HOPT1 Flashcards
Four theoretical problems of Epistemocracy
- On what (objective) grounds is somebody thought qualified to lead?
What skills/competencies/knowledge are required?
Much of the Republic devoted to explaining education of philosopher-kings - a) who gets to decide (1) and b) who monitors the admission?
In Republic, experts self-select (cooptation)
Requires strong public ethos and ability to select [and breed!] for competence - Even if 1-2 can be met, why think ruling experts will be accepted by the rest?
(Legitimacy/authority problem) - Will experts rule fairly/impartially in public interest?
Epistemocracy
rulling of the experts
Platonic criticisms of democracy in the Ship of State
- democracy brings disorder and disunity
- reign of the false
- direct democracy generates dissensus because everybody can have a say and the ambitious, who hope to rule, will use flattery of the people in order to enrich themselves.
- the reality of value pluralism
- self-rule always generates overconfidence in all the would be rulers, is probably too strong.
Value pluralism
existence of conflicting & incompatible values. Plato thinks that it is a consequence of the product of the diversity and inconstancy of human desires/appetites and the lack of regulation of these in a commercial democracy such as Athens. Max Weber by contrast, thinks value-pluralism is a product/effect of modernity, especially advanced division of labor which generates conflicting interests and perspectives.
What does the Greek term ‘politeia’ mean?
‘Constitution’
Aristotle viewed it as the theory of finding balance among various legitimate forces in a state.
What is Plato’s view on the relationship between knowledge and politics?
Knowledge is the root of salvation, while ignorance is the root of perdition.
What was the focus of the Sophists in their teachings?
They taught worldly success for success in lawcourts and debates.
How did Socrates view rhetoric?
As the art of presenting a case to an audience, regardless of its intrinsic merits.
What does philosophy aim to achieve according to the text?
To understand things as they really are, beyond appearances.
True or False: Socrates believed that the pursuit of self-interest leads to true success.
bFalse
Socrates insists that slef ointerest is an illusion. What appears to be the successful pursuit of self-interest is nothing of the sort. The only thing worth having is a just soul. To bring about the death of your enemies and the confiscation of their property by unjust means is not success, but inner death. A man who had behaved like that and knew his real interests would wish to be punished for his crimes, not to get away with them
What is the significance of justice for its possessor?
Justice is good for its possessor, regardless of external circumstances.
According to Aristotle, what is the best form of governance?
Aristocracy, but preferable is politea
What does Aristotle criticize about democracy?
It leads to mob rule and serves the interests of ‘the poor many’.
What defines a direct democracy as practiced in Athens?
The people rule through majorities without representatives.
What were the roles of the boulē in Athenian democracy?
- Set the agenda for the assembly
- Oversaw the Athenian bureaucracy
- Served as the main jury/judges in trials
What was the outcome of the Peloponnesian War for Athens?
Defeat and internal strife, leading to the Thirty Tyrants.
What analogy does Plato use to criticize democracy?
The ship analogy, where the ship-owner represents the people and the unruly sailors represent ambitious politicians.
What is a demagogue?
A leader of the demos/people, often unprincipled and flattering.
A demagogue can persuade the masses that his ersatz/fake-political craft is, in fact, the real thing. The rejection of political expertise is bad enough, but the embrace of the demagogue’s fake-skill as the real thing corrupts – presumably by undermining trust and by generating confusion about what it is – the very idea of political expertise.
The true skill of a demagogue consists in overturning pre-existing opinions.
The demagogue’s true danger: by making everybody complicit in a reign of falsity, he undermines the habits of thought and reasonable expectations.
What is the basic democratic idea according to Aristotle?
Nobody is better than anybody else; everyone has equal claim to participate and rule politically.
True or False: Aristotle believed elections were the most democratic form of governance.
False
what enabled the idea of philosopher kings
philosophers are kings is the thought of a man who believed that knowledge was the root of salvation and ignorance the root of perdition.
(why Plato was convinced that lack of knowledge was the issue rather than greed, anger, or the other dangerous emotions to which we are prey. Alcibiades’s ambition rather than his ignorance seems the more obvious place to start; he was an excellent student of philosophy but a political menace.)
narrow democracy
narrow democracy -> a more restrictive version of the democracy that Cleisthenes had instituted, where the lowest social class was not yet permitted to hold most offices; conversely, an expanded aristocracy would be a system in which the requirements of birth and wealth were not as onerous as oligarchical parties wanted to institute.
> too restrictive a constitution arouses resentment; too broad a constitution also does . Somewhere in the middle ground lies the answer= politea?
the aim of philosophy
to understand things as they really are, no matter how they may appear; it is the deceptiveness of appearances that makes philosophy necessary. Philosophy is the art of seeing through appearances to discern the hidden reality.
At the end of the discussion with Gorgias, Socrates says that rhetoric is not a skill at all; it serves no useful purpose and achieves nothing that assists human existence.
what does the cave analogy refer to
philosophers must come into the city and help govern, for only people who have seen darkness al their lives dont know what is truth
how does plato define justice?
- A just and good action is the one that brings about this state of mind, and that wisdom is the knowledge that directs this action.
- The unjust action is anything that doesnt preserve the state of mind, in which the opinion of ignorance dictates the action. Injustice is a civil war between the 3 elements, a refusal to mind their own business, a determination to mind eachothers’, a rebelion by one part ofnthe soul against the whole.
- a just person minds its own business and does its thing, but at the same time is internally satisfied with it
- Justice is understood as the familiar (if still undefined) value that leads men to keep promises, tell the truth, do their duty, and obey the laws.
counter arguments from the republic
Justice means doing good to friends and harm to enemies
BUT harming someone means making him worse, says Socrates, and the point of justice cannot be to make someone worse-> Punishment may be disliked by the people who suffer it, but if it is justly imposed it does not harm them, because it does not make them worse.
counter arguments from the republic
Justice is what in the interest of the strongest
Socrates gets him to agree first that subjects are obliged to obey their rulers, which is to say that they behave justly in doing so; he next gets him to agree that rulers sometimes make mistakes about their interests. Putting the two premises together yields the conclusion that it is sometimes just for subjects to do what is not in the interests of the stronger. In other words, it is just not to be just, which is simply incoherent.
Antipolitical aspects of the Republic
- Usually, the existence of government ensures that individuals are treated justly: that they are not robbed or assaulted, that their property is secure, and that their lives are regulated by rules rather than the whims of the powerful. Law vanishes in Plato’s Republic. Once philosopher-kings rule, the conflicts that law regulates vanish. So therefore does a central aspect of justice.
- A second and related sense of justice in political contexts concerns the fair allocation of power—whether the wellborn or the many should rule, for instance. Plato answers that question: philosophers must rule, and nobody can have any interest in having his affairs run by the ignorant and ill informed, even if that includes himself. The idea that “the many” might have a legitimate interest in running their own lives just because they wish to is not one Plato entertains. This is an unpolitical politics, because the idea of legitimate but conflicting interests has no place.
The Golden Lie
“Golden Lie”: we shall tell the populace that we are born with various metals in our souls and that our social position reflects the preponderance of these metals. This is the Golden Lie, the necessary myth. He assumes as a premise that we are naturally suited to different sorts of social roles, and that one of many things wrong with democratic Athens is that the wrong people end up occupying positions of power.
How are Plato’s rulers living?
Plato’s guardians have no property; they have no families. Their children are the children of the whole class; Plato argues that in the absence of money or private property they will see the whol polis as “theirs” and will think only in collective terms.
What is the great education programme?
poets will be garlanded and loaded with honors, escorted to the city boundaries, and sent to ply their trade elsewhere. There will be poetry, drama, and dance in early education, but it will be on decidedly Spartan principles. (Art is a double misrepresentation, since it paints deceitful pictures of what is already a deceitful picture.)
Isegoria
the equal right of all qualified citizens to speak in the Assembly; Athenian democrats thought they particularly possessed.
when will a state become democratic?
The oligarchical state is not one state but two, the state of the rich and the state of the poor, at war with each other. The inevitable revolution ushers in democracy.
City of Pigs
true city
- divison of labour to suply all of the needs
- this division causes political life
- generates surplus of goods and leasure
lowkey libertarian utopia with no luxury!
- monetized economy
- broadly egalitarian
- no slaves
- pacifistic (will be left alone)
- minimal state structure
BUT
no philosophy, religion, luxury or arts
-> harmony and unity= normative model
Luxury= disease if you desire it
Eleuthera
This had the more general meaning of having no master, not being enslaved. It was eleutheria that the Greeks defended against the Persians.
methodological individualism
explanation of the whole/ aggregate must appeal to propreties in individuals of the population
Plato on human nature
- innate differences
- inheritable
- the division of labour reflects these differences
- reflect a natural hierarchy
- there is a hierarchy in both sexes and its relativley symetrical
Kallipolis
lovley city
**there are 3 classes: **
- guardians (rulers)
- auxilaries (soldiers)
- workers (economy)
**Thoughts: **
- this is a natural hiercarchy
- needes to be ordered from the top
- soul is made from: the rational, spirited and desiring part. this coincides with the natural class.
- in the hierarchy, for the rulers reason should order the other parts
more on control mechanisms
Civic religion
- shared narratives, habbitds, shared history/ symbols, civic festivals
- this promotes the conceptuon of the good/ truth
- order and structure
- ordinary people are incapable of understanding the truth so the rulers must rely on images of the truth
cave analogy?
more on Kallipolis
which mechanisms do the rulers use to control masses?
- civic religion
- religion and cencorship
- noble lies
- education
more on control mechanisms
religion and censorship
about education and the narrative about gods and how there needs to be a religion rationalisation reform
more on control mechanisms
noble lies
convince both rulers and the citizens that they should die for the nation-> not necessarly propaganda but it is to defend the survivail of the state
more on control mechanisms
education
- education is the perfection of human nature
- a bad education makes you worse
- not about the content, but about shaping moral cvharacter (from normal desires to hte eternal desires)
on ruling
Law, force and persuasion
Law: should not benefit one classs; the purpose of bringing the city together and in making harmony; is not neutral but has the aim for harmony;
Force: instrument of political unity
Persuation: has to persuade not just force punishments
the law should force and persuade at the same time
communism for the soldiers/ rulers
- no proprety
- no luxeries
- shared space
- rather than proprety they are honoured with recognition and honour= incentives matter
on why philosophers should rule
tacid contract
the polity supplies benefits and if you do not emigrate, and so continue to benefit (that is, show compliance to the terms of the contract), the state can demand/oblige compliance to the laws in return.
so if the city does not odder back, nobody would comply-> good cities have philosophers as rulers
resons for the rule of philosophers
- philosophy as an addictive practice that prevents one from desiring political participation/power
- one can use force= consequentialist argument
eugenics
- the best reproduce with the best
- rigged lotery for elite matching
- negative programme of abortion
what is the actual lesson from the plato’s cave?
to have true knowledge is to understand the causal mechanism not just the preception of it
Alfarabi
types of longing
from sensation, from imagination and the third one from reason-> choice (the 3rd one is only for humans)
when does voluntary good happen?
when the rational part does everything that would create happiness
when does a human generate evil?
When a human being is not focused on perfecting its theoretical-rational part, he is not conscious of happiness and doesnt want it and he is doing stuff that are useful, pleasant full of honor, not necessary happiness -> he longs for the appetitive-> he generates evil
if smbdy is doing something for happiness but doesnt have it as an end goal, si prosta are ca scop final altceva decat fericirea, atunci tot ce face el is evil.
wise vs the faithful
Those who pursue happiness as as they form a concept of it and accept the principles as they form a concept of them are the wise, whereas those in whose souls these things are found as they are imagined and accept/ pursue them as though they are like that are the faithful
A person can either create concepts for what surrounds him or imagine a concept that can represent something that surrounds him (actual human being vs statue of it)
types of shitass cities
- The ignorant city (more below)
- The wayward cities (citizens apprehended god and religion but failed to practically live by it)
- The erring city (citizens failed to philosofise correctly, and believed in false gods and followed false prophets)
- Perverted cities (have once been on the correct path diverted from rightousness)
more on the ignorant city
- The necessary city: There is a mutual assistance for earning what is necessary to constitute and safeguard bodies
- The Plutocratic city : where nothing but love/ greed for wealth dictates what constitutes bodies. Here people assist one another in obtaining wealth and prosperity on exaggerated levels to what they actually need
- The Hedonostic city : where ppl assist one another in enjoyment of sensual pleasures (food, drink, sexual intercourse) which are gained through the use of power and are happening of ascale that no one else gaines in respect to quantity or quality
- The Democratic city: where each of the inhabitants does as it likes and all are equal to one another. The ruler rules as long as he enhaces personal freedom
! no one is more deserving of rulership than another. So when a rulership is surrendered to someone it is either because the inhabitants chose that personor nthey took money/ recompenses from him-> there is nobody better at ruling than somebody else in a democratic city? What about the philosopher king/ Mohamed? Or the people really good in philosophy and sciences that know the truth? Can they not be also elected?
According to him the one virtuous in truth cannot be chosen by the ppl. But there is a higher chanc eof being ruled by a virtuous person in the democrati city than in the other ignorant cities.
According to Al-Ghazali
sins of the philosophers
- At last judgment only immaterial souls are rewarded & punished;
no resurrection of the body. - God only knows universals (reason and knowledge) not individuals (corruptable and temporary)
- The world is eternal (no creation)
these are at odds with Islam, they are also politically salient because they undermine morality and law
political theology
the ways in which theological concepts or ways of thinking relate to (and shape) politics
-> Can be found wherever state/society/ideology presupposes claims about the nature of reality (ontology) and where religion/theology is influential
Carl Schmidt on political theology
concepts of (modern) politics are secularized versions of theological concepts.
sharia
the foundation of Jurisprudence (theory of law or philosophy of law, is the examination in a general perspective of what law is and what it ought to be)-> the law in practice= Sharia and Figh (Jurisprudence and analogical reasoning)
Elective monarchy
leaders decide who should be the ruler (the split between shunii and shias happened because they thought different on who should be in charge after Mohamed died)
Umah
political community based
on religious kinship, aspires to be caliphate
caliphate
islamic form of govenrment in which political and religious leadership is united and the head of state (Caliph) is a succesor of prophet Muhammed
Al-Farabi
Religion
any legistlation a leader imposes on a polity
Anyting that would make a political community work well is a virtuous/ true religion (we call this civic religion)
religion is for the masses
philosophy is dor the few intelectual elite
how is the virtuous state?
- The Virtuous/Best State aims for the happiness and flourishing of all citizens, not just the elite.
- Inspired by Plato, it is a hierarchically ordered unity where individuals have roles based on cognitive and bodily abilities.
- Governed as a theocratic epistemocracy, led by a Philosopher-ruler (imam) who possesses theoretical and practical truth.
- Embraces Aristotle’s view that humans are social-political animals.
- The best version of the virtuous polity is a multi-national empire rather than just a city or country.
- Religion plays a key role in guiding ordinary people toward virtue, but falsehoods must be eradicated.
- Advocates for scientific education to help citizens recognize and prevent false religions (Book of Religion).
main ideas of Al-Farabi
- different reigions can represent the same truth differently
Al-Farabi = Using Platonic doctrines, Religious Pluralist - Religion is exoteric doctrine for the masses, because it enables to explain what they cab’t understand using stories and metaphors
- the more you practice happiness the better and more perfect you become, and as it is independent from material needs, when they disappear your soul remains the same.
- If there is a soul that is sick and thinks of itself as virtuous than it will never reach perfection and will always remain material. Thus, when the material perishes, the soul is nullified as well
in the quran some verses are clear but some are allegorical, meaning that nobody but Allah understands them
how is a virtuous leader?
- revelation as intelectual transfer bewteen God and the Leader
- contents from the revelation-> means to be a leader
- the true leader is divine eithout being God
al farabi democracy
more flourishing, trade, freedom, religion, multi-cultural, consmopolitan society where several religions can function together-> pathway to the true religion
Ibn Rushd on feminism
- Women are socially infantilized and deemed politically incompetent due to deliberate societal structures.
- Plato’s idea: the soul can have a different gender than the body, suggesting an early sex/gender distinction.
- Society actively prevents female political participation, limiting education and opportunities.
- This results in huge economic opportunity costs for both women and the state.
Ibn Rushd, like Plato and Al-Farabi, rejects wealth as the state’s main goal, yet uses self-interest arguments to advocate for reform, even if not considering it the ideal system.
Do Holy books teach politics?
Yes. Al- Ghazali says that political theory of the philosofers is mostly public policy copied from Holy Books, but are okay to read. Thus means that Holy Books teach politics.
Plato on feminism
Assumes there are innate differences
* These are largely heritable (some
chance)
* These differences reflect natural
hierarchy.
* The hierarchy is present in both sexes,
and symmetrical in them
* Best women are as excellent as best
men
* Platonic feminism: (i) denies natural
(and moral!) equality of human
beings. But, claims that (ii) any
privileges and obligations you give to
leading men must also be offered to
leading women.
Mandate of Heaven
- Rulers are chosen by Heaven but can lose legitimacy if they fail morally.
- No separation between sacred and political power.
- Heaven represents the will of the people, not divine intervention.
= rulers legitimacy= a way for the heaven to say what the people want
The Shi Class
- The shi (“men in service”) rose as expert advisors.
- Confucius taught that nobility comes from virtue, not birth.
- Self-optimization is achieved through public service.
Confucian values
Li (Ritual Conduct): Ensures order in society & personal discipline.
Ren (Empathy): Foundation of human relationships & social harmony.
Yi (Righteousness): Doing what is right over personal gain.
The Sage
is the Chinese symbol for a perfected human. being with penetrating wisdom and all-embracing benevolence. He is most powerful but doesn’t act and leaves everything to ministers and laws, for a great person is in control by doing nothing and going with the flow of nature. He finds the Way (dao) and then stays as a symbol while everybody follows the rules, guided by the bureaucracy. (british monarchy) The ruler is like a scale, it establishes equilibrium but in itself it does nothing. The law is enough.
how should a moral government behave?
A humane ruler fosters a harmonious society.
People are shaped by their rulers—good governance creates good citizens.
Family & social hierarchy are key to stability.
Legalism
⚖️ Core Beliefs
Rule through fear & strict laws rather than morality.
Universal military conscription & heavy taxation to strengthen the state.
Group punishment: Families & communities are responsible for each other’s crimes.
⚖️ Han Feizi’s Legalism
Agriculture & war are the backbone of a strong state.
Written law is necessary, but intellectuals & critics should be suppressed.
The ruler is powerful by doing nothing (acting as a figurehead while enforcing laws).
Daoism and the Sage
🌿 The Sage as Ruler
A Sage is wise, benevolent, and governs without action (wu wei).
The best government follows nature & minimizes intervention.
Bureaucracy should maintain balance rather than impose order.
🌿 Daoist Influence on the Han Dynasty
Han Confucianism mixed Confucian values with Legalist rule & Daoist non-intervention.
Clans and local communities were left to govern themselves.
Mencius (Mengzi) on human nature and morality
People are naturally good, but need the right environment to flourish.
The heart has four moral sprouts:
Compassion → Benevolence
Disdain → Righteousness
Deference → Propriety
Approval/Disapproval → Wisdom
Mencius (Mengzi) on government and ethics
A ruler must prioritize people’s well-being.
Wealth & power are less important than righteousness.
Meritocracy should be encouraged, but family obligations remain central.
Mozi (confucian critic) on universal love
Heaven is impartial and wants prosperity for all.
Violence & harm stem from favoritism & inequality.
A just society is built when everyone treats others as themselves.
Mozi (confucian critic) on governance
The Son of Heaven (ruler) unifies morality & laws.
A hierarchy ensures order:
Son of Heaven → Imperial Ministers → Feudal Lords → Governors.
Merit over birthright – the worthy should be honored regardless of status.
Mozis consequentialism
🔵 Key Principles:
Material prosperity (economic well-being)
Population growth (encouraging large families, immigration)
Social order (stability through morality and governance)
🟣Empirical Claim: Acting impartially leads to good consequences.
🟡 Normative Claim: Because good consequences follow, we should act impartially.
🔴 Contrast with Confucianism:
Mozi rejects hierarchy and advocates universal love
Moral obligations should apply equally to all, not just family or rulers
Mozi on human nature
without laws its chaos and each has its own norm
Instrumental rationality
presupposes (some) knowledge of how the world operates: you must know how the world works in order to know that if you do X (the means), Y (the goal) will
follow.
Once you know how the world works, your goals are also
constrained.
aristotle four causes
- Efficient causes: which is how things are changed or come to rest (the
motion of a billiard ball on another). - Material causes: the stuff from which things are made (e.g., bronze in a
statue) - Final/teleological causes: the goal/end/telos to which things strive.
- Formal causes: the shape of things (i.e., shape of a statue; but more
abstractly the plan of the sculptor for the statue)
final causes are not all powerfull, machiaveli denies existence of a god. without them there is no idea of harmony, oeace and unity
Fortuna
chance; the power to adapt to circumstances and take precautious
mandate of heaven type shit
what is machiavelian stance on ideal republics?
he is a realist, doesn;t want to imagine ideal republics but he stays true to what is hapopening. and because the world is also evil the prince has to know how to adapt to this.
creative turbulence
- Class/social conflict → productive political innovation → wise laws
- Unintended consequence explanation!
- With wise laws good training/education → good soldiers → good order & favorable fortune → capable of surviving creative turbulence
all societies need to have a ritual for conflict. an enduring soiety must be able to manage civil conflict
virtue
the skilled ability to anticipate and respond to fortune at any time and in any way that is necessary; the strategic application of power or political insights (fox v lion)
virtue changes depending on context;
not christian or platonic!
Justifications for slavery
Natural Inequality (Aristotelian) – Some people are naturally suited to rule, while others are naturally meant to serve, as argued by Sepúlveda.
War Booty – In a justified war, taking prisoners as slaves is preferable to killing them, often targeting non-nationals, different religions, or ethnic groups, echoing Plato’s views.
Natural Necessity/Fate – Slavery is bad but inevitable for societal functioning, and who becomes a slave is a matter of luck or fate, as Seneca suggested.
Repayment & Punishment – Debt slavery involves pledging services to repay debts, while punishment-based slavery, criticized by thinkers like More, Beccaria, and Cugoano, persists in modern prison labor.
Jus ad bellum (“right to war”)
criteria that are to be consulted before
engaging in war in order to determine whether entering into war is
permissible, that is, whether it is a just war
natural vs human rights
natural= were seen as a proprety that could be sold, granted or lost
human- cannot be lost
penal slavery
punishment to agression, repay debt or damages, more okay and effective than capital punishment
rent-seeking
to increase one’s share of existing wealth by way of controlling politics (without creating new wealth)
mercantelism
advocates government regulation of international trade to generate wealth and strengthen national power.
– Often characterized by protectionism and imperialism; and
policy of trade-surpluses.
– But as Cugoano notes, also violently warlike and unjust
hobbes
Common wealth
“One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.”
leviathan?
how does a sovereign gain power?
Sovereignty by Force (Commonwealth by Acquisition) – A sovereign gains power through natural force, either by compelling submission through familial dominance (such as a father over his children) or by conquering others in war and imposing rule as a condition for their survival.
Sovereignty by Agreement (Commonwealth by Institution) – A sovereign gains power when individuals voluntarily agree to submit to a ruler or governing assembly in exchange for protection, forming a political commonwealth based on mutual consent.
There are 2 different rights dealling with a crime:
The right to punish – This belongs to everyone because it helps prevent future crimes and maintains order.
The right to compensation – This belongs only to the victim, who has the right to demand repayment for their loss.
locke
Reasons why join a society:
No clear, agreed-upon law – Even though natural law (basic moral principles) exists, people often misunderstand or ignore it when it doesn’t serve their interests. Without a common legal system, disputes are hard to settle fairly.
No neutral judge – In the state of nature, everyone acts as their own judge, leading to biased decisions. People tend to favor themselves in conflicts, act out of revenge, or ignore injustices that don’t affect them. A fair and impartial judge is needed to settle disputes.
No enforcement power – Even if someone makes a fair judgment, there’s no reliable way to enforce it. Wrongdoers can resist punishment, and without a stronger authority to uphold justice, punishing criminals can be risky or even deadly.
types of power one gives up when joining society
Legislative power-> one gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society
Executive power-> assist it as the law thereof shall require
Three causes of violence: (Competition, Diffidence/ Safety, Glory)
- The first use Violence, to make themselves Masters of other mens persons, wives, children, and cattell;
- The second, to defend them;
- The third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other signe of undervalue, either direct in their Persons, or by reflexion in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation, their Profession, or their Name.
There are creatures who live okay without coercive power, why is man not one of them?
- Humans compete for status – Unlike animals, people constantly seek honor and recognition, leading to jealousy, hatred, and ultimately war.
- Animals naturally benefit the group – Their personal survival instincts also help their species, whereas humans always compare themselves to others and only feel satisfied when they have more.
- Humans question authority – Animals accept their natural order, but people always believe they can govern better, leading to conflict, political instability, and civil war.
- Humans manipulate with words – Unlike animals, people use language to deceive, twist the truth, and create dissatisfaction, which disrupts peace.
- Humans cause problems even in comfort – Animals only care about survival, but people, once comfortable, start criticizing leaders and seeking control, creating unrest.
- Unlike animals, whose cooperation is natural, humans rely on artificial agreements (covenants) that are unstable without a strong central authority to enforce order and ensure the common good.
A covenant
is a formal agreement or contract between individuals or groups, in which both parties make mutual promises and are bound by shared obligations. In political philosophy, particularly in Hobbes’ work, a covenant refers to the social contract where people agree to submit to a sovereign authority in exchange for security and order.
a convention
Convention is a (bottom up) social institution that people find in their interest to participate in (and so consent to), and that is (also) socially useful. It is usually a tacid contract. In other words it is a fairly stable practice that we aprove because it benefits ourselves and that we see that it beenfits others.
no explicit consent is needed becasue of how we accept and institutionalize it
civil society
Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another. It is a consequence of the social contract.
modern social contract
Shared (explicit) assumptions:
* State of nature
* Individualism
* Humans are born free and
equal
* Natural rights, some of
which are given up in the
contract
* Popular consent source of
political authority
* Brackets role of God/Divine
* No real claim to historical
accuracy
* Tacit boundaries to who is
included in the contract
* By age, gender, race,
capacities (etc.) 38
traditional social contract
Shared (explicit) assumptions:
* State of nature
* Head of Families or whole
communities
* No claim to equality
* No natural rights
* Popular consent no source
of authority; it only solves
an initial coordination
problem
* Brackets role of God/Divine
* No real claim to historical
accuracy
usurpation
- Form of the government stays the same
- One acquires power through irregular (non-lawgoverned) means
- It’s not itself tyranny.
- Interestingly enough, it was not a coup
d’etat because that involves the use of
violence against an existing governmen
power in locke
=juridical authority and right to foreign defence, protenction of proprety but only in the service of the public good
locke on convention of proprety
- the right to proprety preceeds money
- money facilitates bargaining to proprety
- this generates inequality
- money= conventions
- money remains in practice
locke’s state of nature differes with Hobes’ because
- in locks state of nature there are natural rights but also obligations
- the people have a right to judge and rebel
- giving one person power is irrational
- right to use force is heavily curtailed
- freedom does not mean license to do punish who you want and do whatever, there ar eimpartial rules
- state of nature is not state of war
- property, money, and binding contracts can exist outside the state
simmilarities between Hobbes and Locke
- theory is based on human nature
- it justifies political power
- explains the limits of political authority and where the consent for it comes from
- free and equal
- natural rights
