Dagger 6 - 8

From reciprocity and fair play in previous chapters, Dagger continues to connect autonomy to the two principles. In part two on Citizenship, Dagger starts to draw largely on Rousseau‘s theory of republican liberalism. Social contract comes up in this section, along with the republican commitment to civic virtue.

One question that comes to mind right away when reading this chapter is, if the private will’s desire is cultivated to act in accordance with the general will, would there still be a division between the two wills? Because if one of Rousseau’s tasks is to find ways to secure the general will, and one of his suggestions is to “cultivate the desire to act in accordance with the general will.”(84) Is he talking about the desire of the private will or am I just implying that he is? If he isn’t, what is the distinction that is being drawn here? It seems to me that if the desire (private will?) is cultivated to act in accordance with the general then they would be the same and there would not be any distinction. Also, what specific types of desires would each ‘will’ hold?

Rousseau separates freedom into three kinds: natural, civil, and moral. He goes on to talk about how if one were to enter into social contract they may surrender their natural freedom but gain civil freedom and the opportunity for moral freedom. What would be the driving force behind wanting to give up one’s natural freedom? It sort of goes back to what we were talking about in class last Thursday, what if someone wanted to just live on their own and not be part of a society, would they have to be forced to be civically free and at the same time be forced to give up their natural freedom, for the possibility of moral freedom? It seems to me that if someone is forced to give up their natural freedom then that would be a violation of some right (?) that would undermine the goal they are trying to reach. Is civic freedom more important than natural freedom? Maybe I am misinterpreting natural freedom and am way off, thoughts anyone?

The assurance game seems to me to be very individualistic. Is this a correct conclusion to draw from it? People will only act cooperatively if they have assurance that others to will cooperate and if others don’t then their motive is gone, because they were looking forward to the benefits from the assurance game rather than sole cooperation for the common good.

Chapter seven got a little confusing with how he was connecting things, if we could over this in class, just briefly that would be helpful.