Suffolk Dispositions & Political Philosophies of Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine Questions

User Generated

nabbq

Humanities

Suffolk University Boston

Description

  BOOKS 

1-(( Michael Curtis, ed., The Great Political theories: From the Greeks to the Enlightenment(Harper, 2008); ISBN: 9780061351365 ("Curtis I" in the readings listed below))

2-Michael Curtis, ed., The Great Political theories: From the French revolution to modern times (Harper, 2008); ISBN: 9780061351372 ("Curtis II" in the readings listed below)

Pages NUMBERS:

Curtis I: 

Hobbes, Locke, Hume: 329-349, 372-382, 397-411,

Montesquieu, Burke, Paine, de Maistre: 425-440

Curtis II: 

Rousseau, Condorcet, Kant: 18-47, 

Montesquieu, Burke, Paine, de Maistre: 51-75

Respond to each of the questions below. Do not use any source material but the assigned primary texts. If you quote from the primary sources, simply put the page number from the book in parentheses. Answers should be no longer than three paragraphs (single-spaced) long. Your responses are due Monday at the beginning of class. 

Compare and contrast the political philosophies of Hobbes and Locke. Which provides a more consistent explanation for the need and nature of government?  

According to Rousseau, what is the collective will? What role does it play in his view of political society? 

  1. What is Kant’s categorical imperative? Is it a helpful concept for thinking about politics? 
  2. Compare and contrast the dispositions and political philosophies of Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. Which do you find more helpful? Why?      

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Here you go

According to Rousseau, what is the collective will? What role does it play in his view of
political society?
The general will as per Rousseau is the public good’s dependable voice, and protecting it
obligation it is the Sovereign's to protect it. While the general will organizes the form of
government and creates laws, for example, it is neutral with respect to the particularities; its sole
aim is the public good. The general will is, effectively, an idea. It is embodied and formalized by
the political body and sovereignty that assembles to legislate and debate (Curtis, 2008).
Rousseau’s inversion of his predecessors’ accounts of sovereignty centered on the claim
that sovereignty is both inalienable and indivisible. Rousseau first argued ‘that sovereignty,
being only the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated’. The sovereign can be
represented only by itself because, although power can be transferred, the same is not true of
will. As per Rousseau, the alienation of both the people’s sovereignty and freedom occur at the
same point and in the same act; the act whereby sovereignty is conferred from the people to a
superior. It is worth noting that Rousseau’s argument here—that sovereignty cannot be
represented or alienated—was concerned only with the freedom of the people understood as a
collective body with a collective will, and not with the freedom of the individual citizens who
form the sovereign body.
On Rousseau’s account, any form of representative sovereignty would violate the moral
equality of citizens because it involves some individuals having greater legislative rights than
others. Such equality was crucial for the flourishing of a well-ordered republic and for the
preservation of freedo...


Anonymous
Great study resource, helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Content
Related Tags