# General Will Inquiry > Analyze collective decisions to distinguish private interest from common good and identify what would truly serve the community as a whole. - Skill: `sethmblack/general-will-inquiry` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add sethmblack/general-will-inquiry` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sethmblack/general-will-inquiry/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - License: MIT - Author: sethmblack (https://skillmd.com/u/sethmblack) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sethmblack/general-will-inquiry --- # General Will Inquiry Analyze collective decisions to distinguish private interest from common good and identify what would truly serve the community as a whole. **Token Budget:** ~600 tokens **Source Expert:** Jean-Jacques Rousseau --- ## When to Use - Analyzing organizational or governance decisions - Evaluating whether a policy serves the common good or particular interests - Team decisions where individual preferences may conflict with collective needs - Any situation where "what everyone wants" differs from "what's best for everyone" - When stated justifications may mask private agendas --- ## Inputs | Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | **decision_context** | Yes | Description of the decision, policy, or arrangement to analyze | | **stakeholders** | Yes | Who is affected and who is deciding | | **stated_justifications** | No | How proponents justify the decision | | **proposed_options** | No | Alternatives being considered | --- ## Core Concepts ### The Will of All vs. The General Will | Will of All | General Will | |-------------|--------------| | Sum of private preferences | Aims at common good | | Aggregates what individuals want for themselves | What the community needs as a community | | Can be surveyed and counted | Requires deliberative transformation | | May serve no one well | Serves everyone in their capacity as members | **Rousseau's key insight:** "There is often a great difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former looks to private interest and is merely the sum of particular wills." --- ## Workflow ### Step 1: 1. Identify the Will of All Map what each stakeholder or faction claims to want: - What are the stated preferences? - What would each group gain from their preferred outcome? - How are preferences distributed? *Output: List of stakeholder preferences with their private benefits* ### Step 2: 2. Probe for Private Interest For each stated position, ask: - What private advantage would this bring to its advocates? - Is this being presented as common good when it serves particular interests? - What *amour propre* (vanity, status) dynamics are at play? - Who benefits most, and are they driving the process? *Output: Assessment of private interests behind public positions* ### Step 3: 3. Inquire into the General Will Ask the transformative question: What does this community need *as a community*? - If no one knew in advance their particular position, what would they choose? - What arrangement would each member choose if they could not know whether they would be advantaged or disadvantaged by it? - What serves the body politic as a whole, not merely its parts? *Output: Articulation of what genuine common good would look like* ### Step 4: 4. Assess the Gap Compare the will of all to the general will: - How far apart are they? - What transformations would be needed to align preferences with common good? - What deliberative conditions would help people reason as citizens, not as interest groups? *Output: Gap analysis with transformation recommendations* ### Step 5: 5. Recommend Deliberative Process If current process yields only the will of all: - What conditions would enable genuine deliberation toward common good? - How can the process help people transcend private interest? - What role should facilitators play (like Rousseau's "lawgiver")? *Output: Process recommendations for seeking general will* --- ## Output Format ```markdown ## General Will Inquiry: [Decision/Context Name] ### 1. The Will of All [Map of stakeholder preferences and private benefits] ### 2. Private Interests Exposed [Analysis of self-interest behind stated positions] ### 3. The General Will [What would genuinely serve the common good] ### 4. The Gap [Assessment of distance between preferences and common good] ### 5. Deliberative Recommendations [How to move from will of all toward general will] ### Rousseauian Verdict [1-2 sentence summary in Rousseau's voice] ``` --- ## Error Handling | Situation | Response | |-----------|----------| | No clear collective exists | Clarify boundaries of the "body" being analyzed | | Unanimous preference | Still probe: does unanimity reflect common good or shared self-interest? | | Impossible to know general will | Acknowledge epistemic limits; recommend deliberative process | | Power imbalances distort process | Note how inequality prevents authentic general will emergence | --- ## Outputs **Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data. **Format:** ```markdown ## Analysis: [Topic] ### Key Findings - [Finding 1] - [Finding 2] - [Finding 3] ### Recommendations 1. [Action 1] 2. [Action 2] 3. [Action 3] ``` **Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration. ## Constraints - Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions - Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope - Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete - Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization - Present findings with appropriate confidence levels - Recognize the limits of the methodology ## Additional Notes **Best practices:** - Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases - Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis - Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements **Common variations:** - Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information - Scale the approach for different levels of complexity - Adapt the output format to audience needs **When to skip this skill:** - The situation doesn't match the core use cases - Simpler approaches would be more appropriate - Time constraints require faster methods ## Example **Input:** A company is deciding whether to move to a four-day work week. **Abbreviated Output:** ### 1. The Will of All - Most employees want it (more leisure) - Shareholders skeptical (productivity fears) - Managers split (work-life vs. coordination challenges) ### 2. Private Interests Exposed - Employee preference partly driven by *amour propre*: status of "progressive workplace" - Shareholder resistance masks fear of losing control - Some managers oppose because longer hours signal their importance ### 3. The General Will What does this company need *as a company*? - Not just employee satisfaction, but sustainable productivity - Not just shareholder returns, but conditions for excellence - A rhythm that allows both individual flourishing and collective achievement ### 4. The Gap Preferences are mostly about personal advantage. Few are asking: what work pattern would this community of colleagues choose if they didn't know whether they'd be advantaged by the change? ### 5. Deliberative Recommendations - Pilot program framed as experiment for learning, not advocacy - Deliberation must include: what do we owe each other as colleagues? - Decision by those who will live with consequences, not just managers ### Rousseauian Verdict The question is not whether employees prefer shorter hours, but whether a company that works four days serves the common good of all its members in their capacity as members. Only deliberation that transforms preferences into public reasoning can reveal this. --- ## Integration This skill embodies Rousseau's central political insight. Use in conjunction with: - **amour-propre-diagnosis** when vanity distorts preferences - **social-contract-assessment** when questioning legitimacy of the decision process - **civilization-critique** when the decision involves supposed "progress"