Which of the following episodes of legislation might well be an exercise of the general will:
a. Most people hate Martha, and they pass a law that dispossesses and imprisons Martha.
b. Most people are convinced that each person's emissions of carbon frustrate each person's interests in a stable climate and ecology, and so they pass a law to reduce carbon emissions.
c. Most people are convinced that each person's emissions of carbon frustrate each person's interests in a stable climate and ecology, and
so they urge their legislators to vote to reduce carbon emissions. But the manufacturers of air conditioners want temperatures to rise so that people will buy more air conditioners. At the last minute they persuade the legislators to vote against reductions in carbon emissions by promising to donate to their reelection campaigns.
In which stories does the law or putative law more likely arise from a mere sum of particular wills?
Notes from TA:
Rousseau thinks that when we succeed in forming a political community through a social contract, we become a people and have a will as a people that is distinct (in principle) from each person's individual will. This is the general will, and its basic function is to establish laws, such that each person has good reason to follow the law. Rousseau thinks that when each person follows the law, nobody is required to submit to a will outside of her own and so remains free. If that's going to work, the general will need to be something that each person has good reason to submit to, which is why the general will, as such, must be based on the common interest.?You've heard all this a few times, and I'm not here including all the steps of this argument. For this question, try to say what Rousseau means when he talks about the common interest, and then say which (if any) of a, b, and c could be acts of legislation based on the common interest. I.6, II.3, II.4 and II.6 are especially relevant.