Political Ideas, Exam 2
how does Locke refute Filmer's claim that monarchs' divine right to rule traces to Adam's dominion granted by god?
1) Adam was NOT given an absolute authority over his children by god 2) His heirs didn't have this authority, even if he did 3) there is no law of nature or law of god that determines which is the right heir in all cases 4) even if there were such a rule, no one knows which line of people is the eldest to Adam's lineage anyway
why does Hobbes believe private property generates production incentives?
1) God gave people the Earth to use for their comfort and support 2) because private ownership incentivizes increased production, the common stock is more useful under private ownership than under common ownership 3) therefore, the move from common to private ownership is justified
According to Hobbes, what are the causes of war?
1) competition: for preservation or future self-preservation 2) diffidence: despair or distrust; anxiousness 3) Glory: joy arising from the imagination of our own opinions of ourselves
what is Hobbes' logic that leads to his conclusion that "labor-mixing" creates property?
1) everyone has a property over one's person 2) labor is an aspect of one's person 3) when one labors on a thing that is common, one mixes one's property with that thing 4) therefore, the thing becomes one's property
what is hobbes' logic in which he believes that things in nature should be appropriated?
1) god gave people the Earth to use for their comfort and support 2) fruits of the Earth are not useful unless they are appropriated 3) therefore, people can appropriate parts of the Earth
3 implications of Rousseau's definition of the social contract
1) if every person gives up their rights to the community, then the conditions of the social contract are the same for everyone. because of this, everyone will want to make the social contract as easy as possible for all 2) Because people surrender themselves unconditionally, the individual has no rights that can stand in opposition to the state 3) Each man gains an equivalent of everything he loses → no individual gets to acquire rights that he yields, so he gets the equivalent from the community of what he loses to the community → this is in addition to the increase in the force of preservation that he now has from banding together with others
what comprises Hobbes' two main arguments on behalf of private property?
1) the "utility argument" 2) labor mixing
according to Locke, if someone in the state of nature is damaged by a transgression, what two rights do they have?
1) the right to seek punishment (for preventing the same offense from occurring) 2) the right to seek reparation
according to Locke, persons are in a state of nature if any of which conditions are met?
1) there is no effective government 2) there is an effective government power, but it is not legitimate 3) they have not voluntarily consented to join or establish the political society in power
what were the aims of Locke's SECOND treatise of government?
1) to establish the nature and origin of political power 2) to establish the limits of government authority 3) to establish the conditions under which citizens can rebel
what are Hobbes' two "utility arguments" that defend private property?
1) we must appropriate things to use them 2) production incentives
How much property does Rousseau believe each man is entitled to?
Every man has naturally a right to everything he needs, but the positive act which makes him a proprietor of one thing excludes him from everything else
Grotius' "right of slavery"
Grotius proposes that there is a covenant between the king and his people, wherein the people agree to surrender their freedom to the king → he is, however, unclear about what the people get in return for their freedom
what does Rousseau think of Grotius' suggestion that prisoners of war can become slaves in an even exchange?
Grotius thinks that a victor in war has the right of killing the vanquished, while a prisoner can buy back his life at the price of his liberty Rousseau says that men, from the mere fact that, while they are living in their primitive independence, cannot naturally be enemies. War is constituted by a relation between THINGS and not between persons... the state of war cannot arise out of simple personal relations between man and man, but between the relations of state and state → individuals in the state vs state conflict are enemies only accidentally, not as men, but as soldiers → war gives no right which is not necessary to the gaining of its objective; sometimes it is possible to kill the state without killing a single one of its members → the victor holds no right over the liberty of the conquered person's life, since he has no right to kill him once the war is won
how does Locke define the state of slavery?
Locke sees the state of slavery as an extension of the state of war between a conqueror and a captive, where the captive has been forced into obedience → freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is essential to a man's preservation, so someone cannot, by their own consent, enslave themselves to anyone voluntarily... → therefore, slavery is the use of force upon the person of another, just as is so in the state of war
what was the topic of Locke's FIRST treatise of government?
Locke's first treatise was a rebuttal to Sir Robert Filmer's "Patriarcha", in which Filmer argues that monarchs have a divine right to rule that traces to Adam's original dominion given by god
does Rousseau think that legitimate political authority can be founded on force?
NO the trope that 'might makes right' does not imply that the less strong should be obedient to the strong → if might is the only determinant of right, then people obey rulers not because they should, but because they don't have a choice → also, if they are able to overthrow their ruler, then they have a right to do that since they are exercising their superior might
According to Rousseau, can the sovereign do anything that violates the social contract?
No The sovereign owes its existence to the social contract; violation of the act by which it exists would be "self-annihilation" → "that which is itself nothing can create nothing"
According to Rousseau, does the sovereign have a binding commitment to act in the best interests of its subjects?
No in hurting its subjects, the sovereign would be hurting itself → therefore, the sovereign will act in the best interest of its subjects without any binding commitment to do so "It is impossible to attack one of the members without attacking the body, and it is impossible to attack the body without attacking the members representing it" "the Sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; consequently, the sovereign power does not need to give any such guarantee to its subjects, because it is impossible for the body to wish to hurt all its members"
what are Rousseau's thoughts on absolutism? how does he respond to Grotius?
Rousseau believes that people under the rule of an absolute ruler are the equivalent of slaves → he sees 'an aggregation, but not an association' in this setup an absolute ruler, 'even if he has enslaved half the world', has interests that are still purely private interests Grotius claims that a people can 'give' themselves to absolutism → Rousseau replies that people must deliberate before they give themselves to a ruler... a convention of the people, he says, is a necessary precursor to deciding to let a single person rule → Rousseau believes you must examine the act of how people convene to come to decisions before examining the act of how people give themselves into a king
Rousseau's definition of the SOVEREIGN
Rousseau defines the sovereign as exercising the general will → the sovereign is inalienable and cannot be represented
what does Rousseau think of the idea that legitimate political authority is found in nature?
Rousseau rejects the idea that legitimate political authority is found in nature. The only natural form of authority is the authority a father has over a child, which exists only for the preservation of the child
describe Rousseau's civic religion
So long as it does not disturb the public interest, the people are free to worship whatever and however they please However, all citizens should also pledge allegiance to a civil religion with a very few basic precepts: 1) the existence of a God 2) the belief in an afterlife 3) justice for all 4) the sanctity of the social contract 5) the law 6) the prohibition of intolerance, which should prevent friction between members of different religions
how does Rousseau contrast the "natural state" to "society" and to the "republic"?
The Natural State: → Innocent, amoral → natural independence → natural equality Society: → corrupted, immoral → dependent on other people → extreme inequality: status, wealth, political power the Republic: → moral → no personal dependence → equal members of the sovereign
Rousseau's definition of a "city"
a moral and collective group of people, acting as an organized unit - a "public person" formed by the union of all other persons → composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes → "houses make a town; citizens make a city... the real definition of the word has been lost in modern times" → now called a "republic" or "body politic" → when a city is active, it is called a SOVEREIGN → when a city is passive, it is called a STATE → when it is compared to other states, it is called a POWER
How does Hobbes define the state of war?
a state of "every man against every man" → poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short → defines war as any state in which there could be war
how does Rousseau define a "natural independence"?
a state where people apply themselves exclusively to tasks that do not require the cooperation of "several hands" → men satisfy their needs independently
according to Locke, why is it within one's rights to kill a thief?
a thief is using force where he has no right to use force, in order to get some of your property within his power → Locke has no reason to think that, if he could, the thief would take away everything else due to this type of attack on your liberty → you are permitted to kill the aggressor and given the right of war, since the aggressor doesn't allow you the time to appeal to your 'common judge' nor the decision of the law this is an example of someone committing 'force without right' and allows someone to enter into a state of war with another - this is in line with the law of self-preservation, the fundamental law of nature, and in this state someone can destroy a man who has made enmity to his being → there does not need to be a common judge for someone to declare a state of war - just a threat to one's self-preservation
how does Locke define political power?
according to Locke, political power is the right to make laws with penalties for the regulation and preservation of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the commonwealth from foreign injury → all this power must be directed toward the common good
"might makes right"
an expression that translates to "I am stronger than you, so therefore I make all the rules"
what does Rousseau mean when he says that subjects of the sovereign are "doubly bound"?
as individuals (parts), subjects are bound to the sovereign (the whole) as members of the sovereign (the whole), they are bound to other individuals (parts) → the sovereign is a whole of which the individual forms a part; so the individual is not regulating his or her own actions
what does Rousseau believe man gains from the social contract?
civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses
what events in Hobbes' time paralleled a state of nature?
civil wars; there is no single superior authority to enforce rules in those instances
how does Hobbes define diffidence?
distrust → leads to war since as long as there is distrust of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself
describe Rousseau's "social contract"
each person places their person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will - and as one we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole → all must give themselves entirely and equally to the community... in giving themselves to all, each person gives himself to no one
what is the main reason that Rousseau thinks freedom is so important?
freedom is linked to moral significance you cannot have the strength to do what is right if your actions cannot be done freely → if we give up our freedom, we give up our morality and humanity
how does Rousseau feel about the state of nature as opposed to the civil state?
he heavily favors the civil state he says the civil state produces "a remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct" the voice of duty, reason and principles take the place of physical impulses and inclinations... natural liberty is bounded by the strength of the individual, whereas civil liberty is limited by the general will
what was John Locke's connection to America?
he wrote the fundamental constitution of Carolina and had a deep influence on the founding fathers
what does Rousseau believe man loses from the social contract?
his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting
what are some practical implications of Rousseau's social contract?
in the procedure of lawmaking... → all must participate → must vote based on the COMMON GOOD - requires virtue on behalf of citizens → must eliminate factions sovereignty and representation → fundamental laws must be made by the people → states should be small sociological features of the people → rough equality → cultural similarity → civic virtues and civic religion
according to Hobbes, where does 'diffidence' come from?
it comes from equality among men; since all men are able to kill each other in some way, shape, or form, there is a constant threat of others trying to steal from you or kill you to obtain your property
according to Locke, what is the difference between war in society and war in nature?
it depends on when they conclude war in society ends when the "actual force is over", because both parties can then resort to the common authorities to arbitrate past wrongs in nature, war does not end until the aggressive party offers peace and reparations for the damage done; until then, the innocent party has the right to destroy the aggressor → though violence against the aggressor is done to administer justice, it is bad for both the sufferer and the aggressor, and they have no one to appeal to in nature → avoiding the state of war is a reason men enter into society, where there is an authority and relief can be had by appeal
how does Hobbes define natural liberty?
it is the freedom to do anything for self-preservation; people have a right to "anything they can take"
according to Locke, what is the purpose for generating civil government from the state of nature?
men are not reliable judges in their own cases - they are partial to themselves and their friends • in addition, passion and revenge can carry them too far in punishing others • thus, god created government to restrain the partiality and violence of men → civil government is a remedy for the 'inconveniences' of the state of nature
according to Locke, what is the difference between the state of nature and the state of war?
men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth with the authority to judge between them → state of nature force, or declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief → state of war The state of nature creates the want of a common judge with authority; the state of war is generated by force without right - both where there is and is not a common judge
does Rousseau think that you can give up your freedom in a fair exchange?
no if someone surrenders their freedom to a ruler, they surrender all their rights, and are no longer in a position to ask for something in return
according to Rousseau, can the sovereign be bound to itself? i.e., can the sovereign make rules that restrict its activities
no (needs explaining)
According to Rousseau, can the Sovereign transfer its power to someone else, or be represented by a smaller group?
no. the sovereign is inalienable. it expresses the general will, which can never coincide exactly with any particular private will
what are the limits of power in the state of nature? in what cases can someone lawfully to harm to another?
power can only be used to enforce the law of nature → even in this scenario, men cannot use absolute or arbitrary power to punish people. they can only punish people as far as calm reason and conscience dictate - the punishment must be proportionate to the crime "every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be the executioner of the law of nature... each transgression may be punished to the degree and severity that will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like"
What is Hobbes' first and fundamental law of nature?
that every man will seek peace and follow it → when he cannot obtain it, he will seek and use all helps and advantages of war
What is Hobbes' second law of nature?
that men will forfeit their natural right to all things in order to obtain peace if others are willing to do the same → only works if it's reciprocal (if other men will not lay down their right to do whatever they want, then there would be no reason to contract in the way of peace)
provide an overview of the LAW of nature, according to Locke
the law which teaches all of mankind not to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions • there cannot be subordination among us or anything that authorizes us to destroy one another for each other's uses, because we were not made for the uses of each other but for the uses of god • everyone is bound to preserve himself, and when he is not in competition with others to preserve himself he is bound to preserve the rest of mankind → the 'execution' of the law of nature is put into every man's hands; everyone has the right to punish the transgressors of that law to the point that it hinders future violations; everyone in the state of nature has the power to punish others for violating the laws of nature, since this is a state of perfect equality
how does Locke define the natural liberty of man?
the natural liberty of man is his right to be ruled solely by the laws of nature
the General Will (via Rousseau)
the outcome when all citizens vote properly based on the public interest → to be distinguished from the "will of all", based on private interests
according to Locke, why do absolute monarchs not provide an exit from the state of nature?
the problems of the state of nature arise from men being the judge of their own cases, and absolutist governments allow for monarchs to not only be the judges of their own cases, but to do to his subjects whatever he pleases - it is therefore an inadequate solution
how does Locke define social liberty?
the right to be under no legislative power other than that founded by the consent of the commonwealth, functioning for the commonwealth's benefit
how does Locke define the state of war?
the state of war is a state of "enmity and destruction" that is brought about by one person's planned out attempts on another person's life → declared intention separates this definition of a state of war from one in which violence can be hasty and passionate attempts to enslave and take away the freedom of others puts one in a state of war with another
According to Rousseau, what is the one way that the common good can be achieved?
through the general will as expressed by the sovereign
what is the stated aim of Rousseau's first book?
to determine whether there can be legitimate political authority - whether a state can exist that upholds, rather than constrains, liberty
what challenge does Rousseau try to address in "The Social Contract"?
to find a form of association which defends and protects the person and goods of each associate BUT still allows people to be as free as they were before in the state of nature
what questions does Hobbes attempt to answer in his "Leviathan" project?
what form of government is legitimate? what form of government would be created by individuals acting rationally?
according to hobbes, what is a covenant?
when one party in the social contract delivers the thing contracted for on his part, and leaves the other to perform his part at some determinate time after (and in the meantime be trusted)
according to Locke, what is a sufficient declaration of a man's consent (to make him subject to the laws of any government)?
when someone consents to the rule and regulation of a government, his person and possessions are subject to that government. Thus, when someone owning land enters into a social contract with the government via EXPRESS CONSENT, the land becomes subjected to the government in perpetuity, even after that person dies when someone enjoys any part of that same land, whether through purchase, inheritance, permission, or otherwise, he becomes subjected to that government and gives his TACIT CONSENT to that government → thus, anyone who has any possessions or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government thereby gives his TACIT CONSENT and is obliged to obey the laws of that government during such enjoyment → submission to the government's rules, however, begins and ends with someone's enjoyment of the land under the dominion of the government, so the person is at liberty to go to another commonwealth after quitting his possession under his former government... or the person can go to an occupied part of the world and begin a new government someone who gives EXPRESS CONSENT to be of any commonwealth is perpetually and indispensably obliged to remain subject to that commonwealth as long as it is around, via the terms of the social contract → however, submitting to the laws of a certain country does not make a man a member of that society - only EXPRESS CONSENT into a social contract can do this
does Locke believe that people currently exist in the state of nature (during the time of his writing)?
yes people live under governments that are not legitimate, or governments that they have not consented to. an example he provides is governors of independent communities - the compact that truly puts an end to the state of nature is one where people mutually agree together to enter into one body politic
does Hobbes believe that men are equal by nature? why?
yes → everyone is capable of killing each other → no one is more "prudent" than another → everyone believes they're wiser than everyone else
According to Rousseau, do individuals need the incentive of law to remain loyal to the sovereign?
yes Self-interested individuals might try to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship without obeying any of the duties of a subject Thus, Rousseau suggests that unwilling subjects will be forced to obey the general will: they will be "forced to be free." "Each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary to the general will which he has as a citizen" "The Sovereign needs security that its subjects will fulfill their undertakings" → for example, a man might decide that not paying taxes does less harm to others than the size of harm paying taxes does to himself; yet he will still want to enjoy all the rights of citizenship that the sovereign provides that are dependent on taxes. there are conflicting "wills" here
According to Rousseau, what is "the right of the first occupier"
• In the social contract, each individual surrenders all his property along with himself to the sovereign and the general will • In doing so, he does not give up his property since he is also a subject of the sovereign → "in taking over the goods of individuals, the community, so far from despoiling them, only assures them legitimate possession, and changes usurpation into a true right and enjoyment into proprietorship" • the "right of the first occupier" refers to rights to land between different states (or sovereigns) on land that is unclaimed • the "right of the first occupier" becomes real when the right of property has already been established, which limits the rights of property to what men need and nothing more - it is "respecting not so much what belongs to another as what does not belong to ourselves"
Overview of Rousseau's view on the "social contract"
• Men have "obstacles" to their preservation in the state of nature • Men reach a point in which these "obstacles" to preservation become stronger than the resources at the disposal of each individual to maintain his or her preservation → the human race must therefore change the manner of its existence • men must bind into a single force by working together to overcome the threats nature poses to self-preservation → since force and liberty are the chief instruments of man's self-preservation, men must find a form of association that will: 1) protect the life and property of each associate 2) allow himself to "obey himself alone" and remain as free as before • in order to this to occur, individuals must surrender themselves and transfer their rights to the community as a whole → this does NOT work if individuals can decide to keep certain rights and let go of others... if I said, "I want to keep the right to say whatever I want" then there would be no judge to determine whether or not that's okay... each person is therefore his own judge on this matter and everyone just continue to do whatever they want. the state of nature would continue
According to Rousseau, what makes the "right of first occupancy" legitimate?
• if no one else claims that land • if the owner does not occupy more land than he needs • if he cultivates and labors on that land
provide an overview of Locke's description of the state of nature
• the state of nature is a state of PERFECT FREEDOM, since people can direct their actions and use their possessions (within the bounds of the law of nature) as they see fit, without worrying about the wills of others • the state of nature is also a state of PERFECT EQUALITY; no one is born with more than anyone else - everyone has the same faculties and the same advantages of nature, so they are equal to one another without subjection or subordination • this state of liberty is NOT a state of license, however; men cannot abuse others or things in their possession that work toward anything above their preservation • the state of nature has a LAW of nature, which is explained in another question