Ans.

1- Introduction - Jean Jacques Rousseau was born in 1712, in Geneva of parents of French
Protestants ancestry, in a middle class family. His father was a watch-maker. When Rousseau
was born, he was ill and weak and his mother died. Issac, the father of Rousseau brought him up
without giving him proper education.
At the age of ten his father entrusted Rousseau to his uncle‘s care and left Geneva. Upto the age
of 13, Rousseau had to work as an apprentice under a cruel engraver. In 1742, he tried many
trades but met with no success. He was very much disappointed but with the help of his friend,
he got a post in the French Embassy at Vienna. But he was soon dismissed. He again came to
Paris and opened a hotel.
In the year of 1742, the Academy of Dizon announced a prize for the best essay on the subject,
―Has the progress of science and arts contributed to corrupt or purify morals?‖
Rousseau presented his thesis that the progress of sciences and arts tended to degrade the human
morality. He wrote an essay which depicted an early state of society in which all men lived under
conditions of simplicity and innocence and traced the present evils of society to the thirst of
knowledge and to the addition of artificialities of civilization. He won the prize which made a
great sensation. In 1753, Rousseau wrote another essay on ―What is the origin of
inequality among men and is it authorized by natural laws"?‖
Later on in 1755-1761 Rousseau wrote many of his important books. In 1762, he left Paris and
led a life of vagabond for 16 years. Rousseau‘s books rebelled against the rational thinking of his
age. He brought out the problems and conflicts inherent in civilised societies.

THEORY OF GENERAL WILL - The state, according to Rousseau, which is created through
the social contract is not an arbitrary state. It is established to maintain an atmosphere in which
individuals can enjoy their liberty in the best possible way. It has to work through a ‗general
will‘. The general will is no abstract idea. It is a living principle of action: a principle to be kept
alive only by the sleepless devotion, the watchful jealously, of all the individuals concerned. It is
this devotion, this jealousy, which alone can ―hold the state true, the end for which it
was founded—that is, the common good of all‖: that common good, the necessity of obedience to
which is ―the one fundamental law of the state, the one law which flows directly
and immediately from the social contract‖.
The conception of the ‗general will‘ plays a very important part in Rousseau‘s system. In this
connection, it is argued that the sovereign need given no guarantees to its subjects, for, it is
formed of the individuals who compose it, it can have no interest contrary to theirs.
―The sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, is always what it should be.‖

CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERAL WILL –

1. Definition of General Will – Rousseau, was of the opinion that men grew sick of the
anarchy which the serpent of private property brought in the society. Hence they thought of
creating a sovereign through social contract. The contract was concluded by a pact between
the individuals and the community consisting of the individuals who formed the society. The
individuals surrendered all their powers and rights to the community as a whole and bowed
before the General Will, which was the sovereign in the ultimate analysis.
2. Actual Will and Real Will – In order to properly understand the theory of ‗General Will‘ it
is necessary to understand the terms Actual Will and Real Will. From ‗Actual Will‘
Rousseau understood the will which was selfish and irrational thought of the good of the
individual alone. It conceives of the individual alone. It has no concern with the welfare of
the society. On the other hand, Rousseau believed that ‗Real Will‘ was something higher,
nobler and supreme. It was concerned more about the well being of all than that of one
individual. It was more social than anti-social, more collective than individualistic. In other
words, the real will was a channel for promoting the well being of the individuals and
society because when it thought of the society it ipso facto thought about the welfare of the
individuals.
3. Real Will and General Will – According to Rousseau ‗General Will‘ was the sum total of
all the ‗real wills‘ of the individuals which were based on reason and farsightedness of the
individuals. It was will of all the individuals for collective welfare. It was common
consciousness. Rousseau has defined General Will as ―The public person, so formed by
the union of all other persons is called by its members, state when passive, sovereign when
active.‖
4. Nobler Than Real Wills – According to Rousseau, General Will was not the sum total of
good and bad will of the individuals by a method of plus and minds but was something
nobler. It was the product of deliberation, discussions and consciousness. General Will is
concerned with general good but it might not be willed by the majority of the members of
 the society.
5. Everybody Free in General Will – Rousseau believed that in General Will none was slave
or under subordination to anyone else. Everybody was free. To quote Rousseau, ―If the
state is a moral person whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of
its care is the care of its own preservation, then it must have a universal and compelling force
in order to dispose part as may be advantageous to the whole.‖
6. General Will and Will of All – Rousseau tried to distinguish between the General Will and
the will of all. General Will considered about the good of the community as a whole whereas
will of all was only majority will and considered about the welfare of a few only. The will of
all could become General Will of peculiar interests, which have selfish ends and are taken
away from it. In Rousseau‘s own words, ―There is often a considerable difference
between General Will and will of all, the former aims at the common interest, the latter aims
at private interest and is only a sum of particular wills. But if we take away from these wills
the various particular interests which conflict with each other what remains as the sum of
difference is General Will.‖

Salient Features of General Will – General Will has the following particular features
according to Rousseau:
(i) Unity - General will is rational. It is not self-contradictory. It thus gives unity in the
sense that it is indivisible because once divided it cannot be called 'General Will‘ but
only sectional will.
(ii) Permanent - As General Will is based on reason, wisdom and experience and
thought about the good of all, it is not to do away with the time but is permanent. It
cannot be altered. It is pure. Even though it may be dominated by other wills for some
time yet in the ultimate analysis this will dominate.
(iii) Right Will - It is will which takes into consideration not only the political and social
but also moral conditions. As such it is right will based on right reasonings and
presumptions.
(iv) Inalienable - Rousseau‘s sovereign is 'General Will‘ and not any human being. The
sovereign cannot give up the sovereignty. He cannot pass that on to any other
individual because sovereignty was vested in the community as a whole. Community
 could not pass on the sovereign authority to any other individual or organisations but
to the General Will. Thus sovereignty and General Will are inseparable and hence
inalienable. For Rousseau alienating General will is just killing it.
(v) Unrepresentative - According to Rousseau people have no right to delegate their
authority or representing themselves by anybody else. He believed in theory of direct
democracy through General Will.
(vi) Disinterested - According to Rousseau General Will is disinterested because it is not
concerned with the individual but with the community as whole. It is disinterested
because it promotes public spiritedness. Thus General Will is not interested in any
section of society but took into consideration will of society as a whole. Rousseau,
however, made it clear that perfect unanimity cannot be achieved and differences of
opinion are bound to exist. General Will is a corporate will functioning through
people as a whole.
(vii) Unenforceable - General Will is not executive. Since General Will is impersonal it
cannot be loaded with the responsibility of enforcing law. It is sovereign in nature and
character. As such government is only an agency of General Will. General Will
cannot be executive as well as legislative body.

Criticism of General Will –Theory of General Will as expounded by Rousseau has been put
to severe criticism:
1. Confused - Theory of General will is confused. It boils down to striking the balance of
real will and actual will. It tries to give it an arithmetical touch. Even if Rousseau's notion is
accepted, General Will is a dynamic process and not arithmetical one.
2. No Difference in General Will and Will of All - Rousseau has tried to distinguish
between ‗General Will' and ‗Will of AH' which, in practice is impossible to achieve.
3. Unanimous and not Majority Will - Rousseau‘s conception of General Will is more or
less a unanimous will and not a majority will. Unanimous will and decisions are possible
only in the animal and not in human society.
4. Wills Cannot be Divided - Rousseau has divided the will of an individual into integral
parts namely essential and non-essential wills. According to him, essential will is rational and
represents sum total of essential wills. However, individuals and their wills are corporate. It
is impossible to distinguish and divide the wills.
5. No Reconciliation of General Will and Justice - Rousseau believes that general will is
one which coincides with justice. But by this criteria he creates more confusion. Justice is an
equally abstract conception and reconciling the two is not only impossible but undesirable.
6. General Will cannot be Reconciled with Freedom - According to Rousseau whosoever
refused to obey the ‗General Will‘ will be made to obey it and thus set free. By setting free
this way is in the other words to use force for obeying commands. Rousseau has tried to
reconcile individual freedom with the authority of the General will or freedom with force but
has failed to do so.
7. Distinction in General Will and Individual Good - Rousseau believed that General
Will is something else than the individual good. This means that there is something above the
individual which may be called the ‗state‘. Rousseau has thus tried to distinguish between
the individual and the state. In actual practice, however, the state consists of individuals and
their interests are inseparable.
8. General Will Impossible in Nation States - The notion of General Will as expounded by
Rousseau, may to some extent be possible in case where the community is small and the
individuals have personal contacts, with each other. But it is impossible to follow this
conception and put it into actual practice in case of nation states of today. It is more or less
impossible to ascertain General Will on the lines suggested by Rousseau.
9. Impractical on Human Grounds - The conception of General Will is not practicable on
human grounds. In normal times men are selfish and consider their own interests above
everything else. It is only in national crises and grave emergencies that they think of common
good. To think of men giving up their selfish ends for collective ends is something against
human nature. It is an attempt to mould human nature which is very difficult, if not
impossible.
10. Practical Failure - Rousseau has also failed to guide the community as to how it can be
applied in actual practice and also how to achieve it
11. Against Social Contract Theory - Rousseau‘s theory of General Will is against his
Social Contract theory. According to C.E.M. load, ―It seems to follow that a strict
adherence to the doctrine of General Will would in practice entail frequent revolt against
most governments.‖ If the General Will is supreme, the Social Contract is
unnecessary and
meaningless, and, if the Social Contract is necessary and significant, the General‘ Will
cannot be supreme.‖

Conclusion – The above criticism does not mean that Rousseau‘s concept of General Will
has no worth at all. It has the following features in its favour:
1. Will not Force, is the Basis of State - The greatest value of the theory is that it preached
that ‗will not force is the basis of the state.‘ It has made the community realise the worth of
human co-operation.
2. Basis of Democracy - The theory of General Will is the basis of true democracy in the
true sense.
3. Concept of General Good - The theory advances the .conception of general good and puts
social interests before individual interests which aim at creating an ideal state with ideal
citizens.
4. Corporate Character of State - The theory has preached corporate character of state. It has
tried to recognize and reorganise society apart from the citizens as individuals.
5. Theory of National State - Rousseau also is primarily responsible for promoting die
theory of nation state. According to Dunning - Through these concepts a way was opened by
which the unity and solidarity of a population became necessary presupposition of a
scientific politics.
Rousseau thus contributed largely to promote the theory of national state.‖ It is thus difficult
to agree with the critics that Rousseau would have not done more justice to the subjects had
he not enunciated his theory of General Will. To conclude ―The General Will seems to be, in
the last resort, the ineradicable impulse of an intelligent being to a good extending beyond
itself, in so far as that impulse takes the form of a common good, though this impulse
mastered and created in a degree, yet if it were extinct human life would have ceased.‖
Ans.2- Introduction – John Stuart Mill, who is considered as the last of the utilitarians and the
foremost of the individualists, was the eldest son of James Mill. He was subjected to a very hard
training by his father and spent most of his time as a child with his books. He learnt Greek, Latin
and French languages and was greatly influenced by the dialogues and dialectic methods of
Plato. He also studied the history of Roman Government and felt its influence. But probably the
maximum influence on the young child was exercised by the utilitarian philosophy of Bentham.
At the age of 16 Mill founded Utilitarian Society.
The other thinkers and writers who exercised profound influence on Mill were Coleridge and
Wordsworth. Above all his own wife Mrs. Taylor, with whom he discussed most of his ideas,
greatly stimulated him. Mill himself acknowledged that she was the originator of most of his
ideas.
Mill wrote a large number of books, pamphlets and articles. Some of his important works
include System of Logic; Principles of Political Economy, Enfranchisement of Women; On
Liberty (1859); Thoughts on Parliamentary Reforms (1859); Considerations on Representative
Government (I860); Utilitarianism (1863); Subjection of Women; Three Essays on Religion
(1874) etc.

Mill and Utilitarianism – During his youth Mill was a great supporter of Bentham‘s doctrines
and radical politics. His unreserved faith in the doctrines of Bentham is evident from the
observation "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, utility or the greatest
happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and
the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the prevention of pleasure. To give a clear view of
the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things
it includes in the idea of pain and pleasure and to what extent this is left an open question. But
these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which theory of morality is
grounded-namely that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and
that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are
desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure
and the prevention of pain".
However, in his later years he made modifications in the principles of utilitarianism. In the
process he not only repudiated the utilitarian philosophy but practically overthrew the whole of
it. Mill rested the doctrine of utilitarianism in his famous essay Utilitarianism and introduced
many elements which ran counter to the hedonist doctrine. In this way he greatly softened down
the harshness of Bentham‘s ethics and harmonised utilitarianism with common sense.

Modifications - The main modifications made by Mill utilitarianism can be summed up as

follows:
1. He asserted that pleasures differed not only in quantity but also in quality. He drew a
distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He said "It is better to be human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion it is because they only know their own
side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides". He did not
agree with Bentham that "push pin was as good as poetry" and asserted that pleasures
differ in quality and we should prefer a smaller amount of a superior pleasure to a large
quantity of the lower quality of pleasure.
2. Mill did not agree with Bentham that pleasure was the only cause and motive for
individual‘s actions. He held that individual pleasure did not give him maximum
pleasure, on the other hand it was the collective pleasure, which gave maximum
happiness and joy to the individual. Thus he believed that pleasure comes from outside
and not from within. This was in complete contrast to Bentham‘s view that pleasure
comes from within.
3. Mill greatly narrowed down the gulf between self- interest and general happiness. He
held that the utilitarian standard is not the agents own greatest happiness, but the greatest
amount of happiness altogether. To quote Mill ―As between his own happiness and
that of other sectarianism required him to be strictly impartial as a disinterested and
benevolent spectator. In the golden rule or Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit
of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as
yourself, constitute the perfect ideal of utilitarian morality. As the means of making the
nearest approach to this ideal utilitarian would enjoin, first, that laws and social
arrangements should place the happiness or the interest of every individual as nearly as
possible in harmony with the interest of the whole, and secondly that education and
 opinion, which have so vast a power over human character, should so use that power as to
establish in the mind of every individual an indissoluble association between his own
happiness and the good of the whole." Thus the distinction between the two has been
brought as "Bentham‘s principle of utility in a society of wolves would exalt wolfishness;
in a society of saints it would exalt wolfishness. Mill was determined that saintliness
should be the criterion in any society whatsoever".
4. Bentham considered personal happiness as the sole criteria for all human actions. Mill
introduced the concept of good life as more than a life devoted to pleasure. In other
words he placed the moral ends above the individual happiness and thus tried to promote
virtuous life. He also transformed the state into a moral end.
5. Mill‘s conception of liberty also differed from Bentham‘s concept of liberty. Whereas
Bentham did not attach any importance to the liberty because it did not in any way
contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. He attached more
importance to security than liberty. Mill, on- the other hand considered liberty essential
for the attainment of the principle of utility and asserted that minority rights could be
protected only when all enjoyed liberty.
6. Bentham tried to establish identity between public and personal interests through the
concept of super-added pleasures and pains. Mill considered these as external sanctions
and therefore wanted to find this relationship on the basis, of some internal sanctions and
sentiments of conscience. He therefore asserted that the ‗pleasure‘ and ‗pain‘ concepts
when confined to oneself alone were external, but when these related to ‗others‘ these
were internal and as such have bearing on conscience.

Conclusion - In this way we can conclude that in many things Mill took a different stand from
Bentham. Thus he stood for public voting as against secret voting advocated by Bentham. He
favoured special treatment of women, while Bentham did not contemplate anything of the sort.
Mill was more concerned with the eradication of defects in the existing legal system. Mill was
more concerned with the social and economic problems facing the society. Both justified
democracy but for different reasons. While Bentham justified it because of nature of man, Mill
justified because of the condition of man. Bentham was in favour of unicameral legislature while
Mill favoured bicameral