Will the Minority Be Oppressed by the Social Contract?
According to the question that is given above this paper will attempt to show that, the minority will be oppressed by the social contract as Rousseau claimed in his book that a private contract made within minorities would be illegitimate and damage the main social contract. My thesis has three parts, the first part analyzes the illegitimacy of the private contracts that are made within the minorities and the second part focuses on the damage that the private contract causes on the society and the last part justifies the oppression upon the minorities. I will defend each part with a separate argument. First of all, I want to focus on the meaning of oppression. Generally, it is the condition of keeping down by ruling unjustly or cruelly. With respect to this meaning, Rousseau's social contract contains oppression upon minorities according to my thesis. However, the oppression occurs in a different manner where the cruelty or the unjust treat to them cannot be seen clearly. In other words, the prevention upon minorities' opinions indicates the oppression which I try to justify. There are two reasons why oppression occurs. The first reason is that the minority has to accept the laws which are made by the majority. The social
As we said the minority would become powerful, the social bond would be weakened so that the social contract would be damaged. Private contracts may be made within minorities because the social contract is done according to the general will of the majority. Second argument mentioned that when the minority becomes powerful, it would damage the social contract and as a consequence it would be out of law. They should try to influence the majority and as a result of this act, they may gain the right to live according to their free will, so they will not be oppressed by the social contract. Rousseau explained this point by saying; "Furthermore, it stands to reason that this contract between the people and such and such persons would be a particular act. 146) With respect to Rousseau's social contract, whenever minorities would make a private contract and their own laws, it would be seen as an illegitimate act because majority would think that those acts would damage their own bond among the social contract. Opinions of the minority is not included in the social contract. This is true for the example that the majority is deciding on something, creating the social contract and making the minority agree and obey the rules and regulations in the social contract. In general, all of my arguments showed that the minority is oppressed by the social contract. So the minority may want to make their own laws with respect to their choices but as their laws would not be related with the social contract and the general will, the they would not be right and ,therefore be illegitimate. My reply to such an objection would start saying that when the minorities act privately, their acts are limited only by the strength of the individuals and this contradicts the concept of liberty that the social contract allows. Kurds want their own rights and they want to make educationin their own language. Finally, the minority cannot be considered as living according to their free will, which actually can be said that they are definitely oppressed. The minority is forced to accept something that they do not agree. This shows that the minority is under the pressure of a social contract that they do not contribute to.
Common topics in this essay:
Writings BookIVchp1p149,
,
Constitution Kurds,
Political WritingsBookIIIchp16,
social contract,
Kurdish Turkey,
private contracts,
oppressed social,
oppressed social contract,
social contract minority,
Writings BookIII,
private contract,
minority oppressed,
contract minority,
Rousseau's Political,
contract reply objection,
rousseau's social contract,
contracts minorities,
contract reply,
objection argument,
social contract reply,
reply objection,
Political Writings,
|
Acceptance Essays
