How would Rousseau's general testament eliminate the tendency for individuals to distinguish themselves from each other that he had identified in the Discourse on Inequality? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In the Discourse on Inequality Rousseau identifies that individuals develop the need to distinguish themselves from others unequally through the very act of living together. For a society to function, it is necessary to control it, which Rousseau claims occurs through the presence of a general will. However, I argue that Rousseau's General Will does not eliminate the tendency of individuals to distinguish themselves from each other, but only controls it in certain aspects to allow society to continue. Rousseau identifies the origin of the tendency of individuals to distinguish themselves from each other at the two-point level. In the Social Contract this happens when human beings work together to promote concrete common interests (here he gives the example of deer hunting (Keohane 1980; p440)) and from this discover the enjoyment of the social. In this context, competition between people then develops, which leads them to distinguish themselves from each other. Yet, in the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau identifies the invention of agriculture as the cause of this distinction, because it meant that people wanted two things: property and people to work for them. Rousseau comments that “as soon as one man needs the help of another… equality disappears” (Gourevich 1997: p167). Here it refers to moral or political equality (Gourevich 1997), which is given by human consensus, rather than physical (natural) equality. As humans continue to live together, these desires (properties and people who work for them) transform into needs (Gourevich 1997), which means that it is no longer a desire of human beings to distinguish themselves from each other, but a need. This need to distinguish becomes a problem in society when it is not controlled. L'amour proper is the term used to describe an unnatural and biased self-love (Gourevich 1997: p218), which leads to toxic inequality in society, which Rousseau warns us about. The rich are therefore happy just to have things as long as others do not have them (Gourevich 1997), because of this “amour proper” in which they must continually distinguish themselves from other human beings. Furthermore, it is not enough to just own property, one must deprive others of owning it (Gourevich 1997) and this leads to inequality in society, where people constantly have to interact with each other. Furthermore, in societies Rousseau identifies that desires become needs (Gourevich 1997), so the desire for happiness based on distinguishing oneself from other human beings by depriving them of property becomes part of each person's self-interest. The pursuit of luxury is the maximum expression of this need according to Rousseau and leads to despotism, which has the potential to “complete the evil that societies had begun” (Gourevich 1997: p202), i.e. it will completely eradicate the naturalness of people and they leave in their place “artificial men and fictitious passions” (Gourevich 1997: p186). Therefore, for Rousseau, living in a society creates a process that, if left unchecked, could destroy it. His solution to this problem is the General Will. Rousseau assumes that men always act in their own interests as they interpret it (Keohane 1980), so it would be unnatural for them to give up their interests to be part of a society. In the Discourse on Political Economy Rousseau explains that to induce people to follow thegeneral will, it must be in their interest to do so (Cole 1993). In this way the magistrate can maintain control and ensure that society does not become despotic. The sole use of violence and terror for Rousseau would also lead to the fall of society, so the General Will, with the occasional use of violence, is the solution (Cole 1993). Keohane identifies that “to behave morally is to behave in ways that conform to the common interest” (Keohane 1980: p487). These common interests are not the harmony of all personal interests, but certain goals for which people agree to work together. It is the task of the legislator to create these common interests, which are not found in nature (Keohane 1980). In this way, Rousseau's argument is slightly Hobbesian in that the authority to legislate lies with a power, but it is opposed to the Hobbesian line, because following the general will is completely a choice of the citizen and if he does not do so, the responsibility lies with the sovereign. (Cole 1993). The General Will is therefore Rousseau's proposed solution to the political inequality caused by the tendency of human beings to distinguish themselves from each other, as identified in the Discourse on Inequality. However, the General Will does not eliminate the tendency of human beings to distinguish themselves from each other, rather it allows us to control this tendency. I will support this using Rousseau's ideas on property and particular wills. The fact that Rousseau does not suggest that property be outlawed means that the tendency of human beings to distinguish themselves from each other is not eliminated. Keohane (1980) identifies that ownership is still permitted by the social contract (which allows following the general will), so individuals can still be individuals. The limit established here is that all property is owned by the sovereign to ensure that people cannot buy each other (Keohane 1980), since slavery, in Rousseau's eyes, strips a person of their humanity. This is a compromise between individual freedom and authoritarian moral equality. If, according to Rousseau, one of the aspects that make us human is the ability to be a free agent, then the sovereign who is in control of all property will violate man's ability to act as a free agent. As Rousseau explained in the Discourse on Inequality, it is the possession of property (after the development of agriculture) that led to the formation of families and then societies (Gourevich 1997) and continues to be a fundamental part of the way in which beings humans define themselves within society. In the Discourse on Political Economy Rousseau discusses how the rich acquire arts (especially luxury items) to distinguish themselves from the poor (Cole 1993). The general will could put an end to this, but Rousseau recommends against doing so (instead suggesting taxation of luxury goods as a solution (Cole 1993)), allowing humans to continue to distinguish themselves from each other in terms of property. Secondly, Rousseau argues that political society is made up of other smaller societies, which have their own interests, manifested as particular wills. People should follow the General Will as a priority, but they often turn away and follow the particular one, because it is in their interest (Cole 1993: p133). One of Rousseau's basic assumptions is that people will always follow what they believe to be their own interest. But rather than citizens surrendering their personal wills to that of the General Will, Rousseau insists that it is the legislator's job to set up the General Will so that people want to follow it, because it is in their interest. However, the legislator must also “bring all particular wills into conformity with it.