Political Philosophy

What is the right of nature.

- Your right to PRESERVE and PROTECT yourself and to whatever you deem necessary to PRESERVE your own LIFE.

Summary of 2 types of responses to plato

1. Condorcet that group of ppl more likely to make correct judgement about general will 2. There are intrinsic values of democracy that is more important than achieving the desired outcome of a efficient/good state.

Argument for everyone benefitting from state + rebuttal + response

1. Hobbes 2. Hume: --> everyone benefit from living in society with norms of justice. Justice occurs only if we all obey the law, thus obedience = in each person's individual interest Rebuttal: is obedience to law really in interest of everyone? If so, it seems extraordinary that we need to be force towards obedience on fear of punishment. Why do we not act in that way without the need for the law to force us to do it? Hume: human beings are irrational. We urge for instant gratification instead of delayed gratification. This is why we act in contradiction to our interest, and why we prefer trivial advantage in the present, instead of maintenance of order in society, which depends on the observance of justice. Although reason tell us long term benefit = obey law, Reason = "slave of passions", thus reason alone is insufficient for rational deliberation. We need to find a way of making observance of the laws of justice contribute to immediate interest, only way for us to be able to follow them, and therefore bring long term interests. Obedience to law = long term interest punishing ppl for disobedience = short term interest, we need to be force to act in our own rational self interest.

Problems with the definition of ideal state + response

1. Murders still occur, citizens needs to take measures to protect themselves in the city. --> response: we are only concerned with legitimate violence, murders = illegitimate. State OFFERS protection for all, even if it fails to deliver. Response: 1. People in USA claim right to arm themselves in self-defense. and they believe that gov should have no authority in this matter. Thus, they are claiming the state should have no business trying to monopolize the means of violence. 2. Protection for all is not true, as states ignore the plight of unfavoured minorities, esp those belonging to certain ethnic groups. Worse, these minorities suffer illegitimate violence from the state itself, in the form of persecution, purges, or ethnic cleansing. e.g. china. Thus they fail to possess one of the features all states are said to have.

What are two distinct human characteristic according to Rousseau

1. We have free will 2. Capacity for self improvement.

Another criticism on Plato's claims on need of expert knowledge + response

All claims to knowledge, whether in politics, science, or philosophy, are fallible, we can not be absolutely certain of anything at all. Leaving decisions to experts = deceiving ourselves of their abilities. However, although no one can know anything for certain, this does not mean that it cannot be the case that some ppl are better judges than others. Those untrained rationally expected to do even worse.

For Rousseau, will live without government be better?

Although Rousseau believed in man's natural innocence, he believe it will not be tolerable to live without government, this is because we are already used to luxury goods that are produced as a result of division of labor and civilization (e.g. very good food/shelter, etc.)

What occurs after cooperation

Cooperation leads to surplus, no more scarcity of goods, thus leisure time occurs, and starts to create luxury goods. However, this causes 'corrupted needs' to develop, as we become dependent on what were at first considered luxuries, having them gives us little or no pleasure, but losing them is devastating, even though we once managed perfectly well without them. Also, other negative elements are introduced, as societies develop, languages develop, thus the comparison of talents. Thus cause pride, shame and envy to develop. However, This is the stage of development where men is between a savage's natural indolence and civilized being's pride, and that differences in wealth and family status were minimal = age were we experience family love = age of greatest happiness known to mankind = golden age of human growth.

rebuttal to Rousseau + Rousseau response

For Rousseau's system to work, have to meet Condorcet's two conditions: 1. PPl likely to be right 2. Ppl vote according to general interest, not individual interest Does Rousseau's system meet these two conditions? 1. Class interest means not everyone equally effected by law, leads to differenting interests. Noone can be for sure treated equally by law. This raise 2 questions: 1. Why should we think there is a general will 2. even if there is, it is unlikely to be asy to determine what it is Response: 1. If system is practicable, then LARGE INEQUALITIES must be ABSENT!!! (important). If class differences make the formation of general will impossible, then class must be eliminated. All stand on equal footing. CLASSLESS SOCIETY. Everyone affected by same law, complexities of find out what the best law is are reduced. 2. Will people be motivated enough to act upon the general will's interests? Response: --> When there are political parties, then the general will will be split into individual interests that represents individual groups, (e.g. many diff trade unions will try to reap the most benefit for their own members, won't care about members of other trade unions) thus, Rousseau believes in that case it is better to have NO POLITICAL PARTIES. If there are political parties, there should be A LOT OF POLITICAL PARTIES, so that the interests of particular groups will have little influence on decision of the whole. --> Individuals must identify very STRONGLY with the group. How? 1. education for civic virtue to create social bond and widens each person's view so they take an interest in the state as a whole, thus naturally seek to advance the general will.

Hobbes and Locke on scarcity

Hobbes: nature resources scarce, lead to conflict. Locke: nature has given things richly, thus very little reason for conflict and ispute. most people rather cultivate their own plot than invade neighbour's, so relatively peaceful climate. Thus, peace in state of nature is secured not only by natural right to punish, but also by the fact that it would rarely have to be used to punish others for your own gain. Hobbes counterargument may have been that rationally deems that it would be easier to take another's product by stealth, than to go to the effort of harvesting. If others have similar thoughts that I am wasting my energy by cultivating my own land, for, as Hobbes argued whatever I will produce will end up in the hands of others. Locke refute: must show that natural right to punish can be used effectively, or that humans have fairly strong motivation to obey moral law, otherwise a few antisocial humans could ruin things for others.

Why is life peaceful for locke

If law of nature can be enforced, then life is peaceful because offenders who overstep the laws can be punished to make reparation, and to restrain and deter them, and others, from similar acts in the future,

Main difference between Locke and Hobbes

In state of nature, Locke: there is an enforceable and effective moral law, backed by the natural right of punishment Hobbes: no moral law, thus lead to conflict. Everyone's Retaliation against the person that violated the natural law may only lead to further retribution from the violator to everyone else. Thus, others may be apprehensive to exercise their executive power of the law of nature. if you want to avoid unpleasantness in future, don't get involved now. Thus, for hobbes, even if ppl did have a natural right to punish, it would rarely be used with any effect unless a single, stable, authority existed.

summary of state of nature in hobbes:

It is a state where everyone is rightly suspicious of everyone else, and this suspicion, not mere egoism or sadism, leads to a war, where people will attack for gain, safety, and reputation. The war is self-fuelling and self-perpetuating, as REASONABLE SUSPICITION of VIOLENT BEHAVIOR leads to an EVER-INCREASING SPIRAL of VIOLENCE. In such a situation LIFE is truly miserable, not only racked by FEAR, but 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 absolutely no chance that the arts or sciences could flourish. Our short lives would be lived without anything to make them worthwhile.

What Rousseau believes morality is not and what is morality for Rousseau

Morality is not a social structure but rather, it is a public, innate instinct, the unwillingness to witness the suffering of others, which causes the rise of sympathy and compassion. People in the natural state doesn't act morally, as concepts of justice and injustice are non existent, as justice and injustice are moral laws and they can only be developed through civic education. They are good only in a negative sense, because they are independent and therefore not subject to the vise of political society. Natural goodness of man = goodness of an animal, neither good nor bad.

Utilitarianism + problem with it

Morally correct action = what brings highest possible total sum of utility. Utility = happiness/pleasure/satisfaction. Whatever brings max utility = correct action. Problem = INTERPERSONAL COMPARISONS of utility. quantification and comparison of utility. Econ --> observe consumer choices, but consumer choice != satisfaction, as irrational choice occurs that might not lead to max satisfaction.

Are the laws of nature moral laws

No the laws of nature are conclusions of REASON as FOLLOWING these laws gives each person the BEST CHANCE of PRESERVING his/her own life.

Is christianity truly egalitarian?

No, because it excluded people who are not of Christian backgrounds and was one of the main justifications for colonialism in Africa. Also although it promotes toleration, it said that people who does not believe in christianity doesn't know the truth, so the monopoly of truth actually justified the action of the people who believes in the christian faith to F unbelievers up.

What is the general motivation moving Wollstonecraft, Rousseau, and Ancient Greeks that caused them to not be truly egalitarian? What do the each of these people believe democracy is consistent with? How did the modern society solve this issue.

The assumption that for ppl who are active as citizens to perform their duty, it is time consuming, if we want to keep ourselves well informed and attend public forum or assembly, it means we need domestic support staff. Thus, democracy = consistent with slavery. for greeks, consistent with sexual inequality with Rousseau, consistent with disfranchisement of the poor for Wollstonecraft. Modern society: 1. development of household machinery eased burdens of domestic work, which made it possible for the time consuming effort of informing oneself and make political decisions. 2. Right to vote != responsibility to keep oneself well informed about political and economic matters.

When should we obey laws of nature (italian terms)

The laws bind 'IN FORO INTERNO' in the internal forum, but not always 'IN FORO EXTERNO' in the external form, in the sense that all DESIRE that the laws TAKE EFFECT, and take them into account in our actions, but it does not mean that we should ALWAYS obey them under all circumstances. If others are not obeying it, as this will often be the case under state of nature, I have reasonable suspicion that they will break the laws, then it is dumb for me to obey, if someone obey in these circumstances then he will make himself a prey to others, and procure his certain mine. Similar to GAME THEORY, anyone acting this way is a sucker. we others around are known to be obeying them too, so our compliance will not be exploited, but if we are in a position of insecurity, the attempt to seek peace and act with moral virtue will lead to an individual's certain ruin and so we are permitted to use all advantages of the war. Thus, it is not exactly true that moral notions have no application in the state of nature, but that the level of mutual suspicion and fear in state of nature is high that we can generally be excused for not obeying. We should only act morally when we can be assured that those around us are doing so too, but this is rare in the state of nature that the laws of nature will, in effect, almost never come into play.

How does Locke justify right to private property

Theological argument: God put us on earth, god put us here not to starve, thus we need to consume, and we will do better still if we can securely possess plots of land and rightfully exclude others, because then we can cultivate land and be secure in our enjoyment of its products. Natural reason argument: according to reason, it is absurd to suppose that a human may not make use of the earth without the permission of all others, for it this were the case we all would starve.

How do we solve the problem of amour de propre in a civilized society

by cultivation of civic morality and duty, thus the social contract, and moral laws developed.

explain tacit consent + refutations

by quietly enjoying the protection of the state, one is giving tacit consent, which is enough to bind individual to the state. Refutation: David Hume: Living in state != consent as the only way to express dissent is by leaving the country. Working class people don't have free choice to leave the country, as they don't know foreign language and manners, and cannot live from the small wage he acquires. Also, the theory implies that slaves who remained in the vessel after being captured default to consent to the master unless he leap into the ocean and perish. Response: Rousseau: supposes that residence constitutes consent only within a 'free' state, if a man is detained against his will in country by family, goods, violence, necessity, or lack of refuge, it does not imply he consented to the contract. However, Rousseau's response only applies to walled city states (e.g. him leaving Geneva in his youth), but Hume's address of nation states, e.g. Britain, where leaving is not a simple matter, seems to be more applicable to the contemporary world, because those who want to leave often find that there is simply nowhere to go, no other country will have them, and what is the point of swapping one objectionable regime for another. Thus, the conditions for tacit consent are not met in the modern world, state cannot be justified in these terms.

What does Rousseau believe civilization has caused man to become

causes man to become more evil, thus he has a pessimistic view of arts and sciences, stating that it has done more to corrupt than to purify morality. "god makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil'

What voting system we should use if not mixed motivation voting

choose between 2 models: 1 vote accordance with preferences, 2. vote in accordance with their estimates/opinions of the common good. Vote according to common good --> new argument for democracy, as voting will only tell us what the majority preference is, not in accordance with madisonian view of democracy. W/o vote, rulers will not be able to tell what the people want, but if people vote in accordance with their ideas of common good, voting will not tell us either. It will only tell us what the majority think is the common good, not where the majority preference lies. However, wouldn't this cause very good understanding of what the common good is? Plato: the guardians will do a better job of understanding the common good.

How does Rousseau justify solitary life of savage

stating nature has equipped savage to survive alone, strong and fleet foot, free from disease, and the savage desires only food, sexual satisfaction, and sleep, fears only hunger and pain.

Main problem of voluntarism and the social contract theory to justify political obligation

that there is no universal ground of political obligation. universalism not addressed

What is the base idea for Hobbes's theory of state of nature

that we constantly seek felicity and thus constantly try to increase power. Because we are equal in strength and ability, and the desire for goods are scarce, and that no one can be sure they will not be invaded by others, it is reasonable to conclude that rational human action will make the state of nature = state of war.

What did Plato thought of voting

voting = register an opinion on what is the best for the state. (Really all about the state). How do we defend the public good= better to leave that to the knowledge of the experts.

Condorcet on why we should have popular vote + argument against

(IMPORTANT!!!) Condorcet --> if we assume that people on average have a better than even chance of getting the right answer, then allowing majority decision = good way. Large numb of ppl vote, chances of getting right result tend towards certainty In electorate of 10,000, each with more chance of being right than wrong, majority decision certain to get right result. However, it relies on 2 premises: 1. Individual have better than even chance of being right (condorceet is pessimistic about this when voting takes place on a large scale) 2. Each individual must be motivated to vote according to his/her ideas of the COMMON GOOD, rather than out of particular interests. If second assumption fails, back to confusion of mixed motivation voting. First assumption fail, then ppl more likly to be wrong than right, almost certain majority voting lead to wrong result.

How would Hobbes respond to anarchists theory of corporation, how would anarchists respond to Hobbes response how to respond to anarchists response

1. Although cooperation is rational, there is evidence that competition and exploitation are often seen as rational too. 2. Few antisocial people will see benefit in increasing self-interest and undermining the interest of collective. e.g. what happens in a collusion (cartel), e.g. a certain OPEC nation decides to increase oil export when all OPEC nations agreed on a quota in order to increase that specific nation's income. Fear and suspicion thus corrode and wear away great deal of spontaneous cooperation. Response: As Rousseau suggests, we have been corrupted, but anarchists believe governments are the cause of the anti-social behavior, gov are not the remedy. response If we are all naturally good, why has such an oppressive and corrupting state come into existence? Response: a few greedy and cunning individuals, through disreputable means, managed to seize power. Response: if such people existed before state come into being, as they must have done on this theory, it cannot be the case that we are ALL naturally good, therefore to rely on the natural goodness of human beings to such an extent seems utopian in the extreme Response: the absence of government does not mean that there can be no forms of social control over individual behavior, social pressure, public opinion, fear of a poor reputation, even gossip, can all exert their effects on individual behavior, those who behave anti-socially will be ostracized.

What are two devices Rousseau advocates for to ensure social unity

1. Censorship: role = encouraging people to act in accordance with popular morality. Enforcing and discouraging types of behavior. Discourage 'antisocial' behavior. 2. Civil religion a) every citizen SHOULD subscribe to some RELIGION or other, as this will make him LOVE his DUTY. b) diversity of religion tolerated, but only those which themselves includes toleration, otherwise citizens compelled to become enemies. (But does any religion truly allow toleration? religions encourage toleration but u shouldn't accept other religion as truths) c) in addition to private morality, each person should subscribe to the civil religion. this should have articles which are not exactly religious dogmas, but social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject. (my thinking: Basically through societal control, we can meet Condorcet's conditions of general will + likely chance of getting things correctly? But what if ppl who are indoctrinating are indoctrinating the wrong principles, also how can we determine what are the right principles of indoctrination? )

Arg against plato + plato counterarg + more responsess

1. Form of dictatorship, UNCHECKED POWER to experts = catastrophe, as it may lead to decisions not in the best interest of the state/its people. 2. Ruler become concerned with self interest. Plato: ruler placed in position where opportunities for corruption are minimized. e.g. not allowed to own private property. Response: If life of ruler != great wealth, why would they agree to rule? Plato: Not for intrinsic or external rewards of role, but because they would otherwise find themselves ruled by others. Rather than allow other people, or all other people, to rule, they accept the necessary duty. Response: If ruler decide to break the laws concerning private property,/change the laws by proper procedures, who have authority and power to stop them. Another question: How would the guardians be appointed? How to let majority support this appointment? as they have not undergo philosophical education.

However, competition != to war, so why will competition lead to war under state of nature according to Hobbes?

1. Hobbes assumes human beings are by nature EQUAL, (an assumption of natural equality is often used in political and moral philosophy as a basis for the argument that we should respect other people, treating one another with care and concern, but for Hobbes, the assumption is put to a quite different use.) According to him, we are equal in that all humans possess roughly the same level of strength and skill, and so any human being has the capacity to kill any other. "The weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others." (leviathan 183) 2. Further: state of nature = SCARCITY of goods, thus 2 people who desire the same kind of thing will often desire to posses the same thing. 3. In addition, everyone in state of nature is VULNERABLE against the possibility of attack. I possess something, someone else may want, so I need to be on my guard constantly. Even if I posses nothing, others may see me as a threat, so I could be a victim of pre-emptive strike, and thus I need to be on my guard as well. In addition, ppl not only want immediate satisfaction, but also power for future desires. As reputation of power is power, ppl attack others, even those who have no threat, to gain reputation of strength for future protection. e.g. those in playground that have reputation of winning fights = less likely to be attacked for their goods, and may even have goods surrendered to them by others who feel unable to defend themselves. They are also not secure because others will try to attack them to gain reputation. Thus, the state of nature will be a state of war.

According to Locke, how was Hobbes wrong

1. Locke states State of nature = a) state of perfect freedom. b) state of equality c) bound by a law of nature. Hobbes equality = mental and physical capabilities of men Locke equality = moral claim about right, no person has natural right to subordinate any other. This assertion was aimed against those, e.g. Robert Filmer, who accepted the feudal view of natural hierarchy, headed by a sovereign, ruling by divine appointment. Filmer: god appointed adam as first sovereign, contemporary sovereigns can trace back title back to God's initial grant. Locke: no one naturally has right to rule, as no one has been appointed by God for this purpose. Hobbes law of nature = seek peace, if others are doing so, but otherwise to use the advantages of war, thus they were known as theroems of reason. Locke law of nature = also discoverable by reason, but has theological aspect that is absent in hobbes's law. The law = no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or property. This is because, according to locke, that while we have no natural superiors no earth, we have one in heaven. We are all creatures of God, his property, thus everyone is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully. Thus, from reason, when man's own preservation is safe, he has to preserve the rest of mankind. Thus, we cannot harm others in state of nature and have duty to help others without damage to ourselves. Hobbes natural liberty = rational actions that helps to secure a person's survival, no moral judgement, even if it means attacking the innocent Locke's natural liberty = state of liberty != a state of license. state of nature is governed by law of nature that everyone obliges to. Natural liberty = do what the law of nature allows. Do what is morally permitted, do not invade others life liberty and property.

Laws of nature

1. SEEK PEACE and when peace is not possible DEFEND yourself 2. Be willing to LAY DOWN enough FREEDOM to make SOCIAL LIFE possible, so long as ENERYONE else does the SAME 3. Men should abide by their covenants (social contracts) All laws echos the biblical negative FORMULATION of the Golden Rule--> do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Summary of principal reasons for attack in the state of nature according to Hobbes

1. for gain 2. for safety (to preempt invaders) 3. for glory or reputation. Point 2 and 3 is all for self defense reasons, while point 1 is for self-centred desire.

Problems with the democratic theory

1. idea of democracy as majority rule vs consideration for individuals. Tocqueville: Tyranny of the Majority Mill: people are not a HOMOGENEOUS mass with a SINGLE interest. we are not affected in the same way by each policy, we have diff goals, interests and plans, we live in different places, have different lifespans, majority could pass law that has negative effect on minority. This will be undemocratic if you think the state is one which must PROTECT ALL INDIVIDUALS, this will not be undemocratic if you think democracy simply means MAJORITY RULE. if you follow the MADISONIAN view (named after James Madison, father of American Constitution), that democracy requires protect of minorities, then it is undemocratic to infringe minority. FURTHER MORE, Hume: people make poor judges of interests when their short and long term interests divide. how to know ppl's real interests? 2. Representative vs direct models of democracy. Direct = vote for/against laws or policies, rather than for candidates. Every major issue put before entire electorate, by way of REFERENDUM. Representative: vote to determine who will represent them at gov level. Modern = representative model, if democracy = rule by people, not necessarily rule by everyone, but the selected ppl who were chosen. Thus, if representative democracy = undemocratic, then there is no true democracy. 3. Voting undemocratic (view among Greeks), as unpopular = less equal chance. Thus, rulers should be elected by a lottery. 4. We need to take into account of intensity of diff preferences. Minority with intense preferences should take priority over an apathetic majority.

If we follow indirect utilitarianism, what are the basis for setting, obeying, and replacing laws in society

1. laws should be passed only if they contribute more to human happiness than any competing law (or the absence of law) would do. 2. Laws should be obeyed because they are laws (and will be obeyed because disobedience means punishment), and should only be disobeyed to avoid disaster (when the laws don't serve the util function any more) 3. Laws should be repealed and replaced if they fail to serve the proper util function.

Locke's view on scarcity and what causes things become scarce + why?

1. resources initially not scarce, god provided an abundant amount of human 2. However, greed and invention of money cause scarcity. Why? Before existence of money, no one have reason to take more land than necessary for family's survival, if you grow more than you use, it will go to waste unless you exchange it for something else. However, creation of money makes exchanges easy, it is possible to amass large sum of money w/o risk of spoil. Thus, ppl have motivation to cultivate more land to produce goods for sale, lead to pressure of land, lead to scarcity. This scarcity doesn't cause Hobbesian state of war, but once land is short supply and under dispute the inconveniences of state of nature multiple. It becomes imperative to establish civl government. So although it is initially peaceful, eventually, the state of nature becomes unbearable.

What are the two things that Hobbes used to derive his theory on human nature

1. self knowledge (aka introspection on the nature of human thoughts, hopes, and fears.) 2. Knowledge of general principles of physics. Because as a citizen (someone that lives in a political society) u need to understand human nature, thus as a materialist, that to understand human nature, you must first understand "body" or matter, of which, he argued, we were completely composed of.

The process of how did Hobbes use physics to derive his understanding of human nature

1. use of Galileo's principle of conservation of motion. --> Galileo stated that objects at motion continues at motion until acted on by another force. Leviathan, 87: "When a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat els stay it". This is true for us too, if we are tired and we want rest, this is just having a different motion act upon us. 2. Developed a materialist, mechanist view of human beings. Leviathan 81: "What is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves but so many strings; and the joynts, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body...?" Thus, human beings are animated through motion. Sensation, for example, is a 'pressing' on an organ. Imagination is a 'decaying relic' of sensation. A desire is an 'internal motion towards an object'. All of this is meant quite literally. 3. Key point in this theory on conservation of motion: human beings is always in search for something, never at rest. "There is no such thing as perpetually Tranquility of mind while we live here; because life it selfe is but motion, and can never be without desire" Leviathan 129-30. 4. Thus, we are always seeking "FELICITY", aka continual success in achieving the objects of desire. 5. The search of felicity bring us to WAR in state of nature. 6. Our fear of death will bring us to create a state 7. However, without the state, in the state of nature, the search for felicity will lead to war of all against all.

Conclusion on defense of political obligation

All problematic Voluntaristic: cannot explain obligations of those who refuse to consent. Util: unacceptable implications to sacrifice the innocent. Fairness: Only succeed if everyone accepts benefit of state, not likely. however, have limited success: Voluntaristic: e.g. members of parliment and naturalized citizens Utli: if reaonsing is found acceptable, then state is justified Fairness: many do accept benefits of state Even if util is rejected, if any other arguments start from acceptable moral basis, then large proportion of members of most modern societies have political obligations, only few people escape. However, no state will be happy without universal political obligations, because hard to identify those without PO, and some will exploit it and act as if they are the group that escape PO. Even if some state did accept that it has no authority to interfere in lives of certain people, it might not harm the rest of us. If we follow Locke's theory of natural law, all individuals should obey it even if there is no government. So if gov exist, then ppl who consider themselves as part of the state can call power of state to protect them when threatened by independents. We also have right to self protection. We cannot exercise legal punishment, but still have right of self-defense in case these independents try to harm us.

How the lack of universalism causes anarchism arguments to flourish + what is the implication of this argument

As voluntarism cannot justify consent of the universal, this means that it cannot justify the state from acceptable premisses, as a result, some sort of anarchy occurs. because no one has asked me whether we should have a state, and the police do not request my permissions to act as they do, therefore, the state and police act illegitimately. implication: the only reason we have for obedience to the state is prudence, esp fear of punishment.

Plato against democracy + what is the aim of political power for Plato and how is this used to go against democracy

CRAFT ANALOGY: consult someone trained to do the job, last thing to do = assemble crowed and ask them to vote on correct remedy. Political power = protect INTEREST of the STATE, which requires judgement and skill. Thus, it should be left to experts. if ppl allowed to decide, they will be swayed by those who speak loudest and with most conviction, the SOPHIST, meanwhile those truly skilled will be ignored.

Counterargument to plato's view on voting + response by plato + counterresponse + conclusion on why voting does not signify voter's interests

Even if we concede to the benevolent dictatorship, in such a system, the dictator wants to advance the interest of the people, but how would these interests be known? Democracy = ppl show interest by voting, thus voting is more than a decision making procedure, it is a way of revealing/expressing the very information that the decision needs to take into account, what the people want. W/o voting procedure, how can this be discovered? Plato: guardians not only benevolent, but are experts. Have wisdom and knowledge. Response: does philosophical expertise = knowing interest of the people? Logic, metaphysics, ethics, political philosophy does not directly show what ppl want. Response: Maybe decision making should be responsive to the INTERESTS of the people NOT what they WANT. Interest= what is best for them. Maybe we all have the same interests? Response: in practical terms, it is false, e.g. building road, some ppl have interest in building road, others not, as their house/business situated on existing main route. Thus, there are multiple, competing interests to be considered. Response (THE FIRST TWO POINTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT!) 1. How should decisions make with competing interests, doesn't this make democracy more doubtful because it undermines minority interests (Madisonian element of democratic protect of minorities), in addition, if we concede to Hume's notion that conflicting interests in short and long term causes poor judgements, then it is best for us to have one wise ruler who know all of the relevant interest.s 2. We can never be sure what is motivating the members of any given electorate, they may not even be sure themselves, as some people vote for what they mot want, others put their own preferences/interests to one side, and vote on moral grounds. If ppl do not always vote according to preference, cannot represent the voting process as one which automatically reveals the preferences of the majority. We cannot say with confidence that a majority of ppl believe winning option to be of their interest, we cannot say Marjory of ppl believed that the decision is for the common good. so what does voting reveal? Don't know. 3. We are looking for interest of the state. It is in the best interest of the state to build the road because road creates jobs and GDP which is the goal of the state because the goal of the state is to amass wealth? IDK. this last point is my arg and it is honestly a bit trash so don't take it too much into consideration

What does equality infringes upon in Rousseau's model

Freedom. Freedom of thought, particularly in religion, atheism not possible, intolerant religions not tolerated, and Rousseau said of one doesn't recognize civil religion then he will be PUNISHED by DEATH. (really like Socialism and the permanent revolution model innit?) Also, censorship = no freedom of being unconventional.

Rousseau: General Will vs Will of All

General will = for common good, policy equally in everyone's interests will of all = sum of all competing private interests General will: affect all citizens, not executive orders targeted at particular individuals/groups. Rule by law, not ruler.

How does Rousseau view freedom + how would such theorists define freedom

He believes in POSITIVE freedom. Freedom != follow desires unconstrained by others (aka negative notion of freedom), (important) For positive Freedom theorists, freedom = living the life that the RATIONAL person would choose to live For Rousseau, rational life = available only in civil society. The way for us to prescribe laws to ourselves is through voting as a member of the sovereign. Only acting in accordance with laws created by the sovereign, acting on general will, that we can be said to be truly free. Thus, one can only be 'forced to be free' E.g. one someone believes policy A = best interest of general will, but majority believes in policy B, then policy B will represent the general will. Then person have to forced to act according to policy B, as freedom is identified with acting on general will, thus person have to be forced to be free. Doing anything else, e.g. doing what one prefers, is slavery to one's impulses, and not true freedom. Criticism: this leads to highly repressive regimes, as they can be defended on grounds of their support of freedom. So even though we can rescue Rousseau's system from inequality, it is unclear whether we can say that it advances the value of freedom.

Why did Hobbes come to that conclusion

Hobbes's definition of power = one's 'PRESENT MEANS to obtain some FUTURE apparent GOOD' Thus, to be assured of achieving felicity one must become powerful. Sources of power include rich, reputation, friend, humans have 'a restlesse desire of power after power, that ceaseth onely in death." This is because not only can we 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. Because others will also seek to increase their power, and so the search for power, is by nature, competitive. Everyone's natural, continual, attempt to increase power, to have riches and people under one's command, will lead to competitions.

Summary of state of nature arguments

Hobbes: individuals driving by drive for Felicity inevitably come into conflict over scarce goods, in absence of sovereign, this conflict will escalate into full scale war. Locke: state of nature government by moral law which could be enforced by every individual. We are initially in a condition of abundance, not scarcity, and with an implicit assumption that people will often be directly motivated to follow the moral law. Rosseau: agree with locke that hobbes was wrong to suggest that natural condition is one of extreme scarcity. Denies ideas of morality and moral motivation have any place in state of nature. Instead, he proposes that natural pity or compassion will prevent war from breaking out, pointedly remarking that we cannot tell how natural man would behave on the basis of our observations of civilized man. But whatever the force of these response to hobbs, both lock and rousseau admit that the counteracting causes to war they have identified can only serve to delay the onset of severe conflict, and will not avoid it for ever. Anarchists: optimistic to attempts to avoid the conclusion of war. 3 stages to defend anarchist position: 1. argue that cooperation will evolve in the state of nature, even among self-interested creatures 2. human beings are naturally good 3. political and social structures and rules, short of the state, can be devised to remedy the defects of the state of nature. however, gap between rational anarchism and the defense of the state becomes vanishingly small. In the end, we must agree with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Nothing genuinely worthy of being called a state of nature will, at least in the long term, be a condition in which human beings can flourish.

Why does Locke need to use the law of nature to justify sovereign's ability to punish others.

If the foreigner has not consented to the sovereign's laws, then he has not accepted that he is liable to punishment for breaching them. Therefore such a person cannot justly be punished, unless there is some sort of natural right to punish. In effect, the sovereign is in the state of nature with the alien, and so the sovereign's behaviour is sanctioned not by the laws of the land, but by the Executive Power of the Law of Nature.

What is the dilemma of voluntarist system in anarchist society

If there exists anti-social people who refuse to join in the voluntary society, then it will be hard for organization to occur. If the anarchist society refuses to attempt to restrain the behavior of such people, then it is in danger of falling into severe conflict. But if it enforces social rules against such people, it has in effect become indistinguishable from a state. Thus, As the anarchist picture of society becomes increasing realistic and less utopian, it also becomes increasingly difficult to tell it apart from a liberal, democratic, state. Thus, with the exception of anthropological accounts of small agrarian societies, we lack an account of what a peaceful stable, desirable situation would be in the absence of something like a state.

Besides for the common good, is there an instrumental justification for democracy?

If we can prove that there is something INTRINSICALLY good about democracy, that democracy is good even if it is not able to always achieve desirable consequences, then we have an argument for democracy. Look back at craft analogy, idea that ruling is a skill aimed at achieving external object. thus, for plato, democracy is ONLY JUSTIFIED of it is able to ACHIEVE DESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES. But we value SKILLS not just for results, but FOR THEMSEVLES too. e.g. like woodworking not for acc making a table, cause it will be cheaper and faster to buy a table from store. we value things that are INDEPENDENT of value of the goods that are produced. Thus, democracy shouldn't be judged in terms of how well it achieves the common good, although that is important too. !!! There are values involved in political decision make that are different from value of achieving given objects. Democracy not for achieving better decisions than other states, but because there is something valuable about democratic process itself: FREEDOM + EQUALITY. Freedom = giving ppl say in political decision making. Equality = given to all Instrumental ground = a way of achieving the common good, it self = expression of freedom and equality.

If we support the view of the anarchist, and realize that there is no universal justification to the social contract theory, what does it means for obedience towards the state, why is this theory correct. Refutations for this argument

If we do not fear punishment from the state, we obey the laws that are within our realms of morality, e.g. refraining from murder, rape, etc, but not because the state demands it, but because it aligns with our individual moral values. We only support the state and policy in cases where one independently agrees with the reasons for which they act, the fact that the law is a law provides no reasons at all for obedience. It is correct because absolute obedience to state could lead to defending persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany or recently overturned laws for abortion or the zero covid policies in China. However, it is not so easy to say what the moral limit is, at the extreme, suppose one held the view that one should not obey the law unless it accords perfectly with one's own moral judgement, then it will be hard to establish common standards and laws within society. E.g., many (esp rich) believes that there is no moral justification for redistribution of income through taxation Others believe from social and economic grounds that inheritance of goods is unject. As John Rawls states, who inherits wealth is completely arbitrary from a moral point of view. Many people think it is unfair that ppl can inherit fortunes, while the equally deserving gets nothing. Now, if you think that there is no moral justification to inherited property, then people who inherited property have no right to have you turned off their inherited property than you have to exclude them, as it is not truly theirs. In addition, if one should only obey the law if it accords with their moral outlook, you have no reason to respect other's property. Thus, we would return to the chaotic situation of state of nature, where people may follow their individual private judgement in all matters, even those of public concern. But this is the exact reason that Locke argued we should move away from the state of nature. Thus, anarchist position leads to moral self indulgence. We need a shared set of laws. Response: anarchist may argue that there is no reason to expect such a proliferation of conflicting moral views, as a particular moral perspective might be the correct one, so individuals might all be brought to shave the same set of basic moral principles. Response: even if there is a single set of true moral principles, how can we ensure everyone comes to the same consensus.

Is collective rationality possible

It is unstable, similar to cartels, ppl within an agreement try to gain individual advantage. Individual members have incentive to increase output beyond the point of joint profit maximisation.

Was there ever a state of nature according to Rousseau?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: too much time required to transform from state of nature to "civil society" (a society governed by a formal state), that it would be profane to assume that modern societies arose this way. amount of time needed longer than age of world as recorded in scriptures. However, Rousseau believed that there were contemporary examples of people living in a state of nature, while John Locke thought this was true of many groups living in 17th century America.

Justification of legitimate authority according to Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham: primary value is not autonomy but happiness. Thus, we should aim to maximize the total sum of happiness in society. In this account, the state is justified if it produces more happiness than any alternative. Whether we consent to the state is irrelevant, what matters is whether it makes the members of society, in total, happier than they would be without it.

What lies under the justification of the state, or what is the goal of justifying the existence of state.

Justification = showing there are universal political obligations, aka ppl have duty in normal circumstances to obey to law of the land, including paying taxes where these are due. Example of duties: to fight in defense of state when called, behave patriotically, etc. Political obligation = obligation to obey each law, because it is the law, not because it has some independent moral justification. Some laws have moral grounding, e.g. not to commit murder, because killing is wrong. Some laws don't, e.g. paying taxes for the building of nuclear warheads. however, even in the case of non-moral laws, the good citizen may feel obligation to obey the tax laws and reluctantly continue to contribute to this, as this is what the law requires. Justifying the state = showing there are universal obligations to obey the law. universal obligation does not mean the duty to obey all laws at all times, but rather that they apply to all people who reside within the borders of the state.

What is the problem of state of nature for locke

Locke conceded to the fact that state of nature may not be as peaceful as he first supposed, mainly due to the ADMINISTRATION of JUSTICE. It is not so much that we will fight over goods, but that we have different conception of what JUSTICE requires. Our interpretation of law of nature is different, the degree of offense and proper punishment. Administering justice = source of dispute, and this is the primary inconvenience of state of nature.

How does Rousseau's claim that human beings are naturally motivated by pity or compassion differ from Locke's notion of state of nature.

Locke: human beings in state of nature will respect each other's natural rights (life, liberty and property) Rousseu: like Hobbes, believes that notions of law, right, and morality does not exist in state of nature, so we do not have natural impulse to follw a moral law. However, unlike Locke and Hobbes, he believes that we generally try to avoid harming others, not because we recognize that harm is immoral, but because we have aversion to harm, even when it is not our own. We are naturally sympathetic to others, and are upset by their suffering, so we take steps to avoid this if we can.

Is Wollstonecraft's system of no exclusion of women from citizenry a system of equality

No, because it excluded ppl within society who didn't have property.

IS Rousseau's system actually of equality

No, because it has an underlying assumption that women are inferior to men. Critiqued by Wollstonecraft in 1792.

Does Rousseau believe we are power seeking individuals? Why? Where did Rousseau derive his view of savage from

No, because natural solitude means that we don't take interest in others' opinions thus we don't have desire for glory or reputation. Also, savage doesn't have any foresight, doesn't anticipate future desires, so it will have no desire for reputation thus no desire for power seeking. Rousseau derived his view of savage from the Caribbeans, who "will improvidently sell you his cotton bed in the morning, and come crying in the evening to buy it again, not having foreseen he would want it again the next night" Thus, all of Hobbes's drives to war, including desires for gain, safety, and reputation, are defused or absent in Rousseau's state of nature.

Was democracy popular in history?

No, only had brief life in Ancient Greece, in limited form. For the 2,000 years or so in between a democratic state was hardly seen.

How are laws made according to Rousseau

Not in parliament, but at popular assemblies, where the general will is discovered. popular assembly propose law, people asked os it conform with general will? every man give opinion on this point, general will found by counting votes.

Util theory of political obligation + problem of this theory + response

Obey rulers as long as benefits outweigh costs. If it generates greater satisfaction of society than disobedience. Problem: allows law breaking as long as e.g. you stealing my possession leads to more increases in your happiness compared to the loss of happiness I feel. It leads to insecurity, just like the insecurity in state of nature. In addition, we have the PRISONERS' DILEMMA, action which individually increases happiness collectively diminishes it. Response: indirect utilitarianism: have body of laws which will be respected, even one breaking the law would lead to increase in utility. The idea is that if we all reason directly in utilitarian terms, things will go badly, thus we need to follow non-util reasoning, obeying the laws, to maximize happiness. Just like how lotus eaters became more miserable in the single pursuit of happiness, we should not focus solely on the pursuit of happiness. it is more likely for us to find happiness as a side effect/indirect consequence if we aim at something else, e.g. pursue an ambition. Direct search for happiness, both individually and socially, is self defeating, thus the best we can do is set ourselves other goals or follow other rules, in the hope or expectation that happiness will follow as a consequence.

Where would expert rulers be found according to Plato

Philosophers. They have to go through training to become philosophers.

How does Rousseau resolve the conflict between self interest and compassion

Rousseau concedes to this notion, stating that if self interest and compassion comes in conflict, ppl will choose self interest first. Thus, if we are in a condition of scarcity, we will be in a state of war, but we will feel bad about what we have done to others. Thus, in condition of scarcity, compassion does not restrain the state of war.

How does Rousseau try to avoid the state of war

Rousseau states that the savage man have a few desires, and relative to those desires, goods are more likely to be obtained by hunting and gathering than by taking from others. However, this is because savage = solitary, and doesn't come into contact with others. there were no families, and children would leave their mothers as soon as they could survive on their own, there is no permanent union of man and woman.

Distinction between plato's philosopher kings and Rousseau's elective aristocracy

Rousseau's rulers do not have power to make laws. Can only carry it out.

Difference on result of scarcity for Hobbes and Rousseau, what lead to this difference

Rousseau: scarcity leads to innovation, innovation is bad as it leads to pride Hobbes: scarcity leads to competition. Rousseau relying on idea that savage has a natural aversion to harming others, most will prefer to get what they need by working for it, rather than taking things from others. And it is innovation to make work easier, toolmaking, that first awakens man's pride and intelligence.

What is Democracy

Rule of people, by people, for people. popular sovereignty, gov rule in the interest of governed. Contemporary politics: democratic status = test of legitimacy of regimes.

Rousseau's view on human nature that is similar and different from Locke and Hobbes

Similar: human motivated by self serving, self preserving desires Different: human motivated by pity and compassion., that we have "an innate repugnance at seeing a fellow creature suffer" (discourse on the origin of inequality, 73)

Argument against it is possible for us to have been in a state of nature?

Some believe that not only have human beings always lived under a state, 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. Maybe we would not be human beings if we lived in society without a state. If human beings exist then so does the state. If this is true, then the speculation about the state of nature is redundant. However, the point of invoking the state of nature is not to illustrate how the state developed in a historical or anthropological way, it is used to show what life would be like before institutions, to justify the existence of the state. (But how did they argue that it is impossible? Quite unlikely in my opinion)

What is the ideal state

State possess political power. Locke: political power = right to make laws + right to punish those who fail to obey them. Max Weber: state have monopoly of legitimate violence. Within state, violence/coercion is seen as primarily the state's business, either directly, through agents such as the police or law courts, or indirectly, through the permissions it gives citizens to be violent to each other on occasion: in self defense, for example. legitimate violence/coercion is undertaken/supervised by the state. State also accepts the responsibility of protecting everyone who resides within its borders from illegitimate violence. We forfeit the right to protect ourselves only on the understanding that we do not need self-protection as the state will do it for us. Thus, state = monopoly of LEGITIMATE coercion + protect everyone within territory.

According to Rousseau how did human transition from state of nature to civilization

The fact that we have the capacity for self improvement causes us to progress to civilization but is also the cause of human misfortune.

How does Hobbes make sense of morality in state of nature

There will be no morality in state of nature. Injustice = breach of law, but for law to exist there must be a lawgiver, a COMMON POWER to enforce the law. In state of nature there is no common power, so no law, and no breach of law, and no injustice. Everyone have liberty to use his OWN POWER, for the PRESERVATION of his own NATURE, that is to say of his own life, and thus, of doing anything, which in his judgement, and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. Thus, the consequence is that in such a condition everyone has right to do everything, even to one another's body. Thus, in state of nature, you can do anything, even to take another's life, if you believe this helps you survive. Thus, in state of nature there is no justice and injustice, no right or wrong, no moral obligation, moral notions have no application, this is the natural right of liberty.

Justification of legitimate authority according to Locke

This is known as the consent theory. Locke = belongs to theorists who give great weight to the idea of personal autonomy or natural liberty.Human beings naturally free, equal, and independent, meaning they are not naturally under the authority of any other person. Thus, the political institutions must be justified in terms of the will, choices, or decisions of those over whom they have authority. Legitimate power relations therefore must be an artificial human creation or construction. Thus, the only way of coming under another person's authority was to give the person your consent.. Thus, the sovereign, who is claiming authority over you, has no right to that authority unless you have voluntarily put yourself in this position through your own consent. Thus to reconcile the authority of the state with the natural independence of the individual, we need to have individual consent and the device of the social contract.

How did anarchists counter argue Rousseau's position on government ? How did they counter Hobbes's position?

Through the notion of corporation: William Godwin: 1. Human beings, when perfected, could become not only non aggressive but highly co-operative (thus no need of social contract even after civilization) 2. This preferred state for human beings was not buried in the past, but an inevitable future which the state would no longer be necessary. Counter hobbes: Peter Kropotkin: Alternative to Darwinism: All animal species, including humans, profited through natural mutual aid. The fittest = species best able to achieve co-operation Even highly selfish agents evolve patterns of co-operative behavior, even for purely selfish reasons, as in long run cooperation is better for the individual. If state of war is damaging for all, then rational, self-interested creatures will eventually learn to cooperate.

Argument against Util: + Util response

Util sets up in 4 assumptions: 1. morally best society is one where happiness is maximized 2. State promotes happiness better than state of nature 3. State and state of nature are the only alternatives we have 4. Thus we have moral duty to bring about and support the state. Anarchists will disagree with assumption 2 and 3 (refer back to anarchist argument to see how to argue against this) Even if we concede to the 4 assumptions, util theories may cause injustices. 1. Scapegoat objection: util permit injustice in the pursuit of general happiness. e.g. even if we haven't found the right guy to be arrested, general happiness will be advanced if individuals believed by the population to be guilty are arrested, as the demand for vengeance will be satisfied. As increase in happiness of general population outweigh suffering of innocent, it is ok. e.g. bombing of a put by the IRA, the Birmingham six had been found guilty of murder, but claimed that their confessions had been beaten out of them by the police. Response: Adpot indirect util strategy If we know we live in society where people can be made as scapegoats, it will lead to insecurity and have negative effect on human happiness, after all, how do I know that I will not be the next utilitarian scapegoat? Thus, util grant ppl right not to be punished unless they are guilty. Thus, more good than harm will be done by releasing innocent. Rebuttal: 1. General insecurity only be consequence of scapegoatism if public realize what is going on, if public never discover the truth then they will have nothing to worry about, or they don't know they have to worry about it. Thus, scapegoatism is justified on util grounds, provided it is highly efficient and secret. 2. Policy of victimization should not be for general happiness, but rather no one should be victimized on the grounds of morality. Wrong reason for result

Rousseau's idea of how we started to go to civilization

We start path to civilization through the utilization of CAPACITY of SELF IMPROVEMENT, the development of tools in struggle for subsistence, a struggle brought about by an increase in population. (Thus innovation = an effect due to scarcity).

According to Rousseau, how did human cooperation emerge?

When humans realize that living in groups and making shelters have advantages, it leads to cooperation. This also causes feelings of humanity, love, and paternal affection.

Justification of state under theory of fairness + rebuttal + response

You benefited from the state, it is only fair for you to obey its laws. H L A Hart: It is unfair to reap benefits of state without paying your share of burdens. Benefits = security and stability of living in society, which operates a system of enforced laws. Burdens = political obligations (I feel like this is the tactic the Chinese gov use the most) Rebuttal: Nozick: You didn't ask for the benefit, you were provided with it whether you liked it or not. Perhaps you would rather have had no benefits and no burdens, but whether you want them or not, if we say you have a duty to comply in this case it gives others a licence to force even unwanted goods on you and then demand payment, which would not be just. e.g. china covid policy Response: only have obligation if you accept the benefits. However, how do you distinguish between accepted benefits and benefits that are only received? How can we reject benefit of the state? Same problem with tacit consent. No universal obligations to obey.

How will laws be applied? as they require actions that singe out groups/individuals? e.g. legal punishment

application of law not done by sovereign but by the executive/government. Executive arrange day-to-day administration, Rousseau think it will be absurd to organize this task democratically, universal active participation not possible. ELECTED ARISTOCRACY: wisest govern the many, where it is assured that they will govern for the many's profit, and not for its own.

how does Hobbes use state of nature to justify the creation of a sovereign

because in the state of nature, it is rare for people to follow the laws of nature, thus the establishment of a sovereign who punish those that disobey the laws If sovereign is effective in keeping people to laws, then can no one have reasonable suspicion that other will attack. This case there will be no longer an excuse to start an invasion, the great advantage of the state, is that it creates conditions under which people can securely follow the laws of nature.

Why is util a plausible way to justify the state

because state of nature (esp if we accept argument of hobbes) leads to less utility than state, thus it is justified to have a state, as long as if the state provides and enforces a body of law that contributes more to human happiness than any competing arrangement.

Why is the state of nature undesirable according to Rousseau

because the infant man is indistinguishable to other wild animals.

Justifying the state using the social contract theory + practice

because we have natural right to freedom so political power can only come into existence with my consent. thus even if life in civi society is better than life in state of nature, if I didn't consent to exercise of political power, the state is illegitimate. Thus, this justification Lays under voluntarism: the fact that everyone has consented to the state. We show how state have universal authority, authoriy over everyone, by showing that everyone has consented to that authority. Thus the social contract theory solves the problem of political obligation by addressing demands of universalism (that everyone must be obligated) and voluntarism (that political obligations can come into existence only through consent) practice: 1. Historical consent. we have an original contract: that social contract was a real historical event. It was the moment and mechanism that took our ancestors from state of nature to civil society. Rebuttal: even if we accept that there was a real, historical, state of nature, could there have been such a contract, what is the evidence? How could it have happened? it is absurd to think that savages (put forward by Rousseau) in state of nature could have conceptual sophistication to create and respect any sort of legal agreement. But even if there have been a contract, what would it prove? It doesn't prove the political obligations of existing citizens, as no reasonable legal system allows one generation to make a contract that binds succeeding generations, but this is what the original contract theory presume. 2. Express consent. Ongoing consent given by every individual, explicit. e.g. in the form of a FRANCHISE (leveller). But this is not present in modern society. We give pledges for allegiance to the flag or to God and the Queen, but there is no real choice, and the pledge have no real legal standing. The only people in modern societies who explicitly give their consent are those who gain citizenship of society through naturalization, vast majority of ordinary citizens left untouched. 3. Through more implicit means, e.g. voting. However, those who don't vote/vote against the government may have been dissatisfied with the system as a whole. In addition, if voting is not voluntary, it cannot be represented as an act of consent. 4. Political obligations arise only when society is arranged as participatory democracy, where all citizens take an active role in government. However, contemporary democracies fail to make the ideal, so does that mean citizens in such states have no political obligations. 5. Tacit consent 6. Hypothetical consent

Summary of Rousseau's state of nature

condition of an infant man that spends time wandering up and down the forest, without industry, speech, home, war, and to all ties, neither standing in need of his fellow, creatures nor having any desire to hurt them, and perhaps even not distinguishing them one from another.

What is the last stage of development

development of agriculture and metallurgy. It leads to development of private property and division of labor as a result of their dependence. However, this caused economic inequality and conflict. private property --> mutual dependence, jealousy, inequality, slavery of poor. destruction of equality, cause conflicts and war. The development of private property, rules of justice.

How to make sense between state of nature and law of nature as one leads to the rational conclusion of a state of war and the other leads to the rational conclusion of a peace seeking state.

distinguish between INDIVIDUAL and COLLECTIVE RATIONALITY. Collective rationality = what is best for each individual, assuming everyone else acts the same way. Law of nature = collective rationality. example from Jean Paul Sartre: peasants farm on steep hillside, increase usable part of land by cutting down tress and growing crops, so all cut down trees. But heavy storm cause soil to erode. Individual rationality = every peasant cut down their tree to increase land available, but collective rationality prove it to be a bad idea. (Kind of like tragedy of commons)

right to punish according to locke

everyone has the power to enforce the law of nature, everyone have right to punish anyone that oversteps the law of nature.

Rousseau on ruling requiring training + what type of training + what is citizenship + how democracy downfalls

he agrees with plato's position, but states that training should be given to all, and takes an active role as part of the sovereign (ppl act collectively, with authority over themselves) Training for preservation of state. Citizenship = involves active public service + direct engagement with creation of legislation (direct democracy) "as soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, state is not far from its fall."

How does Rousseau feel about history and progress

he believes it is self destructive, as scientific developments of progress is not a natural authentic humanistic need, but it developed from pride and vanity. It only leads the transition of human from Amour de Soi, a positive love for oneself, to Amour-propre, pride. Amour de soi = self preservation of human and reason Amour de propre = artificial, encourage man to compare with others, creating unwarranted fear and allwoing men to enjoy pain or weakness of others. Advancement of knowledge made governments stronger and crushed individual freedom, and material progress undermines possibility of true friendship by replacing it with jealousy, fear and suspicion.

How to think of individual and collective rationality inside state of nature

individually rational behaviour = attack others, lead to state of war Laws of nature tells us that the state of. war is not the inevitable situation for human beings because of collective rationality. If we could ascent to level of collective rationality and obey laws of nature, we can live in peace, without fear.

Problem of having strong in-group identity + Response to critiques

indoctrination. Protection of the freedom of the individual become fascistic or totalitarian. People moulded by education, forget themselves in favor of the state. Response: 1. Rousseau assumes that there should already be bonds of custom and tradition uniting a people before it is fit to receive laws. Education = only a way of formalizing and consolidating links which are already present in community, rather than of imposing an artificial order on a diverse group of people

Does state of war mean everyone is constantly fighting

no, it means that everyone is always ready to fight. There will be moments without actual conflict, but everyone is always not letting their guard down.

Does Hobbes believe every man is cruel and selfish

no. cruel = take pleasure in other's suffrage without any gain for his own. That's not true, human main objective of attack = for his own gain and benefit. Selfishness: yes, humans do want to satisfy self centred desires, however, that is not the only objective for attack. In the state of nature, another thing that human beings have is fear, the fear that others around may try to take from you what you have. Thus, you will attack, not for gain, but for safety or reputation. Thus, everyone fight everyone else for self defense.

Does Rousseau believe there will be real democracy

no. as it is against natural order for the many to govern and the few to be governed. Unimaginable that ppl should remain continually assembled to devote their time to public affairs.

Hypothetical consent + refutations

social contract is hypothetical, it tells us what we would do, or what we would have done in the state of nature. If we were not under the authority of the state, and somehow found ourselves in the state of nature, then, if we are rational, we would do everything to recreate the state. In particular, we would rationally and freely join in a contract to bring about the state, as corporation leads to higher output and better living standards. Refutation: Even if all rational individuals in state of nature freely make this choice, how does this relate to the 'voluntaristic' assumption of social contract theory? For if we assume that we can only acquire political obligations by our own voluntary acts of consent, and recognize that hypothetical acts of consent are not acts, it seems to follow that hypothetical contract argument will not satisfy the demands of social contract theory. Thus, this theory only shows that the state has a number of desirable features, that it is our best hope of peace and security, and the fact that we would consent to bring it into existence from the state of nature simply confirms that it has those features. On this interpretation, it is the features of the state, and not our consent, which provide the main basis of its justification. Thus, the hypothetical contract argument is not a form of voluntaristic defense of the state, but much closer to the utilitarian theories. However, there is a way to link Hypothetical consent to voluntarism. If hypothetical consent indicates real consent, then although no one formally expresses their consent to the state, there is a sense in which all or most of us can be said to consent. Perhaps if we were asked, and required to think about the matter seriously, we would each express our consent. So it would be fair to say that anyone of whom this is true has a disposition to consent to the state. But this seems the same as saying people consent to the state, even if they do not realize it. Just as we have beliefs we have never brought to consciousness, we can consent to the state without realizing that we do so. Now, hypothetical contract = a way of realizing what we really think. Reflection on how I would have lived in the state of nature, makes me come to realization that going into civil society is bound to happen thus I come to realize I do consent to the state. The point is not that after the thought process, I come to consent for the first time, but rather that I come to realize I have consented all the time. It reveals DISPOSITIONAL consent, our natural tendency to consent. Rebuttal: Consent here is weak. Unexpressed and unacknowledged dispositions to consent is not binding to other moral or legal contexts, and ppl who go through the hypothetical contract reasoning and reflection may come to believe they would be better off in the state of nature, and so prefer it to the state, e.g. anarchists. Even if we deem these people as irrational, we cannot concede to the fact that they have consented. There is no UNIVERSAL ground of political obligation.

What does anarchists think of authority

there needs to be authority of experts within society, as some people need to use others' intellect for the society to maintain optimum function, i.e. some people know how best to cultivate food, so it is sensible to defer to their judgement. In addition, authority is needed to coordinate behavior on the medium. and large scale, i.e. in times of international conflict, even an anarchist society needs generals and military discipline. Deference to the opinions of experts and obedience to social rules may also be essential in peacetime too. However, such rules and structures should not be amounted to states as they allow the individual to opt out, hence they are voluntary in a way no state is. As the state claims a monopoly of legitimate political power, and not a voluntarist system, it is different to the anarchist's belief of voluntarism.

Is the idea of the general will egalitarian? Why would Rousseau lead to the conclusion that to have a general will we need to ensure total equality of wealth within society

yes, it is egalitarian, because it assumes that the correct policy is one that benefits citizens equally. Thus, it would be hard to devise a system which gives a greater weight to equality, particularly when combined with the democratic principle that all citizens have an equal say in the attempt to determine the nature of the general will on any given case. This egalitarian view naturally leads to an utopian classless society? IDK need to think more about this point