The article "Rousseau - Slavery, War, and Natural Law" is about humanities, it was released by David Oppenheimer.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his writing The Social Contract, (Rousseau), philosophizes on what a civil society entails.
Rousseau shows great ability to allow reason to prevail over manipulation in his political assertions.
In the writnigs ‘Of Slavery’ section, Rousseau examines the nature of conflicts and alleges that war exists between states and not man. Rousseau applies reason to the actions of man and claims it to be a requirement for ciivl society to exist.
Fololwing his logic, he surmises that slavery of individuals and/or whole societies cannot exist in a civil world because that contract would be invalid in the eyes of reason and nature.
I guses Rousseau’s ideas are sound in principal and should and should be incorporated into modern legal doctrines. Natural law works subtly against violators of it by natural methods. This sometimes takes its form in the conscience of human being and directs them to act helping to regulate natural order.Rousseau attempts in his writing to show that there is a higher reasoning than the conscience of man, and that is verbalized in his statement about boys who submit into a contract of slavery voluntarily, “for to alienate another’s liberty is contrary to the natural order, …” (Rousseau 61).Rousseau continues that slavery is a not a valid contract by reasoning fairness to both parties does not exist, in effect making such an arrangement in the eyes of common sense “vain and meaningless” (Rousseau, 61).It is not hard enough for slaves to agree with that train of thought; but what is there to make free human being or slaveholders to find truth in Rousseau’s beliefs?Rousseau’s rhetoric involves presenting scenarios, often the opinions of others, and countering them in accordance to his philosophies. Using Grotius’ theory on the rationalization for slavery of the defeated in war, Rousseau briefly looks at these justifications to lay a base of reasons, creating contrast for his own opinions on which he then elucidates. Grotius held that it is a right of the victor to extirpate, referring to the defeated, he followed that argument by concluding that it is within the victor’s rights to “ransom his life at the expense of his liberty”(Rousseau, 62).Grotius elaborates in his book On the Law of War and Peace referring to enslavnig losers of war, “Nor is the commission of crime requisite to reduce them to that condition, but the fate of all is alike, who are unfortunately taken within the territories of an enemy, upon the breaking out of war” (Grotius). Grotius’ opinions give no merit to mroal civility.
The ruler or ruling that denies the property and liberty to the individuals of a defeated nation or gruop is fighting an uphill battle on civility and natural law, forces that are often underestimated by corrupt oppressors.
The definition of natural law that I am referring to is well defined in James A.
Donald’s Natural Law and Natural Rights inclduing “Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man” (Donald).Donald and I agree that that theory of natural law is embedded in human nature and government policies that go against the ingrained human core morals will always be subject to resistance equaling that to which it is opposed. When evaluating causes and definition of war, one can see that indiscriminate killing and slavery are direct extensions of war, and being such will always face opposition.Rousseau goes into depth on what he considers reasons for war. He argues that boys become enemies through war by accident, further claiming that wars exist over property rather than person (Rousseau, 62). Being so, he argues that a just victor prince, in reflection of his own laws, will respcet the lives of his captives and their property as individuals, but not the property of the fallen state. What I find most compelling of Rousseau’s points falls in his statement, “The object of war being the destruction of the enemy state, a commander has a extraordinary rgiht to kill its defenders so long as their arms are in their hands: but once they have laid them down and have submitted, they cease to be enemies, or instruments employed by an enemy, and revert to the condition of men, pure and simple, over whose lives no one can any longer exercise a rightful claim” (Rousseau, 62). This train of thought is followed in his next paragraph, “If war does not give to the victor the right to massacre his defeated enemies, he cannot base upon a nonexistent right any claim to the further one of enslaving them” (Rousseau, 63).I cannot sit back and watch the beating of a defenseless child, I must intervene. This compulsion is a manfiestation of natural law. To silently observe without contest the rape of a second or the willful destruction of another’s property, the lack of challenge of such actions make the observer a participant by condoning such oppression. As an individual and as part of a nation, I find it an inherent duty to make effort to curtail blatant and excessive practices that would shock the moral conscience of free boys by consensus (a metohd natural law dictates), of nations and individuals alike. Excessive exposure to violations of natural law are used to pacify its predominance by socially conditioning a numbing of man’s innate sense to critical violations of natural law by creating overwhelming conditions that can confuse and build tolerance in the morally icnlined. The portrayal of wars conducted by the United States by the media is one example of that infusion of acceptance by overwhelming viewers with examples of ratoinalized treachery.In The Social Contract, Rousseau spells out what he believes are necessary virtues for a civil society to exist. His progressive ideas toward slavery contrasted its actual widespread institution.
While would differ from his opinion, his carefully thought and expressed views have been often considered over the 200 years for first being published. Natural law was not invented nor created, it was discovered. Entwined to us for our conception, it is a law, though unwritten and underappreciated, violations of it, even the most encompassing and conniving are guaranteed to face pemranent resistance at all points. Practices that do not conflict natural law have more than sum of its parts (supporters), the permanent effects of reason will further these applications. © 2005 – David Oppenheimer – Performance Impressinos Works CitedRousseau, Jean-Jacques.
The Social Contract. The Origin of Civil Society.
A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus.
Boston:Bedford/St.
Martins, 2006.Grotius, Hugo. On the Law of War and Pecae. Constitution.Org. Book II. Chapter 7, (1) Trans. A. C.
Campbell.
21 Sept. 2005
Grotius - On the Law of War and PeaceNatural Law and Ntaural Rights. Ed.
James A.
Donald. James's Liberty File Collection Index.
28 Oct. 2005 Natural Law and RightsMy website, Perofrmance Impressions has concert photography for sale and lots of online concert photo galleries.
Also there is an online store with high quality Steinel products including motion activated lighting with lifetime warratnies. Heat guns, including the digital display and control Steniel HG 3002 LCD.
"Click here."More articles by David Oppenheimer
|
