State of Nature

Hobbes‘nasty, brutish and short’ = State of WAR-people would use power/fight in any way for survival-defence is the best way to attackTherefore: fear of attack and no trust-rely only on oneself-Scarcity-physical equality: all able to killHuman Nature: self-interested, preserved and selfish. We enjoy the exercise of power and controlling. Ultimate desire=felicity

BUT...We would be rational in understanding the Law of Nature:-ought to seek peace-be prepared to give up our rights to things if others will-keep to agreementsWhy? In order to seek self-preservation

BUT...This still will not lead to a harmonious SON Why?

What authority? Authoritarian, absolute powerPurpose? Prevent overpower of authority and falling back into the SON

The 3 Concepts-Anthropological Study: SON reveals life as poor and uncivilised understand why we develop into a stateProblem? SON never existed

-Psychological Enquiry: SON reveals our fundamental drives/instincts naturally driven to live in a stateProblem? Assumes universal innate tendencies

-Moral Thesis: SON allows us to work out the basis upon which we are all equal establish ways in which authority must respect our equal treatments.

Purpose? To discuss/establish what our common nature is and therefore what kind of society is needed and how.

Prisoner's Dilemma:Most successful way to survive in the SON is to exploit others and be ruthless.

Why would it not work?If all adopted this technique, there would be no trustworthy people to exploit and instead many ruthless people

Locke-Moral equality: no one has rightful power over another.-Rights = life, liberty and property.-AbundanceRestrictions? Only the Law of Nature:-come from God therefore our duty to obey OR through reason-ensure no one harms another and we help one another

What authority? Restrained by a constitutionPurpose? To protect our rights and administer justice fairly

Evaluation of the SON

Hobbes:-English Civil War greatly shaped his views assumption that everyone is self-interested, does not consider kindness of peopleBUT... Even under a state, we do not trust others e.g. Lock our doors.

-Assumes the SON would be the worst state for everyone. Kindness could occur, no proof against it.The physically strong would enjoy the SON

-Inconsistent with our human nature.Firstly, with the idea that we would be rational in following the Law of Nature, although we are uncivilised.Secondly, assumes we can jump from a state with no culture, intellect to an authoritarian one.BUT...raw intelligence would give notion OR... could happen on a small scale first

-Assumes a powerful sovereign would be better, as anything is better than the SON. But it could become corrupt and immoral- the public have no sayBUT...it is in their self-interest to be moral, or provoke rebellion.

-Does not consider a middle way between the two states.

He does not present it in these ways, but insists a

leap together

Locke:-Assumes existence of God who creates Laws and that we will obey.BUT...they can come from reason, although this does not justify God.

-Assumes a progressive society although with little gov interference.BUT...obeying God is to care for and cooperate with one another.What about atheists and amoral people?

-Very optimistic about human nature.

-Assumes facts are values i.e. Without a constitution, there is inequality therefore it is needed. And...there should be little interference from the gov for a successful state, assuming freedom is good.

As a whole approach:-Only theoretical, assumes it’s existence or that we can conceive it correctly.-Makes presumption that state needs justifying BUT...Aristotle: the state exists by nature-Questioning the need for authority and our obeying, presumes we have freedom and that it is a right.-Plato: should start with society, not the individual-Assumes there is one common human nature we can justify a state from. Sartre: there’s no universal nature-Anarchism

Hume:

-as a society there is greater power→ we obtain what we can not as individuals through division of labour e.g. NHS

-we have mutual security, less vulnerable to misfortune e.g. Robbing

-laws enforced ensure justice and a common definition of it

-laws help meet conflict between short and long-term gainHow? Laws prevent short-term gains through punishments, e.g. robbing, to ensure justice → increase peace/stability → strengthen unity

Political Organisation

1.

2.

Locke and Punishment

No one has more authority than another therefore everyone has the right to punish another if they break the Law of Nature

BUT...Punishment is most effective when there is hierarchy and it is pointless to resist. But this is no longer the SON

The more scarce land becomes because of ownership/money, the more likely the Law of Nature will be brokenTherefore punishment is needed

BUT...Without set laws, they are too subjective and lead to disagreements. People are likely to be biased.

Anarchism

Authority-human nature degraded-alienates us from our true selves as we are forced to follow rules-suppression leads to self-interest-suppress creativity

Vision-everything is shared therefore no rich or poor-no punishments, rational debates instead-people think for themselves, take responsibility-recognise common interests and cooperate to build society of equals

Human nature-creative, cooperative, selfless, corrigible

Criticisms-assumes a lot including very optimistic view of human nature

-rational debates do not take into account unstable immoral people and assumes we are corrigible to our errors e.g. Serial killers

BUT...In an anarchist society, people will not want to kill. Criminal acts are an expression of our frustration under a government.

-moving from a sovereign to complete freedom will lead to chaos

-people may be lazy, not cooperate in order to gain moreBUT...

No laws=responsibility or will be ostracised. Gain more if help each other.

On Hobbes-SON is anarchists’ ideal state as opposed to Hobbes-Hobbes’ view of human nature is that of anarchist’s view under authority

-assumes society will be entirely equal but Conservative view: hierarchy is inevitable and geniuses will thrive

Power

Definition: the ability to make others and yourself do what you want

How?-persuasionRespect, psychologically, morally, influentially...-coercionFear, obligation, threat

Power to Power over

-the ability to satisfy desires

-freedom to act as one desires

-absence of obstacles

-e.g. Power to play guitar

-the ability to affect another person’s interests/life

-e.g. Power over children as parents

Control Theory Effect Theory

Ability to overcome resistance Ability to adversely affect another without any intention

One can have power to without power overBUT...

Power to can become power over

E.g. One has the power to rule people, when put in practice one has power over those people

Power is the ability to rule and authority is the right to rule-respectable, legitimate-established-deemed necessary-gained through experience/attributes

If you accept another’s authority you are...-submitting to them-giving them your respect/confidence-consenting

The effects...-limit freedom-heighten control-increases security-less equality in status, more equality with common lawsAuthority

Practical Theoretical

-In Authority-De Jure-an authority figure reached through office/position/status/set of rulesPurpose?-regulate action of others-act as a co-ordinator-maintain public order-make/impose laws-direct people who obey, regardless of if they are in agreementExamples-the Queen-someone who is asked to organise something

-An Authority-De Facto-reached through expertise/skillPurpose?-give expert advice to those who need it-people surrender judgement to the authority-therefore, accept an inequality of knowledgeExamples-doctor-priest-blacksmith

In vs An‘In’ = less legitimate but more equal.‘An’ recognises a prior inequality

Descriptive v-followed by fear, don’t always accept orders-disobey = punished-authority if obeyed-state believed to be legitimatee.g. DictatorHobbes: descriptive state=legitimate

Normative -obey for moral reasons-justified/legitimate-support the state’s orders, for moral reasons-right to rulee.g. Democracy to an extent

Why the distinctions?-Try and legitimise government and our willingness to comply-Underlying: we are individual, rational beings with a right to our freedom→ if we obey, must be for good reason

Moral duty, responsibility, a debt to the governmentNot obligation when results in one’s own self interestOn what grounds?-political contracts-voting-consent-benefits

Consent-mutual agreement between two or more parties accepted by a signature/gesture to follow a set of rulesWhy?-to keep/gain control-reinforce security-ensure a party gets results

Explicit ConsentClear, obvious, recorded, verbal/writtene.g. Foreigners who apply for British citizenship

Tacit/Implicit ConsentThrough other things we do we can infer that we have actually consentedSocrates felt he had to die as consent to statee.g. Accepting benefits like NHS, going to school

LockeFirst generation explicitly consent→ second generation tacitly consent through inheritance-even by choosing to reside within the state (do not inherit) you still consent

Rawls’ ‘Fair Play’-If one accepts the benefits of the society they consent to, one must maintain the contract by accepting duties/obligationsFree Riders: take advantage of society without doing their part in the contract in return

Obligation through consentVoting

-Shows consent by accepting the policies of a party and participating in the process.-If your party wins, there’s an explicit consentIf it loses, you still consent to society as you can not just leave because you lost.-Voting: consent to a change of party more than an actual outcome

Representative vs. DirectChoose representative who All vote on every newmakes decisions policy/law

Evaluating Consent

Voting-The way in which the votes are counted can determine the outcomee.g. Constituency/proportional representation

Plato’s Critique: charisma over skill-In a ship (state) the captain would not be the most intelligent seaman. He is not even able to navigate but has authority, so all sailors hang around him. A rivalry fight occurs, captain is overthrown and strongest most charismatic seaman rises.-problem of democracy is that as a society we would vote for the most popular person, not the best for the job.

Marx-voting is not an expression of consent because the Middle Class control the whole production of ideas in society.-Others are manipulated through propaganda and indoctrination, lead to false consciousness → People believe the economic system is in everyone’s interests and gives them freedom but they’re wrong

Voting=part of ideology, which only reflects the ruling classe.g. Lower class support view to cut taxes, but they need high taxes for social services→ voting=con and facade of freedom Appears as an expression of consent and

masquerades as an expression of freedom

Explicit Consent-Upholds principle of choice, freedom and voluntarism

BUT...Few do consent this way, and often it is not always their genuine choice

Implicit/Tacit Consent-born into society, no choice but to consent-under 18, do not vote so not in the contract-coercion. Not consent as if you don’t comply → punishment-arguably NHS, education = rights, not benefits-some benefits forced upon us e.g. Streetlights-benefits like NHS are unsolicited gifts, born into them. Therefore cannot place one under obligation (Nozick)

Conclusion: attempts to show we obey because we have freely chosen to for the greater good and to support society.

Positive NegativeSets out expectations Presupposes a

pessimistic view of human nature

Ensures security Unequal balance of power between citizen and gov.

Two-way relationship Allows powerful organisations to exploit employees

Hume: (reply to Locke)-Residency alone cannot account for consentWhy? Consent MUST have possibility of dissent

Social Contract Theory

Further Criticisms:-Aristotle: state exists by nature, if you disobey the contract then punished. Unlike marriage, can walk away-Hegel: SCT fails to understand the nature of our relationship with the state. We are not free to enter/leave → meaningless-Notion of contract can only be understood by those in a society. Therefore unnecessary or essential?-Hume: obligation is not based on consent but self-interest-Assumes we are free, rational beings who must act out of choice.

LockeNature of contract: trust, peace-If gov is unworthy, we can withdraw consent-rights = pre-social and God given-We hand over our right to punish in return for the state to administer justice/protect our rightsRight to Private Property:-work on land and it becomes yours-land given to men by God to ‘all in common’-no right to property = no right to life

RousseauContract = to master/control self-interest-increased freedom achieved by cooperation-different opinions solved by debates → unanimous agreement-law enforces what we all want to do

Particular Will: act on desires/(slave to) passions/impulsee.g. Eat too much chocolate through want, feel illReal Will: act on reason/long-term This is true freedomGeneral Will: real will in social context/what is objectively good for all/the common good → becomes law

We hand over all our rights to community, which consists of ourselves

‘moral collective body’

View of SON: Man = a ‘noble savage’ innocent, peaceful, sympathetic. -Society makes man greedy and ambitious. Natural libertyWhy contract needed? To develop personally and a community/family/language Solitude = limiting e.g. Create schools together Moral libertyAuthority? Laws represent our own interests → we are obeying ourselves-as long as these laws support the ‘common good’ then there’s no loss of freedomFurther, this is real freedom → freedom to develop a ‘higher self’One can be forced to be freeGovernment? Governs the state according to the General Will

Exchange limited freedom of SON for ‘higher’ freedom → opp to develop

RawlsTwo Principles: 1) Every person has an equal right to

basic liberties and equally treated by the law e.g. Some forbidden bail

2) People may have higher positions/ statuses than others as long as:

-it will improve the quality of life for disadvantaged e.g. Improve living standards

-these higher positions can be reached by all, there’s no discrimination.

The Original Position:Similar to SON, but it is as abstract idea.Purpose?To understand/establish principles of

justice and basic rights/duties

Veil of Ignorance:In Original Position you are ignorant of

the factors which make you biased e.g. Social positions/right and wrong

→ make the right principles

EvaluatingSocial Contract

Theory

LockeProperty/land:-In the Bible, God gives us the job of looking after the land, not owning it.→’God hath given the world to men in common.’Implies land is to be shared-Definition of ‘labour’ is debateable, lead to arguments.-Right to own property → right to exclude others = punishment BUT right to punish=role of state-Ownership of land will be distributed unevenly→ inequality and rivalryRights:Law= an attempt to achieve rightsTherefore, they are not pre-social/natural but created by law→ handing over right to punish for other rights is exchanging rights created by ourselves for other fake rights→ contract creates rights = meaningless

RawlsMakes these assumptions:-we are self-interested→ we require rules/principles-there are objective good we can recognise-we are rational and wish to take the safe option

Rousseau1)A lot of ambiguous terms:-‘Common Good’ is open to interpretation; the whole/every individual/the majority→ if food/money divided between each individual - receive very little-’General Will’ is the interest of the majority → tyranny of majority and too many diff views of it → lead to conflict2)Minority have no freedom: (agreements formed ‘unanimously’)-you are told to be wrong → ‘forced to be free’ → suppressed with no freedom of speech3) The sovereign may have different motives to the people → not governed by yourself4) You’re free to do what you’re supposed to do, sovereign tells you what you truly want = recipe for tyranny 5) Assumes: Total consensus to the sovereignThere’ll be common agreement on what is needed to achieve happinessEveryone will want to be part of the community and follow general will

6) Unanimity is no guarantee for wisdom nor necessarily rightRousseau’s Reply: a ‘wise legislator’ can be put in place BUT... The people are no longer obeying themselves7) Contract theory is supposed to preserve principles of liberty/individualism but with Rousseau we sacrifice them both

Strengths:Positive freedom good in some situationse.g. Obesity, drinking, drugs

What?Make an expression of one’s disagreement towards the state, government or a law

How?Vandalism, disobey, march, strike, petition, protest, terrorism, boycotts, rebellion/revolution

Assumes?-The gov should represent our views-We have the right to freedom of speech→ Consent MUST contain the possibility of dissent to be meaningful (Hume)

When?-A law that harms you/others-Believe it to be immoral

Examples?-Suffragettes and fight for equal rights for women-Russian revolution-Ghandi’s protests for India’s independence-Civil rights campaign → Martin Luther King-Soldier’s campaign for no war in Iraq

Terms:Deontological: consider moral ethics of the act itselfTeleological: consider the consequence of the act

Autonomy: choosing one’s own beliefs and acting on themSocial Utility: maximising the good for society/common good(Utilitarianism)

DissentRules-protestor must be sure that the moral case for disobedience outweighs the moral case for obeying the lawsRawls:1)the degree of protest must be proportionate to the injustice2)must be a public act and not for personal gain3) have a moral sense with no violence4) injustice must be serious and not infringe on the principles5) appeals must have been tried before6) must not undermine governmentBUT... What about revolutions? No explanation

Socrates

Locke:-gov only legitimate if it upholds our claim to natural rights-people are entitled to rebel to remove a corrupt gov

Thoreau:-suspicious of gov: ‘that government is best which governs least’-there will always be conflict between the right to rule and individual beliefs:‘we should be men first and subjects afterwards’→ state must recognise individual as a higher power-undue respect for the rule of law is wrong→ puppet to gov → obedient to unjust laws → morally wrongBUT... The gov are moral beings too, so won’t make unjust laws-unjust laws should be broken as an obligation regardless of inconveniences

Martin Luther King-oppressors do not give freedom to the oppressed so it must be demanded Just Law Unjust Law-Uplifts human nature -Out of harmony with moral law-Manmade but fits with -Degrades human personalitymoral law/law of God

-breaking the law and to accept the penalty=expressing respect for the lawHow? Accepting law but changing it and showing respect for it by breaking unjust ones.

MarxCapitalism → Alienation → Revolution Revolution is inevitableHow?Alienation through work by separating the worker with the value of his product→ owner profits (sells at higher price) → encourages private property and working classWork is...Not fulfilling, a means to an end, alienating from true selves, repetitive, soul destroying, supply and demandHow?Specialise → more efficient → perform limited range of tasks → repetitive → alienating from full potential and self-realisation → stuntedViscous circle...Workers work hard → more money/power to owners → buy machines instead → workers out of a job

FORDissent

Maximum amount of privacy...-‘Night watchman’s’ state-laws only created to prevent harm to others-progress/develop into original, autonomous characters → happy diverse society

No one is infallible...-suppression of discussion assumes infallibility-to express/publish your views is:‘one of the principle ingredients of human happiness’So...should question everythingWhy?-Get closer to the truth through finding truth in falsities or if entirely false → truth shines brightere.g. BNP on Question Time-For society to progress, Improves human mind, Discourages elitism

Mill onDissent

Generate individuality, spontaneity and originality

No Dead DogmaCreate clashes of values/ideas

Happy, progressive individuals develop and flourish

Cooperate through happinessOnly those who are educated/wealthy. Others will stagnate

Develop a happy, open, progressive society where geniuses thrive

Recognise humans’ good attributes

Rules lead to rebelling → progress. AND if total freedom, nowhere to progress to

Utilitarian → ‘happiness of majority’BUT...what about the minority? They’ll be worse off

There are no certain truths

No proof of actually reaching truth

We are experts on our own lives

Everyone is different and the state can not adapt to allOften do what we want not what we need –constrained by perception of ourselves

So...no interference. Liberty allows diversity of ideas/living/values

Free to choose your own life → happiness

Assumes motivated diverse creative human nature

What about time? Maths?

Evaluating philosophers

FOR

Marx-As revolution is desirable → it will happen to restore social justiceBUT...here he is presenting values as facts-Supports social environmentalism → shaped by our environment so wouldn’t we adapt to the repetitive work?Reply: yes adapt, but still alienated from ‘species being’ -Revolution could lead to a worse off state → Russian rev-Marx underestimated the ability for Capitalism to adapt to human nature → working class has shrunk-Relevant during Industrial Revolution but quite outdated now, few factory workers treated unfairly

BUT...Factories replace by offices, machines by computers

Mill-vision is very idealistic-puts great faith on our ability to use reason to make judgements → too optimistic-his utilitarian beliefs contract his fear of ‘tyranny of majority’-if happy individuals, no need to cooperate with others → laws bring people together, create order/purpose-suppressive society creates greater passion/stronger desires-services like NHS, transport, education must be run by gov to avoid a strong exploitative Capitalist societyReply: we are kind → would not exploit others- Gov ensure equality → shared values, less diverse → stronger societyChina-Should not obey passively → social progress becomes stifled-Used to be culturally advanced e.g. Invention of gunpowder now stagnantWhy? Customs/traditions crush the people and prevent progress, limit choices/freedoms

Martin Luther King(and Locke)Convincing yet based on the presumptions of God; the natural law

Thoreau-contradicting by stating we must be moral beings, yet should do whatever to break immoral laws-the extent at which we should break laws is extreme

Hobbes-’Yield or Die’-If a law is created fairly and democratically then the moral content is irrelevant-Rebellion is forbidden → lead to the SON

Socrates-Dissent is wrong:deontologically (act is morally wrong in itself) teleologically (consequences are harmful)-As we live in society, must accept the rules → obeySocrates’ Death:-Accused of corrupting the youth and not acknowledging the Gods→ could have fled prison but refused; must obey the law → drank the poison – hemlock

Criticisms:-Assumes loyalty to the state-As humans we will want to live how we believe is right → dissent is necessary-Doesn’t take into account immoral gov

Against Dissent

Wisdom of Ages(Conservativism, Plato, Burke)-Accumulate wisdom: law embodies centuries of beliefs and knowledge built up over time → far superior to what an individual could comprehend-Values: law maintains and upholds common values e.g. Christian ethics which are shared→ Social Cohesion: sharing values/customs...brings people closer → stronger society-Identity: Law, tradition, values shape us in terms of who we are → if eroded, we lose our roots-Social Fabric: embodies a heritage (religion) Dissent erodes this.-Collective: beware of variety of the individual. Good of the whole community should come before the individual-Society: structure is far too complex and organic → mysterious beyond comprehension. No individual could alter such a complex thing → anti-rationalist; to complex to deconstruct/construct

Practical experience vs Theoretical speculation-Traditions are tried and tested through timee.g. Would prefer a surgeon with practical experience over one who knows textbooks off by heart-The art of politics is to base decision making on what has been tried and tested. NOT abstract speculation

Evaluation-Lack of creativity, geniuses, no questions asked-If WofA is so strong, criticisms should have little effect-Limiting free flow of questioning impedes the development of experts and society-Greater risk of tyrannical government who ‘represent’ the common good’s valuesMill:-No questioning → dead dogma and passive obedience → social progress stiflede.g. China