The transition from natural state to the civil state produces an effect in man that is very remarkable. As Rousseau puts it, it substitutes the justice in a man behavior for instinct by inspiring actions with a moral quality that was not there previously. Under the natural state, man acts according to his principles but when a sense of duty prevails over the physical impulse and the law prevails over appetite, man realizes that he must act in accordance with other principles. In this state, man realizes that he must revalue his reasoning before listening to his natural tendency. He realizes that he cannot always follow his natural instincts but rather consider other forces from within. Man in this state forgoes many advantages derived from nature but in return, he acquires other equal advantages in that his capabilities are developed and used, ideas expanded, feelings elevated, and his soul is raised to a higher degree.

Man in this state is much more capable, and his mind is expanded to accommodate even more ideas, which raises his capability leading to personal development. What man loses are natural liberty and the unlimited right to anything but in return gains civil liberty, and a sense of possession. Natural liberty is limited by the powers of an individual as opposed to civil liberty, which is limited by the general will. The civil state also comes with moral freedom, which enables man to be his master. In the natural state, man has a right to all things within his reach. However, with civil liberty there are laws to be followed and other forces to be considered. Natural instincts, in this case, are limited by the general will.

The general will regard the common interest of all people. The general will is perceived to be always right since it tends to the good of the public. However, the general will does not dictate that people’s deliberations have equal magnitude. It is natural for men to desire for their own good though they do not always distinguish it. Men always will what is evil when deceived though they are never corrupted. The difference between the general will and the will of all is that general will is based on common interest while the will of all is based on private interests. The will of all is a summation of specific private wills but if you take away the wills that cancel each other, the general will is thus the summation of the differences. As Marquis D’Argenson says, there are different principles for every interest. The agreement between two interests is brought about by the endeavor to oppose a third interest. This means that all interests agree by opposing each other.

It citizens deliberated without communication but with adequate information, the general will would result from the high number of minor differences and the decision would be favorable. However, when small associations are formed to the loss of the society, the will of every group becomes general to the groups members.  In this case, it can be said there are as many voters as associations since every association has a common will. In case any of the small organizations manages to dominate the others, there is no general will but particular opinion. Thus, to have a declaration of general will in any state, there should be no factions and every individual should be allowed to express his/her opinion.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?