DO NOT WRITE ON THIS PAPER!!!!
WHH- Montesquieu and Rousseau Question and Answer
Read the brief articles and then answer the questions ON A SEPARATE SHEET of paper in COMPLETE SENTENCES. Full credit will not be given for one word or thoughtless answers. Take your time, engage yourself in the material, discuss the questions and your answers and then proceed to write your response.
Montesquieu Q&A:
Montesquieu believed that all things were made up of rules or laws that never changed. He set out to study these laws scientifically with the hope that knowledge of the laws of government would reduce the problems of society and improve human life. According to Montesquieu, there were three types of government: a monarchy (ruled by a king or queen), a republic (ruled by an elected leader), and a despotism (ruled by a dictator). Montesquieu believed that a government that was elected by the people was the best form of government. He did, however, believe that the success of a democracy - a government in which the people have the power - depended upon maintaining the right balance of power.
Montesquieu argued that the best government would be one in which power was balanced among three groups of officials. He thought England - which divided power between the king (who enforced laws), Parliament (which made laws), and the judges of the English courts (who interpreted laws) - was a good model of this. Montesquieu called the idea of dividing government power into three branches the "separation of powers." He thought it most important to create separate branches of government with equal but different powers. That way, the government would avoid placing too much power with one individual or group of individuals. He wrote, "When the [law making] and [law enforcement] powers are united in the same person... there can be no liberty." According to Montesquieu, each branch of government could limit the power of the other two branches. Therefore, no branch of the government could threaten the freedom of the people. His ideas about separation of powers became the basis for the United States Constitution.
Despite Montesquieu's belief in the principles of a democracy, he did not feel that all people were equal. Montesquieu approved of slavery. He also thought that women were weaker than men and that they had to obey the commands of their husband. However, he also felt that women did have the ability to govern. "It is against reason and against nature for women to be mistresses in the house... but not for them to govern an empire. In the first case, their weak state does not permit them to be preeminent; in the second, their very weakness gives them more gentleness and moderation, which, rather than the harsh and ferocious virtues, can make for a good environment." In this way, Montesquieu argued that women were too weak to be in control at home, but that there calmness and gentleness would be helpful qualities in making decisions in government.
Questions: On your own sheet of paper, answer the following questions
1. According to Montesquieu, what are the three types of government and what is each one?
2. What type of government did Montesquieu think was best?
3. What three groups is power separated between in the balance of powers?
4. Why did Montesquieu think the separation of powers was necessary?
5. Montesquieu’s ideas about separation of powers for what U.S. document?
6. In your opinion, how can someone who promotes democracy so strongly also approve of slavery?
7. What is your opinion of Montesquieu’s view of women?
8. Montesquieu said “constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go ...” Do you agree that people are apt to abuse their power? Explain.
9. What then does Montesguieu propose to limit the abuses of power by people in charge?
10. What affect does Montesquieu have on modern day life?
DO NOT WRITE ON THIS PAPER!!!!
Rousseau Q&A:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau stresses, like John Locke, the idea of a social contract as the basis of society. Locke's version emphasized a contact between the governors and the governed: Rousseau's was in a way much more profound - the social contract was between all members of society, and essentially replaced "natural" rights as the basis for human claims.
Rousseau's principal aim in writing The Social Contract is to determine how freedom may be possible in civil society, and we might do well to pause briefly and understand what he means by "freedom." In the state of nature we enjoy the physical freedom of having no restraints on our behavior. By entering into the social contract, we place restraints on our behavior, which make it possible to live in a community. By giving up our physical freedom, however, we gain the civil freedom of being able to think rationally. We can put a check on our impulses and desires, and thus learn to think morally. The term "morality" only has significance within the confines of civil society, according to Rousseau.
Not just freedom, then, but also rationality and morality, are only possible within civil society. And civil society, says Rousseau, is only possible if we agree to the social contract. Thus, we do not only have to thank society for the mutual protection and peace it affords us; we also owe our rationality and morality to civil society. In short, we would not be human if we were not active participants in society.
The contract is not affirmed by each individual separately so much as it is affirmed by the group collectively. Thus, the group collectively is more important than each individual that makes it up. The sovereign and the general will are more important than its subjects and their particular wills. Rousseau goes so far as to speak of the sovereign as a distinct individual that can act of its own accord.
We might react to these arguments with serious reservations, and indeed, Rousseau has been accused of endorsing totalitarianism. We live in an age where individual rights are considered vitally important, and it is insulting to think that we are just small parts of a greater whole. Rather than make freedom possible, it would seem to us that Rousseau's system revokes freedom.
Rousseau would not take these charges lying down, however. Looking at us in the new millennium, he might suggest that we are not free at all. On the whole, we may lack any kind of personal agency or initiative. We often have difficulty interacting with one another in any meaningful way, and it could be argued that our decisions and behavior are largely dictated to us by a consumer culture that discourages individual thought.
His system, he might claim, only seems unattractive to us because we have totally lost the community spirit that makes people want to be together. Citizens in his ideal republic are not forced into a community: they agree to it for their mutual benefit. He might argue that the citizens of ancient Greece and Rome were very active and capable of achievements that we have not come close to emulating since. The community spirit that united them did not intrude upon their individuality; rather, it gave individuality an outlet for its fullest expression.
Questions: On your own sheet of paper, answer the following questions
1. In your own words, please translate the first paragraph of the Rousseau article into your own words.
2. What is the difference between freedom in a state of nature and freedom in civil society?
3. According to Rousseau, who is more important, the group or the individual?
4. In regards to number 3 above, why? And do you agree why or why not?
Rousseau said “What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to anything which tempts him and which he is able to attain: what he gains is civil liberty and property in all that he possesses. In order that we may not be mistaken about these compensations, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is limited only by the powers of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will.”
5. In your own words, what do men lose and gain when they enter into a social contract?
6. In your own words, what is natural liberty?
7. In your own words, what is civil liberty?
8. What affect do Rousseau’s ideas have on modern day life?