Chapter 2 Flashcards
What is negative justification?
“We choose this because we cannot think of anything better.”
Why did Locke disagree with the justification of the state?
people are naturally independent - if something has power over someone then they must consent to it
What is utilitarian theory
we should aim to maximize the total sum of happiness in society
What is the utilitarian argument for the state?
- it can provide more total happiness than any alternative - consenting to it doesn’t matter if it max’s happiness
What did Jeremy Bentham think about autonomy and happiness?
Bentham primarily valued happiness OVER autonomy
How did Locke define political power?
the right to make laws and enforce punishment
What do all / most states have in common? (2 things)
- A legitimate monopoly of violence/coercion so that people follow the law.
- A state protects everyone within its borders
According to Max Weber, why do we accept the state a monopoly to legitimate violence?
in exchange for protection we sacrifice autonomy
The task of justifying the state is often said to be the task of …
proving that there are universal political obligations
what do political obligations refer too?
duty to the state, obeying the law, fighting for the state, behaving patriotically (OBEYING THE LAW)
obeying the law because it is a law and there is not a moral obligation to do so is called a
political obligation
Justifying the state usually means
Proving that there are universal political obligations
Give an example of when law and morality coincide
people are usually opposed to murder and it’s also illegal
Locke had the idea that political power cannot be exercised over someone unless
they have consented to it
What is voluntarism?
Locke’s idea - consenting to the state to be politically obligated
Even if people are better off with the existence of the state, what would Locke say about political obligation?
People only should follow political obligations if they consent to it
What are the twin universal demands to justifying the state?
- Every person must be politically obligated (obey the law)
- Everyone must consent to the existence of the state and forfeit their natural autonomy for the collective betterment of society
What is the social contract theory?
People give up complete autonomy in the state of nature and allow a state to exist in exchange for peace and protection
In which two cases is consent to be governed obviously given?
- When you vote
- Participatory democracy , both these instances satisfy both demands of justifying the state
What is tacit consent? (in terms of consent to be governed)
by quietly enjoying the protection of the state and it’s other benefits people are tacitly consenting to being governed
What did David Hume have to say about tacit consent?
tacit consent is a shit argument for the justification of the state because there is no way for people to withdraw, so they are forced to consent
Explain the hypothetical contract to governance argument?
This argument tells us that if we found ourselves without a state, hypothetically we would collectively find it rational to form a state as soon as we realized how miserable life would be without it
A good way to figure out your relationship with something is to:
imagine your life without it
What are the limitations to the hypothetical contract argument?
hypothetical contract you still have not consented to governance
and only realized that life is better with government
What is meant by Universalism
EVERYONE has political obligations
What is the modern anarchist position?
people must completely consent to governance
What do Anarchists believe about law?
we don’t need it because morality already requires it
If we accept the anarchist argument the only reason we have to obey the state is
fear of punishment
The philosophy of anarchy is that
- a responsible citizen should not blindly follow the law
extreme end of anarchist belief
one should not obey the law unless it perfectly acccords with ones moral judgement
what is the fundamental theorem of utilitarianism?
the morally correct action in any situation is the one that brings the highest sum of utility
What is the problem of interpersonal comparison of utility
it is impossible to compare and measure happiness because what is true for some individuals is untrue for others
to take utilitarianism seriously you need to be able to
quantify utility - for simplicity we use happiness
What did Jeremey Bentham say about obeying rulers
Only obey them so long as the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs
How does utilitarian logic sanction law breaking
so long as increasing your happiness through robbing someone increases more than theirs decreases
Jeremy Bentham’s position of the utilitarian justification of the state (3)
- Laws should be passed if they contribute to more human happiness than competing laws or the absence of laws would do
- The state and the state of nature are the only two alternatives we have
Therefore: - We have a moral duty to bring about AND support the state
Explain the scapegoat objection to utilitarianism
it will hypothetically bring more happiness to society to falsely imprison innocent men for a terrorist attack if it brings artificial peace of mind to the populace.
What is the consequence to the scapegoat objection?
It is morally correct to punish the innocent
Ultimately utilitarianism is does NOT fully justify the state
because of the scapegoat objection will lead to a chaotic society and less utility
What is the modern anarchist position?
an individual has to completely consent to governance
What do Anarchists believe about law?
Often times, morality independently requires what the law requires, so we don’t need the law.
If we accept the anarchist argument the only reason we have to obey the state is
fear of punishment
The philosophy of anarchy is that
no government
extreme end of anarchist belief
one should not obey the law unless it perfectly acccords with ones moral judgement
what is the fundamental theorem of utilitarianism?
the morally correct action in any situation is the one that brings the highest sum of utility
to take utilitarianism seriously you need to be able to
quantity utility - for simplicity we use happiness
What is the problem of interpersonal comparison of utility
it is impossible to compare and measure happiness because what is true for some individuals is untrue for others
What did Jeremey Bentham say about obeying rulers
Only obey them so long as the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs
How does utilitarian logic sanction law breaking
so long as increasing your happiness through robbing someone increases more than theirs decreases
Jeremy Bentham’s position of the utilitarian justification of the state (3)
- Laws should be passed if they contribute to more human happiness than competing laws or the absence of laws would do
- The state and the state of nature are the only two alternatives we have
Therefore: - We have a moral duty to bring about AND support the state
Explain the scapegoat objection to utilitarianism
it will hypothetically bring more happiness to society to falsely imprison innocent men for a terrorist attack if it brings artificial peace of mind to the populace.
What is the consequence to the scapegoat objection?
It is morally correct to punish the innocent
Ultimately utilitarianism is does NOT fully justify the state
because of the scapegoat objection will lead to a chaotic society
How to fix utilitarian theory
Grant people individual rights for example - not to be punished unless truly guilty
What is the principle of fairness (in justifying the state)
Anyone who gains an advantage from the state has a duty of fairness to be politically obligated (follow laws and pay taxes)
What did HLA Hart say about the principle of fairness?
Hart’s principle is that EVERYONE benefits from the existence of the state and therefore it follows that in fairness to everyone else each of us should obey the laws of the country.
What does Hume say about following the law?
obeying law in long run is in everyone best interest = utility max thru societal prosperity
Hume points out: if it is in our best interest to obey the law, WHY do we need to be forced into obedience over fear of punishment?
His answer is that humans are irrational
Hume’s view: even though it is in our best interest to obey the law
we are more likely to prefer the short-term lesser benefit which will come from disobedience
In Hume’s view, how can we make obeying the law a short term AND long term interest?
FEAR OF PUNISHMENT! In the long run obeying the law = prosperous society, in the short run obeying the law = not going to ja
Explain the fairness principle
anyone who benefits from society has a moral obligation to consent to the state because it would be unfair otherwise
Flaw of the fairness principle and consent theory
we cannot stop the acceptance of the benefits of living under the state from becoming automatic
