Political Philosophy Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY SUMMARYIntroductionIt has been said there are only two questions in political philosophy: “Who gets what?”, and “Says who?”. The first question is about the distribution of material goods, of rights and liberties. The second concerns the distribution of political power. (Locke: ...

Description

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY SUMMARY Introduction It has been said there are only two questions in political philosophy: “Who gets what?”, and “Says who?”. The first question is about the distribution of material goods, of rights and liberties. The second concerns the distribution of political power. (Locke: “a Right of Making Laws with Penalties of Death, and consequently all less Penalties”). Political power includes the right to command others and to subject them to punishment if they disobey. Someone with legitimate political power has the right to force me to do various things. It can seem outrageous that someone else should tell me what to do and punish me if I disobey. Yet there is another side to this. I should consider how others might behave if they were left unrestrained by the law and the threat of punishment. One task for the political philosopher is to determine the correct balance between autonomy and authority. Political philosophy is a normative discipline, meaning that it tries to establish norms (rules or ideal standards). We can contrast it with the descriptive. Descriptive studies attempt to find out how things are. Normative studies try to discover how things should be: what is right, just, or morally correct. Politics can be studied from both a descriptive and a normative standpoint. The partition between normative and descriptive studies is not quite as clear-cut as it might seem. Why are we interested in this descriptive question? We are because the distribution of wealth is relevant to normative questions about justice. Questions about human behaviour often seem to straddle the descriptive/normative divide. Factual questions about human behaviour are just as relevant to normative issues. Studying how things are helps to explain how thing can be and is indispensable for assessing how they ought to be. We know how to go about answering purely descriptive questions: we go and look. But what can we do to find out how things ought to be? In political philosophy, there is no hiding-place. In philosophy, agnosticism (“The English translate their ignorance into Greek and call it agnosticism”, said Engels) is often a respectable position. But in political philosophy agnosticism is self-defeating. Potentially we all have to say, if not by voting then by making our views known through debate. Those who do not participate will find their political decisions made for them, whether they like it or not. Chapter 1: The State of Nature Introduction A natural starting point for thinking about the state is to ask: what would things be like without it? We imagine a “state of nature”; a situation where no state exists, and no one possesses political power. Was there ever a state of nature? Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought that so much time would have been required to pass from a state of nature to “civil society” (a society governed by the state) that it would be profane to assume that modern societies had arisen in this way. He believed that there were contemporary examples that peoples living in the state of nature, while John Locke thought this was true of many groups living in seventeenth-century America. But even if there never has been a true state of nature, we can still consider this question of what it would be like if we found ourselves without a state. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in Leviathan (1651) drew a picture of how unpleasant this would be. Sometimes it is claimed that not only human beings always lived under a state, but that it is the only way they possibly could live. On this view, the state exists naturally in the sense of being natural to human beings. This is the view often associated with Aristotle (384-322 BCE). Maybe we would not be human beings if we lived in a society without the state. Some theorists claim that we have plenty of evidence that human beings have been able to live without the state, but it is very hard to see how it could be established that it is impossible.

Hobbes Hobbes’s greatest work, Leviathan, pursues a theme that has obsessed him: the evils of civil war and the anarchy by which it would be accompanied. In the absence of government, human nature will inevitably bring us into severe conflict. For Hobbes, political philosophy begins with the study of human nature. There are two keys to the understanding of human nature: one is self-knowledge. Introspection tells us a great deal about what human beings are like. And one is knowledge of the general principles of physics. Just as to understand the citizen you must understand human nature; Hobbes believed, as a philosophical materialist, that to understand human nature you must first understand “body” or matter. Hobbes adopted Galileo’s principle of the conservation of motion. Galileo’s revolutionary answer was to say that we should assume that objects will continue to travel at a constant motion and direction until acted on by another force. Hobbes used this principle in developing a materialist, mechanist view: Human beings are animated trough motion. Human beings seek “felicity”, continual success in achieving the objects of desire. It is the search to secure felicity that will bring us to war in the state of nature. Our fear of death would lead human beings to create the state. But without a state the search for felicity would lead to war all against all. Hobbes’s definition of power: one’s “present means to obtain some future apparent Good”. To be assured of achieving felicity one must become powerful. Sources of power include riches, reputations, and friends. Human beings have “a restless desire of Power after power, that ceases only in Death” because humans can never reach a state of complete satisfaction, but also because a person “cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more”. Others will also seek to increase their power and so the search for power is, by its nature, competitive. But competition is not war. Human beings are by nature “equal”: all humans possess roughly the same level of strength and skill. In the state of nature there is a scarcity of goods so that two people who desire the same kind of thing will often desire to possess the same thing. No one in the state of nature can become invulnerable against the attack. From these assumptions it follows that the state of nature will be a state of war. People seek not only the means of immediate satisfaction but also power in order to satisfy future desires. Reputation of power is power. People will attack to gain a reputation as a means of future protection. Hobbes sees three principal reasons for attack: for gain, for safety, and for glory or reputation. Human beings, in the search for felicity, constantly try to increase their power. When we add that human beings are equal in strength; that desired goods are scarce; and that no one can be sure that they will not be invaded, it seems reasonable to conclude that rational human action will make the state of nature a battlefield. But human beings are not cruel. As for selfishness human beings do generally seek to satisfy their selfcentred desires. But of equal importance as a source of war is fear: the fear that others may take from you what you have can lead you to attack, not for gain, but for safety or perhaps even reputation. Hobbes accepts that there will be periods of time without actual conflict. He defined the state of war as a constant readiness to fight. Hobbes denies that there can be morality in the state of nature. Injustice consists if the breach of law, but there is no law in the state of nature. Hobbes calls the liberty to act as you think fit to preserve yourself the “right of nature”: in the state of nature, you are permitted to do anything if you believe that this will help you survive. No one could be criticized for any action they take to defend themselves. In the state of nature there is no justice or injustice. Moral notions have no application. This is the “Natural Right of Liberty”. “Laws of Nature” also exist in the state of nature. The first “fundamental law” is: “Every man ought to endeavour Peace, as fare as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, then he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of War”. A second law instructs us to give up our right to all things,

provided others are willing as well. The third is to perform whatever covenants you make. Hobbes spells out a total of nineteen Laws of Nature. All these laws can be deduced from the fundamental law, although few people would be able to carry out the deduction. Laws of Nature can be “contracted into one easy sum. Do not that to another, which thou would not have done to thy self”, a negative formulation of the biblical “golden rule” (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”). Hobbes does not describe the Laws of Nature as moral laws, but rather as theorems or conclusions of reason. Following these laws gives each person the best chance of preserving his own life. We must distinguish between individual and collective rationality. Collective rationality is what is best for everyone on the assumption that everyone else will act in the same way. The Laws of Nature express what is collectively rational. Where individual and collective rationality diverge, it is very hard to achieve co-operation on the collectively rational outcome. Every individual has an incentive to “defect” in favour of the individually rational behaviour. In the state of nature, the individually rational behaviour is to attack others, and this will lead to the state of war. However, the Laws of Nature tell us that the state of war is not the inevitable situation for human beings because another level of behaviour – collective rationality – may also be available. If only we could somehow ascend to the level of collective rationality and obey the Law of Nature, we can live in peace, without fear. The Laws bind “in foro interno” (in the internal forum), but not always “in foro externo” (in the external forum). We should all desire that the Laws take effect, but this does not mean that we should always obey them under any circumstances. If other people around me are disobeying the Laws, it is simply selfdefeating for me to obey. The level of mutual suspicion and fear in the state of nature is so high that we can be excused for not obeying the law. The way out of this predicament is the creation of a “sovereign” who will punish who disobey the Laws. If the sovereign is effective, then no one have reasonable suspicion that others will attack. The great advantage of the state is that it creates conditions under which people can follow the Laws of Nature. The state of nature is a state where everyone is rightly suspicious of everyone else, and this suspicion leads to a war, where people will attack for gain, safety, and reputation. The war is self-fuelling and selfperpetuating, as reasonable suspicion of violent behaviour leads to an ever-increasing spiral of violence. In such a situation life is truly miserable, lacking material comforts and sources of well-being. As no one can be sure of retaining any possessions, few will plant or cultivate, or engage in any long-term enterprise or plan. People will spend all their time grubbing for subsistence and fighting battles. Under such circumstances there is no chance that the arts or sciences could flourish. Locke Locke supposed that it would generally be possible to live an acceptable life even in the absence of government. The state of nature is first, a state of perfect freedom; second, a state of equality; and third, bound by a Law of Nature. Equality it is a moral claim about rights: no person has a natural right to subordinate any other. It is self-evident that no one naturally has a right to rule, no one has been appointed as ruler by God. Locke believes the Law of Nature to be discoverable by reason, but it has a theological aspect. The Law is that no one ought to harm any other in their life, health, liberty, or possessions. While we have no natural superiors on earth, we do have one in heaven. The Law of Nature is simply the idea that mankind is to be preserved as much as possible. Although the state of nature “be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of Licence… the state of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone”.

Natural liberty is no more than the liberty to do what the Law of Nature allows. We are given the liberty to do only what is morally permitted. Even in the state of nature we have a moral duty to restrict our behaviour. The state of nature is subject to moral assessment. Locke does not explicitly put forward a theory of human motivation, but it seems clear that he did not think that human beings would automatically be motivated to follow the moral law. The Law of Nature needs a law-enforcer. Without such an enforcer would be empty. Locke cannot accept that the Law of Nature could be in vain: it is in Locke’s view the law of God. Therefore, there must be a way of enforcing the law, but we are all equal in the state of nature, so if anyone had such power then everyone must have it. Locke concludes there must be a natural right, held by each person, to punish those who harm another’s life, liberty, or property. The right to punish is not the same thing as the right to self-defence. It is the right not simply to try to prevent or ward off an episode of harm or damage, but to make anyone who overstepped the Law of Nature pay for their transgression. The natural right to punish is not restricted solely to the individual who suffers the wrong. Every person in the state of nature is given “Executive Power of the Law of Nature”. Without it, it is hard to see how the sovereign of any state can have the right to punish an alien who has not consented to the laws. If the Law of Nature is enforceable, then several other rights can be secured, even in the state of nature. The most important of these is the right to private property. God put us on earth, and it would be absurd to think that he put us here to starve, but we will unless we can rightfully consume. Locke also appeals to “natural reason” in establishing the premises of his arguments. He thinks it absurd, and against natural reason, to suppose that human beings may not make use of the earth without the permission of all others, for if this were the case we should starve. Even in the state of nature, there is an enforceable and effective moral law, backed by the natural right of punishment In the state of nature there is a natural abundance of land, and plenty of room for everyone, particularly “in the first Age of the World”; under these conditions there is very little reason for conflict and dispute. Locke comes close to admitting that the state of nature may not be as peaceful as he first supposed. The primary fault is with the administration of justice. We will disagree about the interpretation of the Law of Nature and about its proper punishment and compensation. This Locke sees as the primary “inconvenience” of the state of nature. The initial abundance of land eventually turning to scarcity through greed and the “invention” of money. Once money exists exchanges become easy, and it is possible to hoard up enormous amounts of money. This leads to pressure on land which then become scarce. Once land is in short supply and under dispute it becomes imperative to establish civil government. So eventually the state of nature becomes almost unbearable. Rousseau Rousseau assumes that human beings are primarily motivated by the desire for self-preservation. A central aspect of human motivation is also pity or compassion . Compassion act as a powerful restraint on the drives that might lead to attack and war. If modern citizens, corrupted by society, were placed in a state of nature, they would act as Hobbes depicted them. But both Hobbes and Locke have projected the qualitied of human-in-society on the savage man. When we understand how “the savage” behaves the state of nature would be far from the Hobbesian state of war, and even in some respects preferable to a more civilized condition. For Rousseau, it is something of a matter of regret that we have grown civilized.

Rousseau’s claim that human beings are naturally motivated by pity is very different from the point of view attributed to Locke in the previous section. Rousseau argues that notions of law, right, and morality have no place in the state of nature, and so, he cannot mean that we have a natural impulse to follow moral law. But he claims that we generally try to avoid harming others, not because we recognize that harm is immoral, but because we have an aversion to harm. We are naturally sympathetic to others. The savage has few desired, and goods are more likely to be obtained by hunting and gathering than by taking them from others. This is because the savage is a solitary being. There would not even be families: compassion is not a strong enough sentiment to create a family bond. Nature has equipped the savage to survive alone: strong and fleet of foot, not only a match for wild beasts but generally free from disease, the savage desired only food, sexual satisfaction, and sleep, and fear only hunger and pain. Natural solitude rules out any desire for “glory” or reputation. At this stage the savage has not yet developed language and has no desire for power. The savage has little foresight, and barely even anticipates future desires. The key is the thought that human beings, unlike brutes, have two special attitudes: free will and the capacity for self-improvement. This latter capacity is the source of all human progress and all human misfortune. We begin the path to civilization through the first exercise of the capacity of self-improvement. Rousseau sees innovation as the primary response to scarcity, and it is innovation to make work easier that first awakens man’s pride and intelligence. Another innovation is the idea of co-operation. In this condition another novelty arises: leisure time. Co-operation and tool-making conquer scarcity sufficiently well to give the opportunity to create goods which go beyond bare survival needs. Man develops what we could call “corrupted needs”. We become dependent on what were at first considered luxuries. As societies develop, so do languages, and the opportunity for comparison. This gives rise to pride, shame, and envy. As the state of nature begins to transform itself, causes of dissertation and strife break out. But Rousseau says of this stage that it must have been the happiest and most stable of epochs, “the genuine youth of the World”: halfway between the savage’s natural indolence and stupidity, and the civilized being’s inflamed pride. This is a stable period it cannot last forever, and the real rot sets in with the long and difficult development of agriculture and metallurgy. From here it is a short step to claims of private property and rules of justice. Private property leads to mutual dependence, jealousy, inequality, and the slavery of the poor. Eventually we arrive at war as a result of the creation of the first societies. “The rich under the pressure of necessity, at last conceived the most well-considered project ever to enter the human mind; to use even his attacker’s forces in his favour”. This was a plan to institute social rules of justice to ensure peace: rules that bind all equally, but which are greatly advantageous to the rich, for they are the ones with property to secure. Finally, the first civil societies are born. And once more we see the emergence of civil society taken to be a response to a situation of war or near-war in the state of nature. Anarchism William Godwin differed from Rousseau on two counts. First, human beings, when “perfected”, could become not only non-aggressive but also highly co-operative. Second, this preferred state for human beings was not buried in the past, but an inevitable future in which the state would no longer be necessary. Peter Kropotkin held a similar view that all animal species, including human beings, profited through natural “mutual aid”. He put forward an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution through competition. The fittest are those species best able to achieve co-operation. Kropotkin was able to marshal impressive evidence of co-operation within the animal kingdom. In the long run...