Philosophers Flashcards
Thomas Hobbes(traditional)
Leviathan the book he made stated his theory of the social contract
Challenge to the power to sovereign only plunged society back into war
Natural equal individuals should give up some freedom for order and a society that flourishes
The people have authorized the state for power not god
Sovereign have to able to rule with absolute power to create a free society, order
Human nature-Humans are driven by self interest and not always rational, they could be driven by emotions
Relativism- There’s no perfect moral principles that everyone likes, Things are always not good or bad it’s just different opinions
What united mankind is the fear of death
People deem good or bad in different ways
State of nature is dangerous and the state of law would be superior, Hobbes liked the state a lot
In a state of nature
Equal natural rights
Are people largely equal in strength and intelligence and they are incomplete in scarce resources which fosters distrust and
Where there is no injustice in a state of nature there would be continuous violence
Continuous terror
Hobbes argues of origin of society had towards each other but in the mutual fear of each
Natural laws he thinks is something is forbidden that is destructive of life
Eg of natural laws he gave
Everyone should look for peace
Look for peace and defend himself
People should keep promises
These are more like duty to create a harmonious society
Only a strong order can set people free. Sovereign absolute power to forbid chaos to stop people from taking justice from their hands.
Freedom- We’re not free until we feel safe.
You can stop free speech sometimes as people will just rebel and people should be united. King should do anything to create peace. A state would be better to make judgments than individuals.
Edmund burke(traditional)
Was a member of parliament, a whig a group that involved into liberal party
But he was called an old whig, a modern conservatism philosophy
Gradual changes
Conservatives think humans are flawed psychologically(want to be safe), morally(greedy) and intellectually(we may be influenced by irrational impulses)
Strong government, power to control our impulses and enforce laws and stability
We should value traditions
Institutions, conventions which had been for centuries should be veiled, it reflects the wisdom of generations of people
Benefits of prejudice, wisdom passed down over centuries. To be in favour of long standing traditions, it has worked so well for many generations so we should keep using it.
Those calling for order to be scrapped they have personal prejudices but they have no personal experiences and are acting on personal impulses
Long lasting traditions are a comforting matter as people feel more safe as the system doesn’t change
There are links that exist between different generations
Conservatives find freedom choosing to respect tradition
Burke was still not opposed to change but he favoured small changes that still means tradition is in place
pragmatism - base reform on what’s previously worked, gradual reform
Saw society as a living organism
Standards of justice has to be gradually discovered in practice and we shouldn’t try things randomly
Burke criticized the french revolution as it fully erased long standing institutions
Burke praised the American revolution as they preserved their way of life
The organic society
Society is a living organism, different parts have different jobs and they are equally important. They are needed for an organism to thrive.
Burke shouldn’t be a competition to the top, because all organs are essential; they must work together for the organism so everyone is connected.
Burke said the state of nature said we have never been individuals with complete freedom, we do not sign a contract before or after birth.
Paternalism
Individuals suited to lead the country as the people are born equally flawed
Burke argued that people who are born into the upper class are those who received the best available education, more leisure time to think and study and learned manners and duties expected of rulers
Just as children should follow their parents people should trust the people in power
Human imperfection
Means that burk said we should prevent the majority from tyranny of the minority. Burke thought if those born into privilege to rule but talented individuals such as him to work there way up
Equality of outcome was a monstrous outcome as there isn’t enough wealth.
Distribution would lead to equal want equal wretchedness and equal beggary
The rich should charity to the poor as they have a duty.
Is the idea of individuals should have full freedom, this is in support for free market and opposes economic intervention
Burke agreed with some economic views, state intervention and redistribution of income will discourage poor to work and fulfil their duties. It goes against the organic society and laws of god.
Burke said it’s natural for people to search for more wealth, humans are flawed we cannot plan an economy. Humans are naturally selfish so this system makes us more flawed. He was more open to capitalist ideas to what conservatives are doing now.
All conservatives agree with property rights as its god given rights and gives stability as this is a comforting sense and it marks people want to work.
We should respect other property rights so everyone does the same
Burke believed in civil society, a wide variety of groups that exist in between governments and the family.
Conservatives believe that flawed humans need to be tempered by civil society, we should appreciate the duties we have to others. People have social responsibility.
One nation conservatism
Benjamin Disraeli, novelist. The queen reigned over two nations, the rich and poor. Inequality is what he feared would break the nation. He wanted greater equality of opportunity and to enjoy higher standards of living.
To achieve these results without violating principles of economic truth, maintain some paternalism. He still believed in hierarchy and classes but a more duty needed to be paid to duties that come with wealth. He wanted noblesse oblige, responsibilities of the wealthy to charities to others. If people neglected these duties then the paternalis powers needed to intervene.
One nation conservatism is the idea that conservatives should only represent only one sector of society; they should speak for members from all social groups.
One nation conservatism was inspired by disraeli and it was adopted by a group of conservatives in 1950.
New right
Margaret thatcher. One nation’s emphasis on paternal state intervention showed it strayed away from true conservatism. The economy was increasing in unemployment and inflation rates were rising, keynesian economics isn’t working. Trade unions had a lot of strike for better work conditions
People thought individual freedom was causing people to shun authority and swaying form the church was causing weakening traditional values
The new right Thatcherism, neoliberalism= More free market , reduced public spending and low taxes.
Neoconservatism = maintain order, protect tradition and values, patriotism(love for your country)
These ideas had an influence on Margaret Thatcher, she wanted neo liberal economic reforms. Replaced Keynesian economics to a monetarism to cut inflation. Using supply side policies she privatised many of the industries as she believed more competition provides better services and prices.
Government Is disengaged as market forces are free as firms need to be actually demanded. She still gave a welfare state. Wanted a small but strong state and the state was needed to keep order.
Neo liberalism in economy and individualism
Neoconservatism for a strong state and powerful
Thatcher liked traditional values, she wanted the state not to intervene to give individuals their diversity such as Burke said.
Now people are more responsible as problems are not handled by the government as much but now they are closer
New right wanted traditional values, restored spontaneous order and Victorian values. Economic intervention disrupts market signals
Micheal Oakeshott(1901-1990)one nation
rationalism :tradition is only valuable if its rational
Preferred pragmatism
There two types of knowledge:
Technical knowledge - formulated into rules that can be taught and learned
Practical traditional knowledge- cannot be formulated it rules, gained from practical experience.
There is no technical knowledge without practical knowledge such as passed down traditional knowledge
Oakeshott argued that many of the key thinkers such as liberals are firmly are on tradition and practice
Oakeshott said the declaration of the right of man and of the citizen, liberty were evolved from practical sense in law and institution and they were from centuries ago to settle the conflicts that naturally erose in society
Oakeshott said Rationalists disregard practical knowledge, their ideologies and abstract is vague and broad. They don’t value tradition
Politics of faith: logic and reason for a guide, seeks rational and perfect solution
Oakeshott said that this was rigid and you have to stick to the text, it’s not realistic
Politics of skepticism(policy outcomes are unknowable, aim for policy reform should be seeking the best outcome in current circumstances
Oakeshott this is far more flexible- make gradual pragmatism improvements
The rights of women was able to come as it felt needed in society
Oakeshott said there was no rational perfect goal, we should use tradition to manage problems that arise
There is not correct path
Civil association
Oekshott said we should have rules that simply limits within the activities that citizens freely choose to create peace, such as driving limit
Law is authoritative whether it is not seen as just
Citizens are related through common law
a civil association needs to provide relief to the poor to maintain order
Oakeshott said mostly conservatives are rationalist
Oekshott said he agreed But one nation conservatives focus on keeping low unemployment low at all costs and finding a middle way
Oakeshott wanted civil association
Oakeshott said the fact in their rush to counter left wing ideologies these conservatives had created one of the rigid and inflexible values
Oakeshott to be conservative you have disposition not beliefs, to be tried and the untried. Conservatives are happy with what’s happening.
Oakeshott valued pragmatism a lot and said we shouldn’t discuss ideologies
Ayn rand(neoconservatism)1905-1983
Her philosophy of objectivism
Ethical egoism:
Everyone has a ethical code(right and wrong), they learn it form different things
But she disliked how they got these moral without rational thought of their own
She disliked how morality is based on altruism(being a good person is benefiting others at the cost of their own). Taking actions on yourself is selfish is what they say
She argued that to sustain its life every organism must make decisions, unlike animals we don’t have instincts to survive but rational thought. Meaning we should always act on others, if we act to survive it’s seen as selfish.
Rand said its moral to think of their self and do things for themselves, does not mean to whatever you want for pleasure but be guided by reasons
We should think to benefit by long term interests
We must act with reason, purpose, self esteem, rationality, productivity, pride, integrity, honesty, and justice.
But what about kindness, charity, generosity. Rand said when this is prioritized this is bad for their life but they should do it sometimes but rationally. Building a life on kindness means they can never do things for themselves. Even love is selfish, as you do it for others sake.
Rand had an atomistic view on society,
We should protect individual rights free to pursue self interest not a collectivist society as rights of some individuals will be sacrificed for others
Positive rights(right to education, work, fair pay, healthcare , etc.)
Negative rights(freedom from any interference with property, speech , religion etc.)
Rand argued there is no such thing as positive right, because for a positive right means one man has to give one for them
Rand thought negative rights are derived from our fundamental right to life. She liked negative rights.
She was against racism and she thought it’s evil.
She was characterized that she likes the rich over the poor but because they earned it. But she liked the rich that were rich because of bad reasons.
She liked independent thinkers and producers.
She wanted individual freedom
She wanted limited state- state only need police, army and law courts- only to protect right and liberty
Wanted laissez faire capitalism
She wasn’t concerned about size of the government
She considered tax and redistribution to be theft, violation of property rights. She liked people voluntarily paying the government for their service
She thought government intervening is dangerous
Individuals should take responsibility and use it on a free market
She defended capitalism on moral grounds as the only true compatible system with human nature.it was the only system that was just and free, free market is not for anyone’s need but for supply and demand. Men can grow rich if they provide better services. A truly free market.
Robert Nozick(1938-2002)neo - liberalism
Individual have rights and people cant do anything to them,
Utilitarianism- We should choose the action that provides the most happiness, produces the most utility(some liberals believe)
Nozick liberals focusing on outcomes can encourage violations of individual rights such as take countless peoples property rights
Nozick said individually we choose to make sacrifices for the greater benefit.
Nozick’s consist of individual people what individual lives, if you are asking them to help you your telling them to sacrifice themselves and they shouldn’t be used as a tool
To respect individual lives you have to respect rights as a barrier so no one can affect your rights.
Individualism rules out paternalism as they cant force someone to do something
Redistribution can effectively seize hours from them which means that there shouldn’t be redistribution
Minimal state and invisible hand, state can affect rights.
Free market
Wants a dominant prominent agency that protects rights
Nozick doesn’t mind risk if it hurts others but they must pay compensation.
Nozick likes justice
Minimal state can be formed by compensation
The best way to distribute goods and wealth from Nozick, he said there is no distribution we are not children, we get money from other individuals
Society will be just once it has a particular structure, wealth should be distributed to how hard people worked, contribution, moral merit and need. But this might affect rights.
Nozick said if rich want to voluntarily distribute to poor then they can, but can’t force them
State should look at what people have worked for instead what they morally deserve
Shouldn’t force one vision on to another and people should experiment and do new utopias
