Migration, Citizenship and Identity Summary
Week 1 - The Constitution of Utopia
Lecture
Consequentialist moral reasoning: locates moralities in the consequences of an act (it’s ok to that
one dies, if it saves five); or the greatest good for the greatest number.
Locates morality in consequences of an act
Utilitarian approach: actions should be able to balance out right and wrong/good and bad
What is important is what remains: the (end) result of your actions
Categorical moral reasoning: individual rights are important, not matter what the consequences
(doctor may not kill a healthy patient; even if it saves five or more persons: the case for individual
(human) rights and/or minority rights) → would not treat any individual differently
Locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements in certain categorical duties and
rights regardless of the consequences
There are certain things that are categorically wrong even if these acts would bring about a
good/better result
Morality is NOT about calculating consequences. We should act out of duty – doing
something simply because it is the right things to do so – only then do our actions have moral
worth.
Three different political philosophies:
1. Egalitarian liberalism: All individuals should enjoy basic liberties as they are morally equal.
Inequalities are legitimate if, and only if, they benefit the worst off in society. People should
have enough and good resources; everyone has an equal starting point.
Theory of justice is liberal in so far it defends fundamental individual rights. They tend to
protect the individuals from the ‘tyranny’ of the majority - liberals tend to defend the
fundamentals rights of individuals. rights of the individuals
- Theory is egalitarian in so far it assumes that all individual are morally equal and mandates
an extensive distribution of material resources (income and wealth), towards those who have
fewer such sources → disagree on the extent to which inequality matters
- right of an individual to have a political voice
2. Communitarianism: rights of the group are taken into the highest regards → in some
situations. Individuals cannot detach themselves from society in which they live. A just
society is NOT one which treats its member according to some universal principles, but rathe
defines communal values. Therefore, the assignment of rights (and equality) should primarily
be beneficial for the community/group, instead of being based on a personal level.
3. Libertarians: seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state’s
encroachment on and violations of individual liberties. Importance of self-ownership. The
individual makes his/her own choices in life and should have the absolute freedom to do so.
Minimal form of government to protect basic freedoms of life, health, liberty and property.
Dilemma Russian Revolutionaries in Britain
lack of political representation → no parliament so had no other option
What does John Locke mean by ‘state of nature’? And what is the role of
government in this 'state of nature'?
State of Nature
absence of government
represents the beginning of a process in which a state for a liberal, constitutional government is
formed.
Beyond self-preservation, the law of nature, or reason, teaches that all mankind are equal and
independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions.
,A condition where humans, despite being independent and equal respected the laws of nature.
a state of perfect equality with naturally no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another and
everyone has a right to do so.
how every man is completely free and equal and that nothing should really infringe on that. You are
responsible for your own rights. Everyone can do what they want without interfering in the freedom
of others.
There is a maker who creates a perfect society. The maker is powerful so therefore can create this
perfect society (would not make an imperfect one). Everyone is doing its own thing and not
interfering with anyone → perfect aim/vision of the maker.
Why do people leave the ‘state of nature’ and join a political society by establishing
a government?
As soon as you do interfere with any other lives, you are to leave the ‘state of nature’. The
hypothetical way of life that existed before people organized themselves into societies.
Individuals agree to form a commonwealth (leaving state of nature) in order to institute an impartial
power capable of arbitrating their disputes and redressing injuries.
Drive: self-preservation and a desire for material goods and wealth (?)
state of nature contains ability to become ‘unsafe’ and dangerous, and as a result man gets a
desire to surrender the way he lives so he can join a society
Locke tries to account for imperfect people → some people are perfect
How does Locke define property?
Property (John Locke)
How did you get to own things: everything you do with your hands, that means that it is yours.
If you mix the common (God) with your own labor, it is yours
If you pick the apple from the tree, the apple is yours but not the tree. But in what degree?
inequality is justifiable
the owning of stuff (property) and he wants to create a government that rules that owning of stuff and
property
I possess something, under what circumstances is it actually my property:
When you acquire something that does not belong to someone, and you take it becomes part of
your body unquestionably becomes yours.
Your labor, work makes something your property
Problems:
- You can only gather as much as you are needed no right to waste property
- There has to be enough left over for others are not allowed to monopolize things
What are unalienable (natural) rights according to Locke, and why is it important,
according to Locke, to define unalienable rights?
All individuals are equal and born with certain ‘inalienable’ natural rights.
Rights that are God-given and can never be taken or given away
- Life
- Liberty
, - Property
The preservation of individual rights is one of the driving reasons for entering into the social contract.
Social contract theorists:
- Obeying laws is justified and motivated by an agreement by all members of society
- All members of society agree to give up some of their power of discretion and natural
independence to be members of an organized society
o Individuals can expect their rights to be respected more stable life than without a
government.
Under what conditions can a government be dissolved?
- By conquest: assuming control of a society or government by force
- By usurpation: domestic conquest. Usurper (one who tries to assume another’s power as their
own) is illegitimate because no one can come ‘into possession of what another has right to’.
- By tyranny: Exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have right to operates
without consent of people without consent = illegitimate
All are perpetrated without the consent of the people (illegitimate).
Do you agree with Locke’s general ideas/concepts regarding individuals and
government? Why?
Government existed, among other things, to promote public good, and to protect the life, liberty and
property of its people. Those who govern must be elected by society, and the society must hold the
power to instate new government when necessary.
If Locke were alive today, what would he say regarding the expectations and
demands we have for our government? Are we asking our government to do too
much OR not enough? Explain your answer.
If Locke were alive today, he would likely argue that people's expectations and demands we have for
our government should be limited to the protection of their natural rights and the common good. He
would likely argue that governments should not be expected to do too much or too little, but rather
only what is necessary to fulfill their purpose. Locke’s ideas towards government are focused on the
idea that the government should not have the dominating power of one’s individual rights. The
individual in this context, is an important player that should be able to have a say - and to some degree
control - its government. Locke might argue that the government is interfering too much in terms of
being involved in aspects that go beyond the protection of human rights (such as life, property and
liberty). However, in today’s society, Locke might find that the government is doing too little in
regards to protecting the individuals and the wellbeing of individuals. This with regards to the
increased poverty, healthcare and environmental degradation
Are the expectations placed on the government by the people unfair and unrealistic,
so much so that the government is in a no-win situation? If possible, provide an
example or two to support your stance and opinion.
The question of whether the expectations placed on governments by people are unfair and unrealistic
is a matter of debate and can depend on a number of factors. Some might argue that expectations are
unrealistic because they ignore the limitations of government and the resources available to it. Others
might argue that expectations are too low and that governments should be doing more to address
social and economic issues.
Here are two examples to support each stance:
, Unfair and unrealistic expectations:
a) Providing free college education to all citizens: Some might argue that the expectation that
the government should provide free college education to all citizens is unrealistic because it
would be incredibly expensive and might not be feasible for the government to provide.
b) Eradicating poverty: Another example could be the expectation that the government should
eradicate poverty, as poverty is a complex issue that is caused by a variety of factors, many of
which are beyond the control of the government.
Too low expectations:
a) Providing universal health care: Some might argue that the expectation that the government
should provide universal health care is too low, as access to quality health care is a
fundamental right that should be available to all citizens.
b) Protecting the environment: Another example could be the expectation that the government
should protect the environment, as environmental degradation has a significant impact on
public health and the quality of life of citizens.
Legislative Power
The Legislative Power is that which has a right to direct how the Force of the Commonwealth shall be
employed for preserving the Community and the Members of it.
This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in
the hands where the community have once placed it.
1. cannot be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of people → no one has the absolute
arbitrary power over himself or any other people. the power is limited to the public good of
the society. he uses the preservation and therefore can never a right to destroy → everyone
needs to be conformable to the law of nature and will of God → law has to reflect to what the
people want and have the people’s consent
2. he definitely wants to have standing laws
the power to make laws for the common good and to direct the actions of the executive in accordance
with those laws.
He argues that the legislative power must be representative and derive its authority from the
consent of the governed
He also states that the legislative body must be limited in its powers and subject to the
constraints of the laws of nature and the protection of individual rights
regard the state of nature to be the highest power of law.
people cannot interfere in other people’s lives
create governmental institution that protects the people’s rights
The State of War (Locke)
you own your property, someone threatening your property (could be threatening your
life/food/property) → you would have the right to kill somebody because they threatened your
property
Property = rights
Rights = property
When does the state of war end? → can be endless but it can also be a situation that can be resolved
relatively easy
When do the laws connect to the state of nature
Law is good that is created by a government that is created with consent (body politic)
