ory, if all members gave up their powers equally and wholly, they would in effect reduce themselves to being equals amongst each other. He states this by saying "Since each one gives up his entire self, the condition is equal for everyone, and since the condition is equal for everyone, no one has an interest in making it burdensome for the others." This brought man one step closer to Rousseau’s Utopian view of the state of nature where "Living in this happy savagery men enjoyed substantial equality; there were few relations to beget inequality." It was inequality which would bring about the opportunity for oppression, which it turn took away a man’s liberty. For Rousseau this solved the problem of inequality in conventional societies, because "The social contract established an equality between citizens such they all engage themselves under the same conditions and should all benefit from the same rights." Thus, by giving up his individual powers, man would enter equally into a society in which a full, moral life was possible. Rousseau’s next task was to show how this full, moral life would be a good one, and how this equality would be maintained. By entering into a social contract, man wouldn’t simply submit himself under the power of a sovereign, rather he would submit himself to become part of the sovereign. Each citizen would have a voice in this "organic society", which could be viewed as a living person whose interest was the protection of itself (and therefore its composite members). The citizens of this society would have to give themselves up wholly and completely to the state, and make its best interests their own. In return, since the sovereign was a composite of everyone in the society, it would naturally take on as its best interests, the interests of all. For these reasons, direction for the new sovereign would come from what Rousseau referred to as the "general will". This general will would be the ...
