Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de aynılarını sordum, bir çoğuna cevap veremedim ve götümden salladım. Yine de pastoral filozoflar hep pozitif bir enerjiye sahip gelmiştir bana, belki sana da gelir. 

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State 

  Rousseau is against the notion of absolutism and advocates for the independence and freedom of people. However, he acknowledges the necessity of a social contract and suggests that when obstacles to preservation are too great, a sum of forces (unity of men) is required (49). He contemplates the legitimization of this force and questions whether physical force can determine the right of ruling. He argues that the legitimacy of the state and its rulers should not be based on force. Instead, it should be based on morality, unity, and the willingness of the people. A social contract that people willingly obey can be the only justifiable foundation for a state.

    In "The Social Contract," Rousseau contends that if the legitimization of the ruler is determined by considering only force and power, it renders concepts like morality and justice insignificant. Rousseau finds the conventional idea of the right of ruling to be irrational and explains that "For once force makes right, the effect changes together with the cause; every force that overcomes the first inherits its right" (Social Contract, 44). Here he suggests that if the conventional idea is accepted, whoever is strong enough to impose force in order to become a ruler will have the power to establish what is right and what is not. In this context, there could be no constant and reliable definition of what is right. This refutes the conventional idea of the right of ruling and supports Rousseau's claim that the legitimization and the foundation of the state should not be based on force but something else. When only force is considered, morality and justice become futile.

    According to Rousseau, the legitimacy of the state cannot and should not stem from mere force but from morality, unity, and the willingness of people. Rousseau posits that if the right of ruling is based merely on force, it leads to a dangerous scenario where only the strongest are entitled to rule. He challenges this idea and explains that "The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty" (Social Contract, 43). Here, Rousseau argues against the conventional notion that the strongest should rule. He believes that the strongest individual can maintain their power only when they justify it with righteousness. By emphasizing the importance of transforming "strength into right" (43), Rousseau may be claiming that the ruler should have a good ethical and moral foundation to maintain their power. This implies that the justification of the right to rule stems from concepts beyond mere strength. It also claims that the obedience of people should be achieved not through force and coercion but from a sense of duty. This sense of duty can only be evoked when people are not forced into obedience; instead, they willingly obey. By doing so, Rousseau advocates for a state where the foundation of laws and rules is based on a social contract that people obey voluntarily and willingly.

    In summary, Rousseau's opposition to absolutism and his support for individual freedom and independence are based on his belief that the foundation of a just and legitimate state should not rely solely on the use of force. Although he acknowledges that a social contract and the unity of people are necessary for preservation, he questions the legitimacy of physical force as a basis for determining the right to rule. According to Rousseau, the foundation of a state should be grounded in morality, unity, and the willingness of people to obey a social contract of their own accord. By rejecting the conventional idea that the strongest should rule and emphasizing the importance of transforming strength into right (43), he suggests that the justification of the right to rule is derived from moral and ethical considerations beyond mere strength. Ultimately, Rousseau argues that a state based on voluntary obedience through a social contract is essential.