Dmitriy Pilipenko

Rousseau begins his treatise, titled The Social Contract, with the famous line,

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” After setting the overall tone for the

rest of his treatise that man falsely perceives that he is free, when in reality he is himself

enslaved, Rousseau sets out to find a legitimate alternative. Rousseau’s ultimate goal is

to find a political system that protects and defends each individual and his property,

whilst preserving the autonomy of every member. Rousseau begins his endeavor by

postulating that mankind has reached a critical point in the state of nature, such that the

obstacles in the way of the preservation of the state of nature, overpower “…the

resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state.” (Social

Contract, bk. I, ch. 6) Consequently, individuals would have to unite and direct their

forces together, such that their aggregate sum would be able to overcome the obstacles

challenging the preservation of the state of nature. In order for such a union to be

legitimate and successful, it would require all of its members to forfeit their natural

liberty provided to them by the state of nature and embrace the moral liberties provided

by the Social Contract. Rousseau sees that this unification of individuals — and the

consequential formation of the Social Contract — is the legitimate alternative to the

current state of society that he is seeking.

One of the key preconditions required of individuals, prior to them leaving the

state of nature and unifying their forces, is to forfeit their natural liberty. The state of

nature represents the hypothetical situation of how humanity was prior to the

establishment of any form of government, whether it be formal or informal. Within this

state, there exist no established legal nor moral rules to govern it’s members. This

2
absence of rules extends itself into the issue of property rights. Because there exist no

rules concerning ownership and possession, every individual within the state of nature

has an unlimited right to everything that he desires to have. The ability to be to able to

act upon those desires and be able to acquire that that which his impulses crave without

encountering any external physical interference from others, is called natural liberty.

Within the state of nature, individuals act only in accordance to their instincts and

their physical desires. When an individual’s body is hungry and desires sustenance, that

individual would eat some food. If his body desires the nicotine from a cigarette, he

would go and smoke a cigarette. People become so preoccupied with satisfying their

body’s urges, they in a sense lose control over their own actions and become enslaved

to the natural whims and desires of their body. This preoccupation is what Rousseau

was referring to when he said that man is in chains. In order for man to lose the chains

and regain the freedom and autonomy with which he was born, man would have to gain

control over his actions.

As individuals leave the state of nature and become part of a civil society, their

conduct changes. Instead of acting on the bodies natural instincts and impulses, man

begins to apply rational thinking and moral considerations to his actions. Since these

moral rules are self-derived and self-imposed onto the individual by the individual, he

has control over those rules. This is because the moral rules are the individual’s

interpretation of the policy that is formed when members of the society aggregate their

forces together and will what is in the best interest of everyone. This is called the

general will. It is the net sum of what every individual member in the society views as

3
the morally best action. Having this control over the formulation of the moral rules that

he imposes onto himself, gives the individual the ability to abandon the role of the slave

and take on the role of the master. The individual is finally free.

Rousseau began his treatise by setting out two conditions for an alternative that

would be a legitimate political system. The first condition is that the alternative defends

and protects all of its members and their property. The second condition is that the

members must remain free and be able to have control over their own actions. The only

legitimate political system would be one where moral liberty is provided to it’s members.

Let us assume for instance that an association was made amongst members

such that all of the individuals refused to surrender their natural liberty in exchange for

moral liberty. Since every member retained his natural liberty, the only limitation on what

is their rightfully theirs depends solely on the limits of their physical strength and ability

to defend their possessions from others coming along and claiming them. This would

lead to a system where the strongest individual or coalition would be able to transform

it’s strength into right and make others obey by threat of physical force.

Every time a stronger force would come along it would succeed the previous

power and assume control over deciding what is right and wrong. With each succession

of superiority the existing concept of what is right would vanish and be replace with a

different concept of right. Each transfer of control would lead to a recategorization of

right and wrong. But the whole power behind the concept that something is right is that

the assignment of what is right supersedes the authority of mankind and is either

assigned by a higher power such as God, or it is an intrinsic property that naturally

4
occurs. From that, we can conclude that force does not create nor assign right and any

attempt at reassign what should be considered right would be illegitimate. Since the

powers of such a form of government are illegitimately derived, the whole political

system is illegitimate. Therefore, it is not possible to create a legitimate political system if

the members choose to enjoy natural liberty instead of moral liberty. Only when the

members give up their natural liberty in exchange for moral liberty, can a legitimate

political system become possible.

There are two criteria that a political institution must fulfill in order for it to be

legitimate. It must provide safety and security for its citizens. Secondly, the citizen must

be able to retain control over his own life and remain just as free as before. It is the

moral liberty that an individual enjoys, that determines whether or not he is free. Without

moral liberty, man is, as Rousseau pointed out, completely preoccupied with satisfying

his instinctual desires to such an extent that he becomes controlled by what his body

demands next. It becomes clear that for man to be free and live an autonomous life, he

must have moral liberty.

We ought to build our political institutions such that it presents as minimal of an

obtrusion and obstacle to private life as possible. The government must be crafted in a

delicate balance where it offers valid security and protection but does begin to exude

influence onto the private lives of its members. The authority of the government ought to

be limited to the point where it is allowed to step in and intervene only when one

individual’s autonomy begins to limit the freedom and autonomy of another individual.

That way, the individuals are promised to keep their freedom because there would be no

5
laws limiting their actions. The only laws that should be enacted are the ones that place

limitations on actions that limit the freedoms of others and cause harm to others. Such a

limitation on government is enough to ensure that the government can still provide for

the protection of its members. But by setting the limits on the government, it ensures no

malicious entity can use the government as an instrument to gain command over its

citizens.

Limiting the powers of the government by so much is a quite drastic change in

comparison to contemporary governments such as the United States’. Many of the

current laws on statute extend the reach of the government deep into the private lives of

individuals. In fact, the private life and the law are so intertwined, that some critics would

argue, it is necessary for maintaining a stable society. It is the laws that create structure

and order. If the government’s influence is so severely limited, then order within the

society would slowly crumble and it would become anarchy. But such a claim would be

incorrect.

With moral liberty, individuals interpret the general will of the society and create

rules for themselves to follow based on what they believe fits along with the general will.

This is actually more ideal. Currently it is possible for a coalition with a specific social

agenda in mind to legitimately come into power and begin passing legislation that

advances their ideals. By passing these laws, every individual’s interpretation of the

general will will be skewed in favor of the particular social goals of that coalition.

Ultimately, the coalition would have unequal influence on society and begin to harm the

autonomy of others.

6
 In the political system that I have introduced, individuals would rely on methods of

social rebuke to help everyone understand the general will. Rather than considering if

an action is right or wrong based on if there exists a possibility of jail time, individuals

would observe social cues to better help formulate their own understanding of right and

wrong. Humans are social animals and always try to fit in. If a specific action is met with

a severe consequence like exile, the message that that action is morally wrong would be

received quickly. Less extreme social punishments are also effective.

Suppose that there was a society where wearing red clothes was considered

morally wrong. The government ought not to pass legislation forbidding red clothing

because red clothes are not a physical danger to anyone’s safety or health. There exist

other methods by which society can express it’s disapproval of red clothes. For example,

store clerks may choose to not do business with anyone wearing red. Or taxi drivers

may refuse to transport anyone wearing red. Or the expression of disapproval maybe be

something as simple as people ignoring anyone who is wearing red clothes. Very

quickly, a new individual to that society would understand that red clothes are wrong,

and adjust his own set of self-imposed rules so that it tells him to not wear red. Even

with the absence of legislation, human interaction is complex enough to maintain social

order and stability.

The purpose of this paper was to find a legitimate alternative to the political

system such that man is not bound by chains, but is instead free just like how he was

born. It was shown that moral liberty is of very great value and ought to be stressed and

enhanced within a political system in order to ensure autonomy and freedom for each

7
individual. And lastly, I introduced a possible legitimate alternative for how a political

institution must be built such that each individual enjoys the protections of government

but the remains completely autonomous to himself.