Rousseau Social Contract The social pact comes dow Essays

Rousseau Social Contract The social pact comes down to this; " Each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole " (Rousseau). The general will can itself direct the forces of the state with the intention of the whole ' s primary goal - which is the common good. The general will does not allow private opinions to prevail. The union of the people, in its passive role is known as the State and is referred to as the Sovereign in its active state. Associates of the body politic are communally known as the people, and individually referred to as citizens or subjects. The primary problem to which the social contract holds the solution is based on the total alienation of each associate to the entire community. Rousseau proposes that every individual give himself absolutely and apply the same conditions for each and every one to result in an agreement where it is in no ones interest to make the conditions burdensome for others. The critiques of this contract are so specifically determined by ones actions, that the slightest amendment must make the agreement invalid; it is crucial to obtain a unanimous recognition and admittance by the whole. If the social pact is desecrated, every man regains his inborn rights to recover his natural freedom, and loses the civil freedom in which he bargained for. Stop. The existence of natural freedom is the argument in which I intend to pursue against Rousseau. This thought shall be revisited in a short while. Rousseau implies upon freedom the definition of the sovereign; it is a reason; a collaboration with others; a civil expression of the general will. Rousseau ' s conclusion stipulates the absolute surrender of ones rights into a union; also referred to as the republic, the body politic, the state, the sovereign and as the power when compared to others o f its own kind. His conclusion is however split into three subsets. Rousseau first states that since everyone in the social pact is summoned to the same conditions, it will be of no ones interest to inconvenience others. Secondly, he states that since the alienation is unconditional, no individual citizen has any rights to claim of their own. If these rights were left to the individuals, they would revert to their natural state of own judgements in the absence of authority. And finally, Rousseau adds to his conclusion by affirming that " since each man gives himself to all, he gives himself to no one " (Rousseau); meaning that since there is no associate that he doesn ' t gain the same rights as others gain over him, each man regains the equivalent of everything he loses; gaining more than what he initially had. The first premise that Rousseau puts forward is that during a lifetime, each man will come to an obstacle that will endanger his safety and that he w ill not be able to conquer within his state of nature because it will have a power greater than his strength. What he implies with this premise is that if solitary men were continually facing the obstacles alone, the human race would eventually perish. Rousseau presents this premise as an assumption. It can be safely assumed that most people come across obstacles during their lifetime. These obstacles are hidden within births, deaths, illnesses, monetary based issues, education, relationships, weather, governments, war, etc. The meaning of an obstacle is anything that will hinder ones performance; an impediment that has the power to abolish the human race. The second premise provides that since men cannot create new forces to overcome these obstacles, they can combine and organize their existing forces to protect themselves. Meaning that by uniting their separate powers, they can achieve a congruent force strong enough to prevail over any form of obstruction. This second p remise follows Rousseau ' s first premise adequately. First, he presents the inevitable obstacle and then he follows to state that a sum of forces is required to overcome barriers that are too strong. Succeeding the premises,

Husband-Wife Communication Essays

Husband-Wife Communication Essays Husband-Wife Communication Paper Husband-Wife Communication Paper One of the most important choices a woman or couple can make is the decision to use contraception. Even if a couple wants a child as soon as possible after marriage, the use of contraception thereafter- for child spacing- is a sensible decision. Data show that optimal spacing between children is at least three to four years. Family planning allows parents to give the child the best chance possible for the nourishment and nurturing it needs- before another child is born. Spacing is also important for the health of the child’s mother and the harmony and financial health of the family unit. Similarly, using contraception to limit the number of children to only those that the couple can truly care and provide for is also a wise decision. For many couples, use of contraception also contributes to a more satisfying sexual relationship by reducing or eliminating the fear of accidental unwanted pregnancy. It is crucial for the well-being of children, families, and communities that family planning information and services be available to help women and men learn about and effectively use a method of contraception. Husband-Wife Communication The ideal situation is good communication between husband and wife about the spacing and number of children they will have. Some women are lucky and are able to make decisions about family planning and family size in collaboration with their husbands. Others, particularly newly married and younger women, have little or no decision-making power in the home, and husbands, parents or mothers-in-law decide for them. Still others use contraception clandestinely, fearing husbands or relatives will disapprove. Women may be afraid out of a sense of modesty or shame to talk to their husbands about family planning. Some say they are too shy to begin discussions with their husbands; others fear their husbands response or worry that their knowledge of sexual issues could be interpreted as promiscuity or infidelity. Conflicts arise about when to have intercourse, whether to use contraception, which method to use, spacing of children, and when the children already born are enough. Many men say their role as financial provider gives them authority to decide how many children the family can afford. Contraceptive use, however, is usually considered the womans responsibility. In many cultures it is believed that men have rights to control their wives’ childbearing. Thus in many countries the law requires a husband’s consent when a woman wants to undergo sterilization. With higher levels of education, couples are increasingly likely to communicate effectively on family planning and use of contraception to space their children and keep their families small. And increasingly men are adopting new models of masculinity that include being a responsible, caring husband and father. Finally, most women do not have the power to deny intercourse to their husbands or partners, or to insist they use a condom. The Key Messages: Improve communication between men and women on issues of sexuality and reproductive health, and the understanding of their joint responsibilities, so that they are equal partners in public and private life. Enable women to exercise their right to control their own fertility and their right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. Improve the quality of reproductive health services, availability of those services, and eliminate barriers to access. Implement commitments to reducing the tragedy of maternal mortality. Encourage mens responsibility for sexual and reproductive behavior and increase male participation in family planning. Recognize unsafe abortion as a major public health concern, and frame policies and programmes based on a commitment to womens health.  the Effect of Family Planning on Marital Disruption Background The availability of modern contraception can transform womens control over fertility and, in turn, transform control over other aspects of their lives. The effect of contraceptive use on marital stability has been unclear. Contraceptive use may allow employment for pay, which, in turn, may contribute to a womans independence and allow her to terminate an unsatisfactory relationship. On the other hand, control over fertility and increased employment may contribute to marital stability. To determine the impact of contraceptive use on marital disruption, researchers from Cornell University have analyzed data from the Malaysian Family Life survey. The survey included a group of women interviewed in 1976 and reinterviewed in 1988 and a new sample of women interviewed in 1988. The work was funded by the FHI Womens Studies Project through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Agency for International Development. Study Design In 1976, 1,262 women were interviewed in the first Malaysian Family Life survey; 889 of these women were reinterviewed in 1988. The new sample included 1,867 ever-married women ages 15 to 49. The use of retrospective life histories provided information on the timing of pregnancy and other events in womens lives. Contraceptive use was measured as ever-use of contraception. Marital disruption was defined as divorce or separation. Results The analysis showed that: Women who used contraception were more likely to have a stable marriage than nonusers in Malaysia. In first marriages, marital disruption occurred among 8.8 percent of the 1976 women, 11.1 percent of the women reinterviewed in 1988, and 5.9 percent of the new sample of women. Women who used contraception were significantly less likely than nonusers to experience marital disruption (Table 1). Nonusers were more likely to experience a marital disruption if they had no or few births. If a woman worked before or after marriage, she was at greater risk of marital disruption, but this effect was greater for nonusers than users. Conclusions Users of contraception were significantly less likely than nonusers to experience marital disruption. This relationship held for Malaysian women whose early years of marriage occurred when contraceptive practice was still relatively rare (women interviewed in 1976 and 1988). It also was true for those who had more exposure to modern contraceptive practices (1988 new sample). For both groups, marital disruption was less likely to occur if women used contraception. Those effects were stronger for women who used contraception early in marriage (by age 25), who had fewer births, and who did not work before marriage.