POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Introduction
Example of Interim Government of the Republic of Texas
Goal of political philosophy: what kinds of political systems will make us most happy in the present state of affairs
A. The Social Contract
Introduction
Example of Interim Government of the Republic of Texas
Definition of Social Contract Theory: preserve our individual lives, we mutually agree to set aside our hostilities and live in peace under governmental protection
Hobbes’s Theory
Two factors of the state of nature
Life’s necessities are scarce, which creates competition
We are naturally selfish and thus not inclined to make sacrifices for others in need
First law of nature: we should seek peace as a means of self-preservation
Second law of nature: we should mutually divest ourselves of hostile rights
Third law of nature: we should indeed keep the agreements that we make
Need for government: strong policing powers and the authority to penalize contract breakers
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Example of me and Joe (four options)
If I confess and Joe does not, then I will get only a 1 year sentence, but Joe will get a 10 year sentence.
If Joe confesses and I do not, then Joe will only get a 1 year sentence, but I will get a 10 year sentence.
If neither of us confesses, then we will each get a 2 year sentence.
If both of us confess, then we will each get a 5 year sentence.
Application to social contract theory
In the state of nature, we can’t read the minds of potential rivals and thus will be inclined to preemptively attack them
Social Contracts and Bigotry
Social contract is an exclusive club whose membership is not necessarily open to everyone, e.g., animals and bigots
Potential domination of bigots: weaker groups may be forced to join in a second-class status, or risk continued war
B. Rights
Introduction
Hooters example
Two kinds of freedom/liberty rights
Rights to be free from harm
Rights to be freedom to act
Two origins of rights
Legal rights: created by governments
Natural rights: not created by governments
Three features of natural rights
Natural: we are born with them
Universal: all humans world wide possess them
Equal: every person regardless of race or gender has them to the same degree
Natural Rights and Revolution
Locke’s state of nature
We have God-given natural rights in the state of nature
Fundamental rights are those to life, health, liberty and possessions
Forfeiture: we forfeit our rights when we violate the rights of others
Governments: we give the ruler power and authority over us, in exchange for which the ruler protects our natural rights
Justification for revolution: if our government fails in its task, then we can remove it and create another
Are Natural Rights Grounded in Fact?
Bentham’s criticism of natural rights
All rights are the result of laws that are created by legislators
Legal rights are grounded in legal laws created by human legislators
Natural rights are supposedly grounded in natural laws created by God
Problem: we cannot access natural law or God
Recommendation: reject natural rights, stick to legal rights
U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Abandons notion of natural rights and relies instead on universal agreement among member nations
Do We Need Rights?
Sufficiency of duties
Correlativity of rights and duties: the rights of one person implies the duties of another
Having both rights and duties is redundant; the notion of duties is more fundamental, thus we can do away with rights
The added element of rights
Claims about my rights seem more imposing than claims about your duties
C. Political Liberalism and Property
Introduction
Political liberalism defined: governments exist mainly to protect individual rights
Locke’s view of property: we acquire property by mixing it with our labor; we can keep it or sell it as we see fit
Distributive justice defined: determining the just way of distributing wealth and poverty in a society
Nozick and Libertarianism
Libertarianism defined: governmental power should be limited to a few basic policing functions
Governments shouldn’t pay for welfare programs
Argument for minimalist state:
The existence of dominant protection agencies is reasonable and expected; anything much beyond that is not justifiable
Two principles of entitlement theory
We must initially acquire property by just means
We must voluntarily transfer that property to another person by just means
Taxation for welfare is unjustified – like forced labor
Libertarian solution to poverty (three prongs)
A truly free enterprise economy will create jobs
Voluntary unemployment insurance
Voluntary donations to charities
Practical problem with libertarianism
It makes sense for the government to also protect us from economic disaster, especially when it isn’t our fault
Libertarian notions of property ownership are not fair (see welfare liberalism)
Rawls and Welfare Liberalism
Welfare liberalism defined: to address unfair distributions in wealth, the government may tax us to help the needy.
Natural lottery: wealth is arbitrary distributed in society based on who one’s parents are
Original position: a group of rational, yet self-interested people who gather together to work out the rules of a peaceful society
Veil of ignorance: discuss the rules while assuming ignorance regarding our actual social status is in society
Two principles of justice
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
Rawls and welfare (principle 2a): reasonable people will want a lot of economic protection and be willing to place a hefty limit the wealthy.
Criticism: rational gamblers
People might gamble on a scheme that will allow me the greatest financial reward, even at risk of impoverishment
Response: people tend to hedge their bets (e.g., insurance) and might do so in the veil of ignorance
D. Individual and Community
Introduction
Antz movie example
Individualist political theories: personal liberty is of primary importance, and governments exist to protect us from harms inflicted by others in the community
Community-oriented theories: humans are first and foremost part of a community, and the governments we create should reflect that fact
Plato’s Republic
Communal lifestyle of the Guardian class
No property, communal housing, free love, censored music and literature
Community as a giant human being
To protect us from outside attack, all parts of a government must work together like all the parts of a giant human being
Three groups of people
Trades-people: provide for people’s basic needs of society (farmers, carpenters, clothiers, merchants)
Guardians who protect society from outside attackers
Rulers decide the best course for society (selected from the best guardians)
Noble lie
Trick people into thinking that they are naturally assigned their places in the social hierarchy, and thus should be content in their current status
Trades-people made with iron and brass; guardians with silver, rulers with gold
Orwell’s 1984
Community-oriented societies risk staying together only through governmental lies, intimidation, and brainwashing
Marx and Communism
Historical materialism
Everything is composed of matter and all events mechanically unfold according to rigid laws; human history emerges predictably through economic forces
Class struggle
Throughout history societies have evolved through conflict between social classes
Masters-slaves; nobles-serfs (eventually creates middleclass); capitalists-workers (eventually creates communism)
Alienated labor
We create our identities through labor and, by giving away our labor to the industrialist for cheap wages, workers lose their identities
Communist revolution
Workers will launch a communist revolution to end their oppressive conditions, the aim of which is to abolish private property
Criticism of communism
Personal greed is an important element of social progress
Marx: our more evolved human nature (species-being) and prompts us to see ourselves as part of a collective whole
E. Governmental Coercion
Introduction
Three examples: low-riding pants, lawyer jokes, offensive bumper sticker
Coercive nature of governments: to keep the peace, governments must set boundaries and punish offenders
Four Justifications
Harm principle: governments may restrict our conduct when it harms other people
Injury must be serious, not trivial
Offense principle: governments may keep us from offending others
Must be unavoidable and involve outrage; cannot be mere nuisances
Legal paternalism: governments should prevent people from harming themselves (e.g., dangerous sports)
Legal moralism: governments may restrict conduct that is especially sinful or immoral (e.g., religious blasphemy, some sex acts)
Mill’s Principle of Liberty and Harm
Mill’s principle of liberty
Individual liberty should only be restricted when our actions harm others, but not when they simply harm ourselves
Rejection of principles of offense, paternalism and moralism
Happy society argument for liberty: a wide sphere of personal liberty is essential for a happy society
Social contract argument for liberty:
To attain peace, all that we really need to do is mutually agree to avoid harming each other
The principles of offense, paternalism and moralism are not needed to maintain peace
Defense of legal paternalism
Society might be happier and my life will be safer if the government paternalistically protects us from our most stupid and harmful acts against ourselves
F. War
Introduction
War of Texan Freedom example
Just War Theory
Initially waging war (jus ad bellum)
Just cause: e.g., resisting serious aggression
Right intention: e.g., returning to the state of peace prior to an outside
Wrong intentions: nationalism, acquire land, plunder the resources of another country, vengeance, vent racial hatred
Proper authority: the war must be publicly announced by the legitimate authority and made known to the enemy
Reasonable success: it is wrong to sacrifice human lives and squander economic resources if the outcome of a war is unlikely
Conducting war (jus in bello)
Discrimination: both sides of the conflict must identify legitimate targets
Can’t target civilians in residential neighborhoods
Proportionality: should only use the amount of force that is required to achieve their goal
Weapons of mass destruction typically go beyond the goal
Pacifism
Types of pacifism
Absolute pacifism: all wars, with no exception, are wrong
Conditional pacifism: wars are wrong in principle but some are permissible in extreme emergencies
Religious justifications for pacifism
War is contrary to religious teachings
Limitations: only for believers who adopt a specifically pacifistic understanding of their faith
Secular justifications
Cost/benefit analysis: benefits of war never outweigh their costs – particularly in modern warfare
Problem: with quick and limited wars, sometimes the benefits outweigh the costs
Killing innocent people: war violates our foundational duty to avoid killing innocent people
Free rider criticism: pacifist themselves enjoy the benefits of a protected society without participating in its defense
Pacifist response: pacifists are forced to live in a society controlled by warmongers who continually reject more peaceful solutions