficient thattakea as I (1)

they arecorrect,general will they and reflect the because legitimate i.e. only only general will, reflect (by when the definition) they (outcomesgeneral will Regulations of theof assembly of vote) the society 3.4. The3.4. Problem of Deferral Estlund’s– Criticism

98 cept that judgment and act upon it, even if I voted I if even it, upon act and thatjudgment cept has its own flaws, as we previously suggested. previously we as flaws, own its has r s of majorities majorities sof an that Rousseau’s conditions have been satisfied a satisfied been have conditions Rousseau’s that an ence above 0.5 0.5 above ence 96 . 95 . (SC 2.3.2) . (SC s an account of general will, will, general of account an s accurate as such to confer confer to such as accurate to make sense of Rousseau’s Rousseau’s of sense make to n re t eecs self- exercise to order in ry to mine, it proves that that proves it mine, to ry orrect (by a procedure procedure a (by orrect d upon the members of members the upon d fficulties inherent to to inherent fficulties cisions that do not not do that cisions ctness theory of of theory ctness udgment il o an of will, when 97 are against . 46 nd CEU eTD Collection judgment it. to not still is it ourselves, then it attaining of chance better majorities. a to reason sufficient a with us provide principle in can Theorems i it t Consequently, satisfied. been neither actually ever have they determine, whether to way certain no almost is there that see informat sufficient for necessity the and voters the of competence consideration into take we If skepticism. this to prone more even by provided vote majority of quality epistemic of explanation The authority. Even if we suppose that there is a moral truth and that and t truth moral a is there that suppose we if Even authority. judgment hers or his submits unconditionally individual an that require The underlying idea behind Estlund’s argument is that is argument Estlund’s behind idea underlying The 100 175) 1997, (Estlund: citizens) reasonable the to.(Legitimacy requires object to unreasonable un established adequately not is lawsof legitimacy 99 Estlund introduces a distinctively Rawlsian requir Rawlsian distinctively a introduces Estlund at least in important matters of morality morality mattersof inleast important at (5) (6) (2) (3) (4)

procedural a –onthe reason coll fair they that basis issue from of process produced a correct collective judgment, moral akinproduced to judgments. is andcorrect this collective a procedure availability of adequate (i.e. motivation, of the specification majorities when they don’t think that their judgment is correct. is their that judgment think whenmajorities they don’t deferto The members assembly of expected cannot judgments of to be the reasonable doubt. ofgeneral the society never The is legitimacy of will the regulations of Regulations of the society of general will aregeneral will Regulations onthe legitimate ofbasi not of the society arguments the of in process deliberation everyoneconsideringdecisionas making equals everyone’s by treats that undeterminable. undeterminable. only not is information, competence) actually inherently but undetermined, onthe appropriately conductedTheconstraints content democratic of the It never unreasonable is

99 to suspect whether the legislative procedure in question procedure suspect question to in whether the legislative possibility of reasons that are not objectionable objectionable not are that reasons of possibility be would it grounds on defended be can it less ement (criterion) of legitimacy that holds thatt : holds that legitimacy of (criterion) ement 100 , it is unreasonable to expect or expect to unreasonable is it , unreasonable not to submit our submit to not unreasonable a voting procedure has a a hasprocedure voting a ion (premise 3), we can can we 3), (premise ion er xc cnet nor content, exact heir s doubtful that the Jury Jury the that doubtful s Jury Theorems seems Theorems Jury ccept the judgment of judgment the ccept issue of judgmental judgmental of issue o any moral moral any o s of any ofs beyond beyond ective ective to any to he 47 CEU eTD Collection judgment. In order to back this claim Estlund offers a thought experi thoughtoffers aEstlund claim this back In to order judgment. ucms il o b sae b a lat oe oto o te minori the of portion some least at broken Contract Social consequence, appears for of them. the letter by shared be c the not that seems will it outcomes not, or will general of instance an whethe is discovering question on answer, right the getting of probability high evenSo the the that if outcomes wepopular of within assembly the ha suppose voting sufficient the share moral to reason onit. judgment written in card any of probability high the dismiss to unreasonable not cer almost it if Even judgment? that accept to reason enough good permissi whic morally sometimes on is card suicide assisted a “physician draws person a suppose And statements. true contain th doubt a beyond is it that supposing and uncertain, are we which on on written statement moral a has one each and cards 1000 are there bec simply is this Again, it. adopt fact in will citizens p to seems is, actually possibility that small how matter possi very The premise. disputable highly a is this Obviously extremelygood judgment” - (Est probable has accept to reason moral thingsgiven considered of“One correctness accepts a all that mora the who the correctness follow to are committed decisions of theories the majorities, accep to voter minority require to order in So correct. was outcome of basis the on quality) epistemic its denies (who voter minority r to committed are they that appears it decisions, epi legislative proclaimed the on legitimacy found theories correctness the unde contentious c the produce highly to likely a highly is procedure presupposecertain a that all Suppose they that seems it not) or (whe theories correctness the of basis the of regardless But rovide a confidence that not all all not that confidence a rovide ther they rest on jury theorem theorem jury on rest they ther ue f h ntr o moral of nature the of ause ble”. Does this appear like a a like appear this Does ble”. equiring obedience from the the from obedience equiring bility of it being false, no false, being it of bility high probability that the that probability high the deck being true, as a as true, being deck the tainly correct, it is still is it correct, tainly orrect outcome. Since outcome. orrect t the legitimacy of the the of legitimacy the t tmc ult o the of quality stemic ment. Supposing that Supposingthat ment. it, a moral statement moral a it, lund 1997: 186) 1997: lund retes f those of orrectness at 999 of the cards cards the of 999 at r the proposal in in proposal the r rlying premise. premise. rlying i sae that states it h ing premise: l judgmentl is y oes In voters. ty ve a a ve 48 CEU eTD Collection in their deliberations. deliberations. intheir a indirect sufficiently be to thought mightbe laws impl on than rather voting to isrestricted making likely more is commitment theshared reciprocation experie continuous in the – motivations appropriate 103 w and considerations fromself-interested equality, 102 104 citizens c the on focused will, general the of account substantive a defended I about. it the procedure brings that even and nature its of understanding little been has there history, inter various given been has will general though event that seems It 101 necessary it thought didn’t privat of persistence the of aware was Rousseau that concluded I considerations: argume sufficient provide to tried Rousseau conditions these of both For c that requires good.that will general co the to priority the give they that and of good common that of understanding existence the that argued I good. reliable ascertaining evidence that for justifica the with compatible only not are liberties Personal totalita with odds at strangely is this that and generalwill personal for role significant a be to seems there that argue Direct democracy has a considerable part in theacq part considerable a has democracy Direct o theprinciples on debate people which in Context in prote interests fundamental shared namelytheir for the internal consistency of the society of gen of thesociety of consistency theinternal for - -

by the analysis of the context of the contractualbyanalysis of i brings the context procedure the that usin o Rusa, n yt e i poie ie ag o intuitive of range wide provide did he yet devastatingconsiderations make to ought that that problem less and Rousseau, for question somew is reasons these to priority give to come people That That people come to share an understanding of the common good is underst is good common the of understanding an share to come people That 101 , and I argued that the procedure of the legislative assembly p assembly legislative the of procedure the that argued I and , 104

ht uh neet sol b aadnd I lo re to tried also I abandoned. be should interests such that Conclusion ementation of laws in particular cases – the impact the – cases particular in lawsof ementation nd uncertain that citizens can put their preference their put can thatcitizens uncertain nd ith ability to differentiate just from unjust arran fromunjust just differentiate to ability ith eral will eral nce of being treated as an equal and in continuous continuous in and equal an as treated being ofnce to appear. Even more so since the popular decision decision thepopular since more so Even appear. to ction of their person, their goods and autonomy autonomy and goods their person, their of ction f their cooperation from a position of manifest manifest of position froma cooperation ftheir uisition of the general will , and in fostering the fostering inwill and , general theof uisition rian interpretations of Rousseau. of interpretations rian independence in the society of of society the in independence tion-structure internal to the the to internal tion-structure e interests, and that he that and interests, e less understanding of of understanding less pretations throughout pretations hat more problematic more hat ommon good of its its of good ommon 103 itizen’s share an an share itizen’s nts, and intuitive and nts, rovides the most the rovides . nsiderations of nsiderations t aboutt gements. gements. s aside saside of of

102 ood . 49 CEU eTD Collection uy hoes ugs ta aporaey odce vtn procedure voting conducted appropriately that suggest theorems jury procedure does not aggregate preferences, but polls judgments. Al judgments. polls but preferences, aggregate not does procedure judgment (SC 2.6.) (Rather than just lack appropri lack just than (Rather 2.6.) (SC judgment ) s mte o picpe b agig that arguing by - principle of matter a As 1) I twoways:problemaddressed in this of somehow –doesthe all basis. have general conflates not will much the will with disagree these pr the so, even But of vote. majority a by brought been has regulations because And assembly. the in disagreements will be correct. correct. be will th on are there votes more the that shows framework expre isanaccurate vote group thatthe confidence 4.2. (SC majorities qualified by enacted be haveto Rou how explain, also can It procedure. legislative 109 108 107 106 be to have they importantly, more but will, general of concept are there that argued I am be might they that but competence, voters the about concerns good. common the advance to way best the about right is judgment what the are good common the advances what about judgments the Since cannot autonomy ofgood.Because political b the strongrequirement if they don’t, in do they that – will general the reflect fact in do assembly the that project political Rousseau’s of core the in is it And gener the to leading procedure a that standards epistemic high the 105 it advancing of way appropriate most the the asserted, about is views good common the of conception the although that, argued I goodcommon a guide supreme as conduct. my in ) s mte o eitmc eiblt y run that arguing by – reliability epistemic of matter a As 2) general will. supremacyundermine the continuous of the happe to likely less is this all’, of ‘will the yield occasion t that asserts Rousseau even and persists, still temptations I take Condorcet’s findings to give the mostsolid give the to findings Condorcet’s take I different beingconceptually their of Because recogn generally of set a translating of A problem giv is right political of standard basic Sincethe thepossibili to related internally are Since they 106 I xrie oa fedm y aig h rgltos ht advance that regulations the taking by freedom moral exercise I ,

en by the common good good thecommon en by ty of the independence of judgment judgment of independence tythe of ). On important matters, we wish to have higher lev higher have weto wish matters, Onimportant ). sseau himself thought that individuals can err in err can individuals that thought himself sseau ssion of the general will, and Condorcetian probabi Condorcetian will,and general the of ssion ate motivation), and why the more important decisio important more whythe and motivation), ate background to the epistemic nature of Rousseau’s Rousseau’s of nature theepistemic to background e majority side, more likely the outcome of the vot the of outcome morethe likely side, majority e ized (moral) principles into concrete regulations. regulations. concrete into principles (moral) ized 108 h aporaey osrie voting constrained appropriately the h fnig i Condorect in findings the 107 he result of the vote can on an an on can vote the of result he n on consistent basis for it to it for basis consistent on n acut o te persisting the for account , decisions of the legislative legislative the of decisions presupposed fact advance the common common the advance fact ended by the proclaimed proclaimed the by ended though the problem of of problem the though al wills has to satisfy. satisfy. to has wills al inciple concern - that that - concern inciple et, uh f the of much ments, gives evidence evidence gives 105 , because of because , legitimate legitimate differing differing about s e met. e met.

lity el of el

109 the e e ns 50 ’s CEU eTD Collection prospect, and for a very good reason. It seems that such a constraint a such that seems It reason. good very a for and prospect, the fundamental to Rousseau’spersists, solution problem flaw. has a serious probable - has good reason to accept moral judgment to accept reason good - has probable is There decisions. such of character epistemic sat the if about or concern properly, function to legislature a for impossible 2The has vote. beunanimous to it enacteda by assembly legislative the of decision every requirement that obeying ‘my’ share in general will, I would be subo wouldbe I will, general in share ‘my’ obeying 111 112 autonomous m of judgment the accept to have we Since judgment. moral the of regardi considerations intuitive some byproviding theproblem, fundamental Rouss of plausibility the questions hand, other the on objection, Estlund’s devastating for Rousseau. disagreeme plaus entirely not the though even and that socialization, through transcendable argue might b He not however. might Rousseau, This for objection disagreement. reasonable for account to inability conceptual Rousseau’s of inadequacy the emphasizes objection Cohen’s the plausibility Rousseau’s project. political of most two the as recognized I what with faced are we end, the In accept it. f considerations intuitive some provides it nevertheless, competence, argument conclusive a not is This way. similar in addressed be can concer a that and – participation political of effects educative question the apparent intuitive appeal of Estlund’s premise Estlund’s of appeal intuitive apparent the question re to strategies available two only have we that seems It 110 diffic conceptual a is This regulations. such of correctness the minor the in citizens some least at that fact the for account to It is necessary that I accept the decision on reas on decision the accept I that isnecessary It course. of weagainst, vote case In “One who accepts that all things considered theco considered things all that whoaccepts “One nd taey em ipasbe Rusa ws agl pessim largely was Rousseau implausible. seems strategy 110 , and since the problem cannot be resolved by a blind deferral blind a by resolved be cannot problem the since and ,

oned reflection, for in any other case I would not would I case other in any for reflection, oned rdinating my will to it. it. my to will rdinating ” (Estlund 1997: 186) 1997: (Estlund ” rrectness of a given moral judgment is extremely extremely is moraljudgment given a of rrectness fute this argument. We can either either can We argument. this fute needs to satisfy – namely, that – satisfy to needs 112 n about the prejudices, also also prejudices, the about n sid gnrt significant generate isfied, ity will be skeptical about about skeptical be will ity , or introduce a necessary a introduce or , ulty, for if the possibility possibility the if for ulty, compelling objections to to objections compelling ajorities in order to be to order in ajorities would either make it it make either would o ob ta the that doubt no in favor of voters voters of favor in or why we should should we why or si aot such about istic ible it is still not still is it ible e a devastating devastating a e framework – its its – framework eau’s answer to to answer eau’s t s o un- not is nt ng nature the 111 , we need we , be be 51 CEU eTD Collection presupposes, every moral disagreement has a determinate yes/ determinate a has disagreement moral every presupposes, reserv general our on rests premise Estlunds of plausibility be an epistemically reliable means to achieving the achieving to means reliable anepistemically be answer can be achieved at least on some matterssome on least at achieved be can answer voters can in principle, reasonably question theco question reasonably principle, in can voters so truth, the ‘gets’ thatevery decision required) 1the with left are we that seems it So the ofbasis of) are reason. citizens on voting matt (a that some doubt seriously would we occasion on every on so do vote to manage unanimous reach can legislature the of members that in such a case, the issue can be addressed, at least in pri in least at addressed, be can issue the case, a such in that pa this of scope the stron beyond is inquiry an such of of prospect the though instance an as theory moral Rousseau’s pursue to try premis Estlund’s accept us makes truth moral of status ‘weak’ conce then Rather epistemology. moral of sphere the in issue an attempting of worthy as seem might it However, truth. moral 113 wi us defending theory of at Rousseau’s principle. the level provide does plausible, entirely not although strategy, This as not devastating is beto wrong problem Rousseau. then for this If laws. of run general the of legitimacy to object to citizen The requirement of legitimacy, that I introduced, introduced, thatI legitimacy, of requirement The

st to speak. So the concern that we are addressing is is addressing weare that theconcern So speak. to strategy. As we already argued it seems that the that seems it argued already we As strategy. rrectness of all the decisions of the popular assem popular the of thedecisions all of rrectness truth on the question. It is not to be expected (n expected be to not is It thequestion. on truth asserts only that the voting procedure isconsidere procedure voting the that assertsonly

113 , then it might not be reasonable for a for reasonable be not might it then , ations regarding the status of of status the regarding ations he can be adequately proven proven adequately be can he nciple. If, as moral realism moral as If, nciple. e, it may be worthwhile to worthwhile be may it e, to address this problem as problem this address to no answer, and if such an an such if and answer, no g moral realism. Even Even realism. moral g ding that the apparent apparent the that ding t least some portion portion some least t h sadon for standpoint a th per we might argue argue might we per r, u i they if but ers, that that or or bly. bly. d to to d 52 CEU eTD Collection In“Deliberative Poli andBohman Democracy: Rehg’s and Essays onReason University of Democracy”, “An Chicago The Press, Conception Epistemic of University “Rousseau: Oxford community a York: of free New Pres equals”, 6. Cohen, Joshua Indiana5. Cassirer, of Rousseau”, Jacques Jean- “Question Ernst; University Interest: the “Democratic Public Condorcet revisit and Theory and Rousseau and Feld, Jeremy4. Bernar David Waldron Estlund M. Scott Grofman, A “Rousseau’sCondorcetian Will: Perspective”, General 1988 3. Bernar Feld;and Scott Grofman University Liberty”,Isaih;2. Berlin, “ Press,1969 Oxford Essays Four on University of England, New 2001 Press of Writings Mountain” “Letters Roussea (LM), from Collected the in Written Books,Bloom, 1979 “Emile”(E), New Basic Allan York: trans. Inequality” ofUniversity “Discourse Origin Cambridge (D), Press onthe Dent, M. 1993 J. London: discourses” “Theand (SC), Contract Social 1. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques; 2008 2008 12. Neuhouser,Theodicy „Rousseau’s Frederick; of Self-Love“, Universit Oxford L. “Letter Sherman, ed.Charles Toleration”, NY, Concerning 1965 CambridgeLaslettt, “Two ed. By of Treatises Government” Univer Peter Locke, 11. John; Institute Massachusetts Politics”, of Technology, 1997 Rehg; Bohmanon R William Democracy:10. James “Deliberative and Essays Tuck,9. Hobbes, 1991 Cambridge “Leviathan” Thomas; University Press, ed. Richard by 1983 The C „Roiusseau’s8. Gilden, Design Hilal; of Contract: Social the Argument“, In “Deliberative Polit andBohman Democracy: Rehg’s and Essays onReason David; “Democratic7. Estlund, University 2008 Authority”, Princeton Press, Literature:

, 1997 sity Press, 1988 sityPress, 1988 Press,1963 Press,1963 s, 2010 2010 s, ed”, 1989 u, vol. 9, 9, u, vol. eason and 1986 tics” 1997 ics” 1997 hicago, y Press, 53

CEU eTD Collection “A Theory Cambridge,16. Rawls, John; 1971 Harvard Justice”, University Press, of London, “ManLongmans, 15. Plamenac, and Society”, John; 1965 Cordon, Cambridge, Chaphiro and Casiano 1999 Democracy’s Va in Contestatory “Republican and Democratization” Freedom “Deliberative DemocracyDiscursive Nous Vol11.2001 and Dilemma”, Philip; 14. Pettit, Legitimacy”, 13. Peter, Routledge,New Fabienne; 2009 “Democratic York, lue, ed. Ian Ianlue, ed.

54