ipl-logo

The Banning Of The Social Contract In France

607 Words3 Pages

The banning of The Social Contract in France seemed quite irrational, especially since Rousseau did not name any particular ruler or member of the court. However, The Social Contract gave permission to the French people to regain their liberty and remove any power, they felt, did not prove legitimacy. Rousseau states that “one (man) thinks himself to be the master of others and still remains a greater slave than they” (Rousseau 1). This implies that even a ruler is not truly free. The ruler is a slave to the happiness of his subjects and will always have some fear of revolt or revolution. The king would not tolerate someone writing about this potential weakness of the ruler of the State. A “master” must find a way to turn citizen obedience into duty (Rousseau 1). The king is unable to do whatever he wants at any given point, because all actions have a consequence whether it is outrage or love. The king believes he rules by divine right; therefore, he would not be pleased if someone thought the king could face serious consequences for his decisions. …show more content…

This would be terrifying to the king, because if the citizens believed he shouldn’t rule, they may take The Social Contract as an excuse to revolt. “Force does not create right” (Rousseau 2) meaning that just because a man is more powerful than you it does not mean he has the right to do anything to harm you. In this sentence alone, Rousseau destroys the idea of the estate system and potentially inspires members of the lower estate to stand up for

Open Document