Monthly Archives: October 2015

Le plus fort n’est jamais assez fort pour être toujours le maître

“The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master” – Rousseau

Rousseau’s Discourses on Inequality is an attempt to find the origin of inequality in society. Rousseau talks about the rich, the poor, the strong and the weak. I want to focus on what he calls the “Law of the Strongest”.

“It therefore seems to me certain that governments did not originate in arbitrary power, which is only the final stage of the corruption of governments, and which brings them back in the end to the very law of the strongest which they were first introduced to remedy, even if they had begun this way, such power being in its nature illegitimate, could not serve as the basis for rights in society, nor consequently for the inequality instituted in society.” (Rousseau 128) I want to consider this sentence and try to understand what Rousseau truly means by the illegitimate nature of the right of the strongest. Rousseau considers the law of the strongest as something that does not exist since as soon as the force starts to weaken no right remains. To him no lasting power can be established from strength and force. However even if he mentions that no governments actually rise from the law of the strongest, everything he states about the origin of governments could be interpreted as such. He says that there is a “perpetual conflict between the right of the strongest and the right of the first occupant which ended only in fights and murders.” The conflict then conducts the “rich man” (could possibly be seen as the strongest because of his wealth ?) to “conceive … the most cunning project that ever entered the human mind” that is to say, a unity of people under instituted laws, and rules, in the end a government (120-121). Indeed, I think it is important not only to consider the strongest the person with the best physical abilities but also the cunning one using his own ability for his advantage.  If the strongest can be the smartest or the richest, wouldn’t the governments be first established by the strongest ? In the Social Contract, Rousseau states that “the strongest is never strong enough to be always the master unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty.” It would make sense in this argument as well, as before governments were established the rich/strong/smart one understood that “force could take away from them what force alone had acquired without having any reason for complaint”. In this respect, the rich/strong/smart ones have to establish something that would legitimize their power and possessions in order to keep them (121). If they manage to legitimize their strength as being what’s needed for the good of ALL people and mostly for their own good, and make their strength into a right that everyone else as to respect then only they would transform people’s obedience into duty. When Rousseau talks about the illegitimate nature of the Law of the strongest, is he suggesting that it is illegitimate because it is not natural or because it results in inequalities ?


Hobbes – The Leviathan, a tyrant ?

Hobbes defines every word he is using, which kinda annoys me and makes me lose track of his main argument, but I still try to find a way to focus and to understand his point. The Leviathan is one man (or group of men/women), ruling the state, maintaining its peace and liberating the people from the state of nature. In chapter XVII, Hobbes insists on the fact that the ruler has a full power, many rights, and cannot be overthrown by the people.
It surely sounds tyrannical.  I am wondering what would stop the Leviathan to establish a commonwealth by acquisition, benefit from the rights reserved to him and act for his own sake instead of the people’s? Men are naturally evil, Hobbes says, the ruler gets all the power and the rights, can use fear and censorship to maintain peace. What happens when he decides not to follow his role but uses all the rights for himself?
Indeed Hobbes states that the man is naturally evil, in the state of nature, fear controls the human beings, who fight each other for their own survival. How does Hobbes think men should respect their agreement with the sovereign if they are naturally seeking Honour, dignity, envy and don’t trusting each other? The ruler should keep his people “in awe and direct their actions to the common benefit”, has every right to use censorship, “to be judge of the opinions and doctrines”, “to do whatsoever he shall think is necessary to be done, when peace and security are lost, for the recovery of the same” (Chap. XVIII {8}).
Since fear is what leads them to fight and not trust each other, how would controlling them with fear do any good? The people cannot even find a new ruler without my permission (Chap. XVIII {3}).
Moreover, I found it paradoxical that Hobbes would authorize and promote censorship, when he can be a victim of it.
Oh Hobbes, you confuse me.