GB&F: Self-Love and Selfishness Response

3.
They are certainly three very different responses to democracy. Jefferson’s views of democracy are how wonderful it will be and how society will be completely improved because of it, if in practice it is just like it is in theory. Tocqueville is generally the opposite. He sees the problems that arise from democracy in action and describes the negative impacts it has on its citizens. Rousseau never mentions democracies specifically, but he criticizes all types of societies, democracies included. Rousseau believes that any society is corrupting to humans and creates the unwanted passions that are found in most people. It would be difficult to conclude from this excerpt that Rousseau believed that a democracy was separate from this conclusion. To him, any humans among other humans, regardless of the governing structure, would end unhappily, save maybe a society where pity and compassion were well cultivated.

Rousseau’s view of humans within society reminds me of the belief held by many of the Founding Fathers that humans were naturally “bad” and so the new democratic government would have to have the balance of powers and checks in order to protect itself from the people and to protect the people from themselves. Jefferson’s views make him more the leader of the common men because he believes that all his society needs is equal education for all and the improvement of general society will simply follow. The only political order I could see Tocqueville supporting would be a revolutionary party, which Tocqueville would point to as the best way to improve society.

Rousseau believes that selfishness is never satisfied and never can be. He writes, “Hateful and angry passions spring from selfishness,” meaning selfishness, while it is the cause of many problems, is the effect of our own negative passions. Addressing the issue of relying too heavily on others, Rousseau wrote, “…what makes him really bad is a multiplicity of needs and dependence on the opinions of others.” He believes that if a man places an excess amount of value on another’s opinion, he will find himself working towards selfish goals rather than goals driven by self-love.

Tocqueville feels quite differently than Rousseau on the place of opinion in human life. He believes that a leader should be concerned with public opinion and should run his country accordingly. Talking about a democratic society, Tocqueville wrote that common opinion, “possesses a power infinitely beyond what it has elsewhere.” Tocqueville felt strongly that the most efficient way to rule was by following the opinions of the people. Our desire, as human beings, to achieve honor is, in Tocqueville’s opinion, an effect of valuing the opinion of others. Tocqueville believes that people are driven to do something because they want to be held highly in others’ opinions, and he believes that is the most successful way to achieve honor.

Rousseau addresses both Tocqueville and Lincoln’s concerns with ambition, which were very different. Tocqueville was concerned with the conditions under which ambition occurred, but not the ambition itself. He believes that in times of revolution, ambition is essentially a good thing because it inspires change and forces people to reconsider their motivation, naturally keeping them from being driven by selfishness. Lincoln, on the other hand, was concerned with the ambition itself and why people possessed it. He was worried that people were being driven by the wrong motives and were seeking only to achieve selfish goals rather than trying to help the people. Rousseau addresses these issues when he writes about amour-propre and the way that people compare themselves to others so they can attempt to be better than everyone else. This is a major concern of Rousseau’s, Tocqueville’s, and Lincoln’s because they all address ambition and the drive to be the best.

-Justin and Matthias
Rousseau’s idea of nurturing pity and Tocqueville’s idea of encouraging amition are almost complete contradictions. Rousseau believes that human nature and the idea that people feel sorry for each other will help get leaders to rise to power so that they can help the people in need of help. Tocqueville says on the other hand that people need a revolution to get the people going and they need to fight against each other to better the community. These ideas are completely opposite and suggest that the people can be motivated in different ways. Rousseau also believes that everyone is equal and born the same way which Tocqueville would strongly disagree with because he believes that everyone is unequal and that prevents that change that they are looking for.
Rousseau develops the idea of the nurturing pity because he believes that everyone has suffered from some sort of misfortune and that people will feel sorry for them, and decides to help out the people. This brings the people to help each other because Rousseau believes that everyone is naturally poor, naked, and all face the same ultimate fate, so they must work to help each other out of these problems by recognizing their sorrows. This idea demonstrates that human should be able help each other out based on emotion, assuming that they aren’t emotionless. Tocqueville develops the rising ambition from the idea of revolution and that people need a wake up to realize what is going on and if nothing is working they need to do something about it.
Rousseau believes that human nature is like an infant and needs to be nurtured by caring people willing to help others. This process allows the people to constantly help each and that everyone will be okay. Tocqueville believes that people need to be kicked around a bit and need to know when to get stuff done.