politic1

Notes on Political Philosophy I

I. The kinds of questions raised in political philosophy:

II. Plato

Due to our natural weaknesses, we are naturally inclined to form social relations that enhance our chances at surviving well. However, without a social and political structure that controls greed and envy, social relations cannot be maintained. According to Plato, the average person lacks the knowledge and mastery of emotions necessary to make informed and rational decisions about governmental policies and laws. People generally pursue their own (irrational) self-interests. Because they are guided by emotion (especially greed) and ignorance, they cannot be trusted to act in a politically responsible way. So asking them to participate in the running of the State (as in a democracy) is asking for trouble. Instead, only those who are well-trained and committed to doing what is good for the whole community should rule. That means that those who understand what is in the best interests of the whole and who can control their emotions (that is, the philosophers) should rule: it is their duty to direct the affairs of the State, even if it is not what they personally want to do.

The task of rulers is to harmonize the various forces at work in a society. Since the vast majority of a society consists of ordinary working people who are primarily interested in improving their own lives (instead of being concerned with the greater social good), they spend most of their time accumulating property and wealth. This is not all that bad, considering that it is through their efforts that everyone else in society obtains the means to live. The other two classes in society--the rulers and those who enforce the rulers' laws (that is, the police or military)--must not be tempted to accumulate wealth and think of their own self-interests, so they share all their property; they even share wives and children in communal families. People in a society should accept their roles (either as rulers, enforcers, or producers of goods).

To prevent the guardians from envying the workers for all of the fun they experience, and to prevent the workers from envying the power and intelligence of the guardians, it is necessary to persuade everyone of a "noble lie," a myth that justifies why there are class distinctions, why individuals belong to their respective classes, and why that must be the way things are. Each society must have such a lie to hold it together, to prevent social unrest, and to give its citizens a sense of distinction, meaning, and direction, and thus avoid aimlessness (anomie). As long as everyone in society fulfills his or her function, the society prospers.

Objections:

Ideally, Plato's Republic sounds good; but as is indicated by the failure of almost every utopian scheme of government, human beings simply cannot live in the ways required by his model.

Plato's opinion of the intellectual abilities of people in a democracy seems to be excessively low. Of course people make mistakes and can be swayed by emotion. That is why it is important for democracies to have checks and balances to prevent a dictatorship of the majority.

III. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Because people are naturally motivated by self-interest and a desire for power, they are constantly in a state of war, all against all. This "state of nature" is that state prior to any rule by law. In the absence of law, there is no industry, security, or freedom from fear; and notions of right and wrong, property, justice and injustice make no sense. Such distinctions exist only in society and are established through law by those in power. This way of defining the source and authority of law is called legal positivism. In the state of nature, justice is whatever those who have the power of enforcing their will say is justice. In such a state, there are no "unjust" laws.

The social contract is an agreement by the majority of a society to abide by the decisions of their duly recognized representative. When there are not enough resources for everyone (that is, in conditions of scarcity), people will compete and live in fear of attack unless they rely on reason. Thus it is rational--that is, a dictate of natural law--that in order to achieve peace, we should yield our rights as long as others will do likewise (this is called the social contract). In short, because individuals are constantly pursuing their own self-interests, they inevitably get into conflicts with one another, and that threatens their lives and livelihoods. In order to survive at all, they recognize that the rational thing to do is to enter into an agreement (a "social contract") with one another to set up an overarching power that will regulate their behavior. We must be assured of compliance by others, so we yield our right to sovereignty to a central power (the Leviathan).

Once made, the contract cannot be revoked: every citizen owes total allegiance to the government, and no resistance to authority is justified. No revolt is justified (unless it succeeds, in which case the winners define what they did as justified). However, no one ever gives up his or her claim (which Hobbes calls a "natural right") to life, even if the sovereign orders it, because the very purpose of giving up one's rights to the sovereign was to protect one's natural life to life. As brutal as a state may be, it is still preferable to no state.

PowerPoint Slides from Class

Slide One: Issues in Political Philosophy

Slide Two: Plato

Because of our weaknesses, we are naturally inclined to form societies
Philosophers (assisted by enforcers) should rule because they are not self-interested; they counterbalance the greed of the working class
We justify class distinctions and privileges by appeal to a noble lie that explains why our roles are the way they are; this avoids anomie (social alienation, aimlessness)

Slides Three/Four/Five: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Because people are naturally self-interested and desire power, they are constantly in a state of war, "all against all"
In such a state of nature there is no freedom from fear, no right/wrong, property or justice
That which is just and lawful is determined by those who have power to enforce their will: what they chose is the law (legal positivism)
In the state of nature, we have a natural right to do anything to survive, and our conflicts with one another make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
Natural law dictates that in order to survive and achieve peace, we have to act rationally--that is, we should yield our right to decide right & wrong to a sovereign (social contract)
The sovereign (or Leviathan) is the unquestioned power of the State formed by the decision of subjects that there be one will
Since the sovereign determines what is right and wrong, the sovereign cannot be wrong; rebellion against the sovereign is unjustified
As brutal as a State may be, it is always better than having no State or government