Political Philosophy Summary Final Exam
Mill, Nussbaum, Nozick, Young, Barry, Brennan, Feinberg
Wolff, Ch. 1,2,3,4,5
Gooden, Ch. 10,13,20,45
Week 1: The State, Political Justification
Wolff, Chapter 1 & 2
1 The State of Nature
What would things be like without the state?
Hobbes
Nothing could be worse than life without the protection of the state, therefore a strong
government is necessary. Human nature will, in the natural state, bring about severe conflict.
Hobbes starts with the study of human nature, which he understands with 1) self-knowledge
and 2) knowledge of the general principles of physics. Hobbes was a materialist, to
understand anything, one needs to understand all (human) matter, specifically Galileo’s
principle of the conservation of motion. This, in his optic, means human beings are always
searching for something, never at rest.
Human’s fear of death would drive us to create a state in the state of nature. Humans can
never be satisfied, therefore everyone competes with one another. Competition leads to war
because all human beings are equal in strength and skill, and thus have the capacity to kill
any other. Besides, goods are scarce. People do not only seek to satisfy current demands
but also future assurance. Thus, Hobbes sees three reasons for an attack while in the state
of nature:
1. For gain
2. For safety
3. For glory or reputation
Human beings are, according to Hobbes, not cruel, nor unrealistically selfish- people mainly
live in fear of war. There might not be constant fighting but there will be constant readiness
to fight.
Does Hobbes believe that we can make sense of the ideas of morality in a state of nature?
According to Hobbes, because there is no law in the state of nature, there is also no
perception of right and wrong. In such a condition, every man has a right to everything, even
to another body. This is called the Natural Right of Liberty.
Would he allow that the recognition of moral duty, in the absence of the state, is sufficient
motivation to override the temptation to invade others for their goods? Hobbes creates
fundamental Laws of Nature, which exist in the state of nature. They are:
1. Every man should look for peace, even using war
2. Every man should give up his rights to all things, provided others are willing as well, and
each should be contented with as much liberty against other men, as he would allow other
men against himself.
3. Every man should perform whatever covenants you make.
,All these make one fundamental law: Do not do that against another, that you would not
have done to yourself. This would then be a moral code. This conflicts with his earlier
statement that there is no right or wrong in such a state (maybe that regarded the literal law,
and this regards man’s internal moral code?). Hobbes does not believe these are moral
laws, but rational reasonings that give every man the best chance of preserving his own life.
But, how can Hobbes say every man would want peace, but also that the state of nature will
be war?
Peace is collective rationality, war is individual rationality. This leads to a prisoner’s dilemma.
According to Hobbes, we should take the Laws of Nature into account, but not obey them
under all circumstances.
We have a duty to these laws only if we know others obey them as well. We can be excused
for not using the law. Being peaceful in this context is so rare that it will occur close to never
in the state of nature.
Locke
It is possible to live an acceptable life even in the absence of government. The state of
nature is a state of perfect freedom, and equality, and is bound by a Law of Nature. Hobbes
defined equality as equality of ability, and Locke defines it as a moral claim about rights: no
person has a natural right to subordinate to any other. No one naturally has the right to rule.
Hobbes thought the fundamental Law of Nature was to seek peace as long as others do the
same thing as a guide of reason. Locke frames it differently: no one ought to harm another in
his life, health liberty, or possessions. Even though we have no superiors on earth, we do in
heaven. Mankind should therefore preserve itself.
For Hobbes, Natural Liberty means absolute rationality beyond moral criticism to further
one's survival. Locke says the State of Liberty is not a State of License. Natural liberty is no
more than the liberty to do what the Law of Nature allows, which does not go beyond
morality.
Locke did not think humans would automatically follow these moral laws. It would need a law
enforcer. Yet, even in a state of nature, Locke cannot accept the fact that morality without an
enforcer is in vain. Therefore, there is a natural right for every person to punish others who
go against morality. This is different from self-defense. If there is a sovereign, its behavior is
sanctioned by the same Law of Nature. Locke’s reasoning has a lot of theological arguments
that Hobbes’ does not have. Hobbes would probably say this right to punish others would not
be used outside something of a state.
Hobbes says things are scarce, whereas Locke says nature provides richly. It would be
preferable if everyone took their share and keep to it, assuming everyone is reasonable. Yet,
some unreasonable individuals could ruin everything.
The main problem is not the fight over goods, but the differing opinions on what justice looks
like. Locke thinks that man wanted more land for himself than necessary only when money
was invented and the multiplication of wealth made land scarce, thus leading to disputes (not
necessarily war).
Rousseau
Human beings are driven by self-preservation, but that is not the end of the story. Rousseau
believes we have compassion, which acts as a powerful constraint on the drives that might
,lead to attack and war. Hobbes and Locke project the qualities of man in society onto men in
the state of nature. Rousseau says we first need to figure out how a man acts in a natural
state, and how that might in some aspects be preferable to modern society. The
development of art and sciences corrupted man.
Like Hobbes, Rousseau says rights have no place in a natural society, thus disagreeing with
Locke. Unlike both Hobbes and Nature, he claims we avoid harming others because we
have an aversion to harming.
Self-preservation and pity can be mutually exclusive in situations. This would lead to double
suffering, we would be in a state of war and suffer greatly because of it. Rousseau goes
around this problem by denying that man is greedy, and saying most goods one needs can
be acquired by hunting instead of stealing. Man would survive alone, as compassion does
not lead to family unions, the savage desires food, sexual satisfaction, sleep, and an
aversion to hunger and pain.
The savage has no desire for glory or power.
The only aspects that distinguish the natural man in Rousseau’s vision from wild beasts are
1) free will and 2) capacity for self-improvement.
Rousseau sees innovation as the primary response to scarcity instead of Hobbesian
competition. Tool-making awakens man’s pride and intelligence. Cooperation leads to
humanity, love, and affection. Due to leisure time, luxury goods emerge, which leads to
corrupted needs. As nationalism and languages emerge, so do pride, shame, and passion.
The real rot sets in when agriculture and metallurgy are created, leading to poverty,
dependence, jealousy, inequality, and the slavery of the poor. Thus we arrive at war.
Anarchism
Some take it further than Rousseau, saying a state is not necessary at all. There are,
according to anarchists, countless examples of uncorked cooperation among human beings.
Most of the time, cooperation is rational. Hobbes says competition and exploitation are also
rational, and they can infest all ‘good’ rationality.
One response to this would be something along the lines of Rousseau’s argument:
governments have corrupted us. But then, if we are all good, how can an oppressive state
come into existence? According to anarchists, this is the work of a small number of greedy
individuals who have seized power, thus, we are not all naturally good.
Anarchists say some authority is needed, and discipline and expertise are important in times
of peace and war.
Yet, the more realistic the world- and man's view of society becomes, the more an
anarchist's approach looks like that of liberal democracy.
2 Justifying the State
We have no alternative to the state, and that is its most prominent justification. This is not
enough, we need an argument that says why we have a moral duty to obey the state.
According to Locke, every individual is free, and cannot just be stolen of their authority by
another. Following this, a sovereign only has authority if you agree with it. Locke values
autonomy and freedom for each individual.
, Bentham speaks of a different focus point, namely happiness and utility. In this optic,
consent to a state is meaningless, only the degrees of happiness a state garners its subjects
are relevant.
What is a state? Defining it is hard, yet there are some aspects on which most explanations
agree. States possess political power and a monopoly on legitimate violence. Besides,
states accept responsibility to protect inhabitants from illegitimate violence.
Yet no state can live up to this ideal.
The task of a justification of the state is to show that there are political obligations. This
means people need to obey the law for the sake of it. All people must obey the law, but
sometimes the state exempts certain people from certain laws.
The social contract
Voluntarism (Locke): political power over me can only be created as a consequence of my
voluntary acts. No one has duties unless they have voluntarily undertaken them. To explain
the worth of a state from a voluntaristic standpoint means one does not simply explain what
good a state can bring about, but how every individual has given the state authority over
them.
Some say it was a literal ‘original contract’ between the first state and its subjects, but that
seems unlikely- both practically and physically. Even if it exists, it cannot bind future
generations.
One can say consent for the social contract is shown through the ballot box. Yet, some who
vote against the government might do so because they oppose the whole system, their vote
does therefore not translate to consent.
Locke said that tacit consent is given when subjects accept the state’s protection and other
benefits. According to Hume, residence alone cannot be construed as consent.
Rousseau says residence constitutes consent, but only in a free state. There, leaving is
simple enough.
We have to, in modern times, agree with Hume, because it is very hard to just leave a state
when you disagree with its regime.
We could also argue that the social contract is hypothetical, it describes what we would have
done in the state of nature. Because the state exists, we made a rational decision to bring it
about, which we would do again. This justifies the state because all individuals would choose
to create it as well. Yet because this contract agreement is hypothetical, it will not satisfy the
demands of social contract theory.
We could create parameters of states that are worthy of our consent. Here the features of
states, not our consent, provide the main basis of its justification.
We could also try to reconstruct hypothetical contract theory in voluntaristic terms. This
means we believe that everyone would consent if asked right now, it's just that no one has
been asked formally. In this interpretation, the point of the hypothetical contract argument is
to reveal dispositional consent: an as-yet-unexpressed attitude of consent.
