Editing Will (philosophy) (section)

==Rousseau==
{{Main|General will}}
[[File:Jean-Jacques Rousseau (painted portrait).jpg|thumb|306x306px|Jean-Jacques Rousseau conceived and popularised the general will]]
[[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] added a new type of will to those discussed by philosophers, which he called the "[[general will]]" (''volonté générale''). This concept developed from Rousseau's considerations on the [[social contract]] theory of Hobbes, and describes the shared will of a whole citizenry, whose agreement is understood to exist in discussions about the legitimacy of governments and laws.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|last=Rousseau|first=Jean-Jacques|url=http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf|title=The Social Contract|year=2017|pages=54|orig-year=1762}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/#IdeaGeneWill|title=Jean-Jacques Rousseau|last=Bertram|first=Christopher|date=May 26, 2017|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

The general will consists of a group of people who believe they are in unison, for which they have one will that is concerned with their collective well-being.<ref name=":5" /> In this group, people maintain their autonomy to think and act for themselves—to much concern of libertarians, including "[[John Locke]], [[David Hume]], [[Adam Smith]], and [[Immanuel Kant]],"<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/|title=Libertarianism|last=van der Vossen|first=Bas|date=January 28, 2019|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=February 7, 2020}}</ref> who proclaim an emphasis of individuality and a separation between "public and private spheres of life."<ref name=":6" /> Nonetheless, they also think on behalf of the community of which they are a part.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last=Thompson|first=Michael J.|title=Autonomy and the Common Good: Interpreting Rousseau's General Will|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313681668|journal=International Journal of Philosophical Studies|volume=2|issue=2|pages=267|via=Philpapers}}</ref>

This group creates the [[Social contract|social compact]], that is supposed to voice cooperation, interdependence, and reciprocal activity.<ref name=":7" /> As a result of the general will being expressed in the social contract, the citizens of the community that composes the general will consent to all laws, even those that they disagree with, or are meant to punish them if they disobey the law<ref name=":5" />—the aim of the general will is to guide all of them in social and political life.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Thompson|first=Michael J.|title=Autonomy and Common Good: Interpreting Rousseau's General Will|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313681668|journal=International Journal of Philosophical Studies|volume=25|issue=2|pages=274|via=Philpapers}}</ref> This, in other words, makes the general will consistent amongst the members of the state, implying that every single one of them have citizenship and have freedom<ref name=":5" /> as long as they are consenting to a set of norms and beliefs that promote equality, the common welfare, and lack servitude.<ref name=":7" />
[[File:House of Commons Voting on the Family Protection Action Plan.jpg|left|thumb|250x250px|The House of Commons Voting on the Family of Action Plan in Budapest, Hungary—an example of the general will espoused by Rousseau.]]
According to Thompson, the general will has three rules that have to be obeyed in order for the general will to function as intended: (1) the rule of equality—no unequal duties are to be placed upon any other community member for one's personal benefit or for that of the community;<ref name=":10">{{Cite journal|last=Thompson|first=Michael J.|title=Autonomy and the Common Good: Interpreting Rousseau's General Will|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313681668|journal=International Journal of Philosophical Studies|volume=25|issue=2|pages=277|via=Philpapers}}</ref> (2) the rule of generality—the general will's end must be applicable to the likewise needs of citizens, and all the members' interests are to be accounted for;<ref name=":10" /> (3) the rule of non-servitude—no one has to relinquish themselves to any other member of the community, corporation, or individual, nor do they have to be subordinate to the mentioned community's, corporation's, or individuals' interests or wills.<ref name=":10" />

Nonetheless, there are ways in which the general will can fail, as Rousseau mentioned in ''[[The Social Contract]]''. If the will does not produce a consensus amongst a majority of its members, but has a minority consensus instead, then liberty is not feasible.<ref name=":11">{{Cite book|last=Rousseau|first=Jean-Jacques|url=http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf|title=The Social Contract|year=2017|pages=56|orig-year=1762}}</ref> Also, the general will is weakened consequent to altruistic interests becoming egoistical, which manifests into debates, further prompting the citizenry to not participate in government, and bills directed for egotistical interests get ratified as "'laws.'"<ref name=":5" /> This leads into the distinction between the ''will of all'' versus the ''general will'': the former is looking after the interests of oneself or that of a certain faction, whereas the latter is looking out for the interests of society as a whole.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/|title=Jean-Jacques Rousseau|last=Delany|first=James|website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=February 13, 2020}}</ref>

Although Rousseau believes that the general will is beneficial, there are those in the libertarian camp who assert that the will of the individual trumps that of the whole.<ref name=":6" /> For instance, [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|G.W.F Hegel]] criticized Rousseau's general will, in that it could lead to tension. This tension, in Hegel's view is that between the general will and the subjective particularity of the individual.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ripstein|first=Arthur|title=Universal and General Wills: Hegel and Rousseau|journal=Political Theory |volume=22|issue=3|pages=451|via=[[EBSCO Information Services|EBSCO]]}}{{Incomplete short citation|date=March 2025}}</ref> Here is the problem: when one consents to the general will, then individuality is lost as a result of one having to be able to consent to things on behalf of the populace, but, paradoxically, when the general will is in action, impartiality is lost as a result of the general will conforming to one course of action alone, that consented to by the populace.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ripstein|first=Arthur|title=Universal and General Wills: Hegel and Rousseau|journal=Political Theory |volume=22|issue=3|pages=454|via=EBSCO}} {{Incomplete short citation|date=March 2025}}</ref>

Another problem that Hegel puts forth is one of arbitrary contingency.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Ripstein|first=Arthur|title=Universal and General Wills: Hegel and Rousseau|journal=Political Theory |volume=22|issue=3|pages=455|via=Ebsco}}</ref> For Hegel, the problem is called "'the difference that action implies,'"<ref name=":12" /> in which a doer's description of an action varies from that of others, and the question arises, "Who [chooses] which [action] description is appropriate?"<ref name=":12" /> To Rousseau, the majority is where the general will resides,<ref name=":11" /> but to Hegel that is arbitrary.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Ripstein|first=Arthur|date=August 1994|title=Universal and General Wills|journal=Political Theory |volume=22|issue=3|pages=456|doi=10.1177/0090591794022003004|s2cid=170567224}}</ref> Hegel's solution is to find universality in society's institutions<ref name=":13" />—this implies that a decision, a rule, etc. must be understandable and the reasoning behind it cannot rest on the majority rules over the minority alone.<ref name=":13" /> Universality in societies' institutions is found via reflecting on historical progress and that the general will at present is a part of the development from history in its continuation and improvement.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":14">{{Cite journal|last=Ripstein|first=Arthur|date=August 1994|title=Universal and General Wills|journal=Political Theory |volume=22|issue=3|pages=457|doi=10.1177/0090591794022003004|s2cid=170567224}}</ref> In terms of the general will, universality from looking at historical development can allow the participants composing the general will to determine how they fit into the scheme of being in an equal community with others, while not allowing themselves to obey an arbitrary force.<ref name=":14" /> The people of the general will see themselves as superior to their antecedents who have or have not done what they are doing, and judge themselves in retrospect of what has happened in the course of occurrences in the present in order to from an equal community with others that is not ruled arbitrarily.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ripstein|first=Arthur|date=August 1994|title=Universal and General Wills|journal=Political Theory |volume=22|issue=3|pages=459|doi=10.1177/0090591794022003004|s2cid=170567224}}</ref>

Besides Hegel, another philosopher who differed in the Rousseauian idea of the general will was [[John Locke]]. Locke, though a [[social contract]]arian, believed that individualism was crucial for society, inspired by reading [[Cicero|Cicero's]] [[De Officiis|''On Duties'']], in which Cicero proclaimed that all people "desire preeminence and are consequently reluctant to subject themselves to others."<ref name=":17">{{Cite book|last=Wood|first=Neal|title=The Politics of Locke's Philosophy|publisher=University of California Press|year=1983|isbn=0-520-04457-6|location=Berkeley and Los Angeles|pages=29–30 and 34–39}}</ref> Also, Cicero mentioned how every person is unique in a special way; therefore, people should "accept and tolerate these differences, treating all with consideration and upholding the [dignity]... of each."<ref name=":17" /> In addition, Locke was inspired by Cicero's idea of rationally pursuing one's self-interest, from his book ''[[De Officiis|On Duties]].'' Locke wrote how people have a duty to maximize their personal good while not harming that of their neighbor.<ref name=":17" /> For Locke, another influence was [[Francis Bacon|Sir Francis Bacon]]. Locke started to believe, and then spread, the ideas of "freedom of thought and expression" and having "a... questioning attitude towards authority"<ref name=":17" /> one is under and opinions one receives<ref name=":17" /> because of [[Francis Bacon|Sir Francis Bacon]].<ref name=":17" />
{{multiple image
| align             = left
| image1            = John Locke.jpg
| width1            = 160
| alt1              = John Locke
| link1             = John Locke
| caption1          = [[John Locke]]
| image2            = 1831 Schlesinger Philosoph Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel anagoria.JPG
| width2            = 172
| alt2              = G. W. F. Hegel
| link2             = Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
| caption2          = [[G. W. F. Hegel]]
| footer            = Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and John Locke, two philosophers who critiqued Rousseau's concept of the general will
}}
For Locke, land, money, and labor were important parts of his political ideas.<ref name=":17" /> Land was the source of all other products that people conceived as property.<ref name=":17" /> Because there is land, money can cause property to have a varying value, and labor starts.<ref name=":17" /> To Locke, labor is an extension of a person<ref name=":17" /> because the laborer used his body and hands in crafting the object, which him- or herself has a right to only, barring others from having the same.<ref name=":19">{{Cite book|last=Locke|first=John|chapter=Second Treatise of Civil Government: An Essay concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government|title=Western Philosophy: An Anthology|publisher=Blackwell Publishing|year=2008|isbn=978-1-4051-2478-2|editor-last=Cottingham|editor-first=John|edition=2|pages=636–641}}</ref> Nonetheless, land is not possessed by the owner one-hundred percent of the time. This is a result of a "fundamental law of nature, the preservation of society...takes precedence over self-preservation."<ref name=":20">{{Cite book|last=Wood|first=Neal|title=The Politics of Locke's Philosophy|publisher=University of California Press|year=1983|isbn=0-520-04457-6|location=Berkeley and Los Angeles|pages=29, 30, 36, 37, 38}}</ref>

In Locke's ''Second Treatise,'' the purpose of government was to protect its citizens' "life, liberty, and property<ref name=":20" /><ref name=":19" />-- these he conceived as people's natural rights.<ref name=":19" /><ref name=":17" /> He conceived a legislature as the top sector in power, which would be beholden to the people, that had means of enforcing against transgressors of its laws, and for law to be discretionary when it did not clarify, all for the common good.<ref name=":17" /> As a part of his political philosophy, Locke believed in consent for governmental rule at the ''individual'' level, similar to Rousseau, as long as it served the common good, in obedience with the law and [[natural law]].<ref name=":17" /> Furthermore, Locke advocated for freedom of expression and thought and religious toleration as a result of that allowing for commerce and economy to prosper.<ref name=":17" /> In other words, Locke believed in the common good of society, but there are also certain natural rights that a government is bound to protect, in the course of maintaining law and order—these were the mentioned: life, liberty, and property."<ref name=":19" /><ref name=":20" />