history of political thought spring 2009 prof. fran moran department of political science

History of Political Thought

Spring 2009Prof. Fran Moran

Department of Political Science

Contact Information Office: K-636

Hours: MW, 9-11 M 6 to 7 T 9 - 10 am

Phone: 201-200-3259

Email: fmoran@njcu.edu

Webpage: http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran

Materials

Ball, Terrence and Dagger Richard. 2009. Ideals and Ideologies. New York: Pearson/Longman

Objectives We will explore the evolution of

Western political thought, from its roots in early Greek philosophy up through contemporary political discourse

Ideas like justice, rights, democracy, equality will be investigated through the close reading of primary source documents

Objectives This is a General

Studies Course, as such it is required to include: reading and writing, and the writing must be done out of class

Objectives In addition, it must address at least

two of the following competencies: quantitative and computer literacy critical thinking/creative

expression oral communication information gathering

Objectives In addition, it must address at least

two of the following competencies: quantitative and computer literacy critical thinking/creative

expression oral communication information gathering

Requirements Reaction Papers (60%)

5 total during the course of the semester

Can only submit one per week Can submit more than 5, with best 5

counting towards the grade

Requirements Class Participation (15%)

Regular attendance Constructive

participation in class

Requirements Final Exam

11 May, 7 pm, K-114 Essay format Questions distributed prior to the

exam

Why Political Theory? 1. Three Levels of Political

Discourse 2. Politics of Justice 3. Justice as Politics

Justice Exercise Break into small groups (4-6 people) Aim: Develop some principles to

determine who in the class should receive a free copy of the text book Don’t identify the specific person, but

rather the procedures to be used to determine the identity of that person

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level 1Provides answers to “Deep” questions concerning the basics of political life:

For example: What is justice? Do rights exist?

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level 2 Supplies the content to the concepts agreed upon in Level One

For example: If rights exist, what rights do we possess?

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level 3 Identifies the specific applications of the content agreed to in Level 2

For example: If we have right to practice any religion we choose, can I open the First Church of the Holy Herb?

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level One

Level Three

Level Two

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level One

Level Three

Level Two

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level One

Level Three

Level Two

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level One

Level Three

Level Two

Whi

ch rai

ses

the

ques

tion

…

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level One

Level Three

Level Two

How do we reach agreement at each of these levels?

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level One

Level Three

Level Two

Persuasion?

For example:

Slavery?American independence?

I. 3 Levels of Political Debate

Level One

Level Three

Level Two

Persuasion? Coercion!

II. Politics of Justice Which view eventually triumphs

will be a function of political might rather than of philosophical rigor.

Political “might” or “coercion” need not rest entirely on physical force

Other sources of coercion?

II. Politics of Justice Political Power has a variety of

components: Physical power Economic power Psychological power

II. Politics of Justice In a domestic political context,

psychological power is likely the most important and most powerful

But in an international context, it is the least powerful

Psychological power rests on agreements at Level One and Level Two

II. Politics of Justice In our search for international

justice, economic and military power become the main tools to coerce compliance to a given standard of justice For example: Iraq & WMD

Iran & Nukes

II. Politics of Justice Survey different

political systems at different historical periods we see different theories of justice at work

II. Politics of Justice If justice had an objective basis –

that is, if our understanding of justice could be separated from a political context – we should by now see similar conceptions of justice adopted and applied

II. Politics of Justice Whatever international norms that

may exist, owe their existence to political might United Nations? International Law? Human Rights?

II. Politics of Justice For Example: Al-Qaeda vs. The

U.S. Each group articulates a coherent

theory of justice Each theory of justice is at odds with

the other Resolution of the dispute…

II. Politics of Justice

II. Politics of Justice

II. Politics of Justice Bush and bin-Laden did not debate

the virtues of American liberalism vs. those of Islamic fundamentalism

II. Politics of Justice They could not debate because

they did not share a common political language

In the absence of that shared vocabulary, politics takes precedence over rhetoric or rationality

III. Justice as Politics What implications follow from this

understanding of justice? That is, if justice is a function of

politics, does that mean that justice as such no longer exists or loses its power?

Can we no longer condemn acts that violate our understanding of justice?

III. Justice as Politics Short answer, no Our failure to arrive at an objective

standard for our normative claims – to settle Level One and Level Two issues – is not necessarily catastrophic

III. Justice as Politics We need to appreciate justice – the

rules of our political life – the same way we appreciate the rules of baseball

III. Justice as Politics Politics and our

political institutions function like the baseball establishment: That is, they provide

the rules by which the game should be played and they have the power to enforce compliance

III. Justice as Politics When groups seek to challenge our

political rules – whether they be criminals, terrorists, or other governments, we may use the political resources we have to enforce and defend those rules …

III. Justice as Politics

IV. Conclusion In The Politics, Aristotle defines the

human species as the zoon politikon or the political animal

Too often we focus on the noun and forget the adjective

IV. Conclusion We are political animals. While we may lack a

transcendent basis for our moral and political beliefs, we do have a forum for defining those beliefs and the institutions for enforcing deviation and defection from those beliefs

IV. Conclusion We may condemn from a variety of

moral perspectives those social and political practices we find objectionable,

But…

IV. Conclusion Those practices won’t change

unless and until our condemnations inspire political action

Conclusion And it is political

ideas that motivate people to political action

By studying the history of political thought, we are studying the history of politics