POLI 231 Final Flashcards

Question

Who Does Socrates Question? What are the Results?

Answer 1

(1) Politicians = Master the rhetoric but do not tract true as persuasion is not knowledge (2) Poets = Poets are vehicles of inspiration but they themselves do not know what they write and cannot articulate with reason (3) Manual Artisans = Are knowledgeable specific to their craft which they think applies to all else as they expand it to other realms (arrogance) Result is knowing the limits of one's own knowledge = confirms Socrates is wise because he knows that he does not know

Answer 2

Nature of beliefs

Answer 3

1st order of knowledge: know facts (i.e., I believe that it will rain tomorrow) 2nd order of knowledge: knowledge about certain beliefs you might have (acknowledging that the first order might be wrong as your knowledge might be false, people make mistakes, and your theory may be disapproved in the future)

Answer 4

Socrates friend Crito visits him while he is imprisoned awaiting his execution. His friend tries to persuade him to flee… (1) unjust to betray self when escape possible (2) abandoning his sons (3) lacks courage

Answer 5

I obey reason not threats or doxa (opinion)

Answer 6

Obey if it is just or if the decision was reached by political means

Answer 7

(1) Gratitude = I owe it to the city to obey its laws out of gratitude because the city gave birth to me and educated me (2) Absolute parental/master authority = Appeals to structural authority (I am the state’s child and should obey the city just like a child obeys its parents) (3) Consent = The polis educated me as a child but as an adult I was free to leave but I stayed so I consented to stay. Agreed to execution and did not propose exile in court. (4)To disobey law of city => laws undermined & ineffective leading to chaos

Answer 8

Apology: critique of orthodoxy: beliefs Crito: accepts orthopraxy: obedience, actions (The apology contradicts Crito)

Answer 9

(1) Liberal (or negative) freedom (2) Political or civic freedom (3) Spiritual or moral freedom

Answer 10

Absence of Negative Constraints... 1) Physical constraints (being handcuffed in prison and not being free in this sense because you can't move even if you want to move) 2) Coercive threats are a constraint too = if you were to move your body you would suffer physical consequences (i.e. if you move ill shoot) 3) External constraints on action (i.e., when the laws of a state tell you what can/can’t do then they restrict your liberal freedom)

Answer 11

Freedom means living under laws that are your own in some way (decolonization liberation of colonized people = people are not free because they are subject to laws imposed by colonial power. They did not give those laws to themselves) Laws don’t intrinsically diminish your freedom but are necessary for freedom if you don’t live under laws you are not free because freedom is living under your own laws

Answer 12

The idea of self-mastery = not just the absence of external constraints but of internal constraints (i.e., addicted to nicotine but can’t quit even if they want to because they have not mastered themselves and, therefore are not free) “You can put me in prison but you can’t take my freedom away”

Answer 13

People who value freedom in such a way that they believe a minimal state is the best freedom (Thoreau is a libertarian of sorts in terms of advocating for limited government) Limited government enables humans to live according to their own conscience = and believe in spiritual freedom (free while imprisoned) Socrates: an unexamined life is not one worth living It’s not necessarily bad to restrict freedom such as restricting murder Liberals want to figure out how to maximize individual freedom and make it compatible with the freedom of others (i.e., don’t murder others because you restrict their freedom) Goal to maximize equal freedom Liberals defend the private sphere where individuals decide for themselves (i.e., in 1967 Pierre Trudeau decriminalized homosexuality; city: there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation) Laws can restrict or enhance freedom such as laws restricting state official conduct with you

Answer 14

US gov is not worthy of association because… (1) It is a slave state (2) It is conducting an unjust war with Mexico

Answer 15

(1) Right of revolution (2) Some moral constraints regardless of costs (i.e., cost-benefit analysis not enough) = there are moral constraints of what you ought to do and not to do (deontic constraints) (3) No duty to eradicate evil, but the duty to not contribute to evil (4) Patriotism is not a virtue it's a vice because it leads you to collaborate with injustice (5) Abolitionists should withdraw support from the government by not paying taxes = matter of deontic constraint to withdraw support (6) A just person should be in jail under an unjust regime

Answer 16

The law endorses slavery vs. Justice and outlaws slavery To act justly is to act justly in your private life (echoes Socrates)

Answer 17

Duty is Disobedience, not Democratic Participation Break the law for justice Democrats would say one has the positive duty to change laws BUT Thoreau says that voting is expressing your opinion which isn’t enough The negative duty to act now and to stop participating in the negatives in society A machine goes with the flow without reflection while a human acts on conscience

Answer 18

(1) normal justification: if it can do better than me (2) consent of individual

Answer 19

(1) Majority rule is not legitimate as it is biased and is a disadvantage to the minority (2) Limited gov and sphere of conscience = no obligation to act according to right, but according to what I think is right (3) Best gov: recognizes individual as the highest power

Answer 20

There ought to be no state

Answer 21

No state has legitimate authority (doesn’t argue that there should be no state)

Answer 22

(1) Sheer power (2) De facto authority (3) Legitimate authority

Answer 23

Make you do what they want + threaten with sanctions No claim on that person’s part to have any authority over you EX: Thief taking a cop’s gun

Answer 24

Obeying a command just because they said so Claims the right to command Power + claim that you have the duty to obey what they say = claim a right to command you + claim to authority Relationship with state having authority over their subjects + brute power to enforce (i.e., prison) = You have a legal obligation on you by law not to engage in certain acts EX: Prof commanding us to get up vs. a student

Answer 25

Has the right to command Legitimate authority is when you have a claim against others to obey you and they have the duty to obey you the right to command <–> the right to be obeyed

Answer 26

Enforcing authority through sheer power = if they claim the right to rule and have the coercive power to enforce then it is de facto = those subject to this power believe they have an obligation to obey The only reason you get up is because someone told you meaning they have authority as you obey their command because they told you so not necessarily because they gave you a reason to get up

Answer 27

Conforming = acting by virtue of independently good reasons = seeing the reason behind the command Complying is not obeying as there are reasons to act with the law Obeying = acting by virtue of the person’s position = doing it with no reason just because the person with authority said so

Answer 28

Descriptive If state officials tell people to do things and they comply + believe they have a duty to do so. Descriptive nature of peoples’ attitudes and disposition Determining if state officials are legitimate by observation (if people do what state officials command them to do) Normative Are they right? Do they have a duty to obey? Wolff says no because they are not legitimate in the normative sense so people don’t have the duty to obey a command

Answer 29

legitimacy from compatibility with Moral Autonomy Ethics/moral philosophy presupposes that individuals have responsibility for their actions and that responsibility presupposes free will. When you have free will you can represent the capacity to deliberate your action (reflect on it/take responsability). Taking responsibility = the duty to reflect on your actions, how you should be and reflect on ethical matters (Socrates) Moral autonomy You can only take responsibility if you make decisions (exercising moral autonomy)

Answer 30

Authority The legitimacy of authority (the right to rule and the duty to be obeyed) has to be compatible with moral autonomy (act on the basis of your own judgement) Autonomy Take responsibility (make the judgement of what to do)/exercise autonomy = do not obey commands but can act in accordance to the command but not because it is a command but because of reason

Answer 31

Every law is a law that everybody gives to themselves unanimously This doesn't exist because it is unrealistic for all people to agree on the same law so democrats turn to majority rule/representation

Answer 32

Majoritarianism The majority vote is the law but the minority vote is neglected Majority rule is not legitimate for the minority people who voted against the law Majority rule may be justified (better than unanimous) but it is not legitimate EX: You sell yourself into slavery and exercise autonomy by subjecting yourself to this regime but then, from then on you are no longer autonomous = letting the majority decide is not living under an autonomous regime

Answer 33

You need autonomy to act and take responsability for your actions (reflection). EX: You jay walk even though it is illegal because you made a judgement of Raeson and saw no cars coming so you exercised autonomy and evaluated independent merits not to obey the command

Answer 34

EX: You can still be autonomous in prison if you believe it is right because autonomy is acting in accordance with what you believe is right. OR you conform but do not obey the law because you may end up in prison but doesn’t mean you obey the state and what it says

Answer 35

Theory of property

Answer 36

Theory of social contract (delegation theory of sovereignty)

Answer 37

A theory of trust that portrays the duties and obligations of each

Answer 38

Theory of constitutional government

Answer 39

(1) No natural form of political rule/authority as we are all free and equal = Political society is conventional as it needs convention so that there is no political authority. Legitimate political authority only lasts through consent as we are free to act as we see fit (2) State of nature of freedom and equality Legitimacy of authority depends on the protection of individual rights You can’t sacrifice someone to maximize welfare in society because the purpose of government is to protect property (the state of individuals, life, and property) not the overall welfare (rights operate as constraints) In the state of nature, there is an executive power but not a common executive power as each individual has the right to enforce natural laws (i.e., kill a murder)

Answer 40

(1) Natural liberty (2) No established known positive law because there is no defining feature of the natural state (3) No impartial judge (4) No executive power to enforce resolutions of disputes Therefore the enjoyment of our property is vulnerable due to all of these issues as there is no executive power to protect your property.

Answer 41

State of war vs. state of nature Thomas Hobbes argues that the state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short and that the state of nature is a state of war. Locke does not think so because, in the state of nature, there is a natural human community + natural laws so we have the capacity of reason as the law of nature tells us that we must preserve ourselves and humanity. In the state of nature, there is an executive power but not a common executive power as each individual has the right to enforce natural laws (i.e., kill a murder) There are limits to what we accept entering political society as we are not as desperate to leave nature like Hobbes instead we want limits on the exercise of political power (i.e., limited government)

Answer 42

Protect property + have the right to use things (i.e., food from the commons)

Answer 43

Political power is only legitimate if exercised for the common good and is done through our consent as to protect property is to protect individual human rights. Legitimacy is consistent with respecting fundamental rights of subjects (life, liberty, state)

Answer 44

we all suffer from biases which is not a good way to adjudicate disputes so we need an impartial judge

Answer 45

(1) Government has to rule by law not by decree (2) Judge (3) Executor of laws law via consent: direct or through representatives

Answer 46

(1) by nature we are free and equal (2) Enjoyment of freedom is insecure which is why we enter in political society (3) S of N <> S of W => not desperate (4) reasons to enter political society determine ends/purpose of political society (5) those purposes limit the scope of legitimate power (6) the purpose is to protect property

Answer 47

Life, liberty, state/possessions = rights Cannot be taken away from you without your consent unless you forfeit it

Answer 48

In its origins, God created a communist state where all is collectively owned by humanity except for your own person

Answer 49

(1) Need to individuate property b/c necessary to human preservation (2) If no one privately owns something it means that you can’t take things to use exclusively without everyone’s consent (impractical)

Answer 50

(1) No Spoilage Proviso No spoilage proviso: you can mix labour with objects and make it yours but only if you let the things you took from the commons not spoil (legitimate) BUT can’t mix labour with someone else’s private property so that you acquire your own private property. No Spoilage Proviso: applies at the moment of acquisition and beyond (throughout the tenure of your property) (2) Sufficiency Proviso Sufficiency proviso: acquire private property rights for external objects only if you leave as much of those external objects for others to do the same EX: Plot of land for farm activity but you can only reap the fruits of that land if you leave enough land for others to do the same

Answer 51

self-preservation vs. humanity’s preservation In order to preserve ourselves legitimately we need private property (i.e., eating the fruits of your labour to live) You ought to preserve humanity and yourself BUT you also have the right to own property to be able to fulfill that duty (i.e., cannot eat food without humanity’s consent because it is collectively owned) You can acquire private property rights with the labour of your body (extend private property of ourselves to external objects) BUT private property rights have to be consistent with god’s purpose (sufficiency and no spoilage provisos)

Answer 52

(1) The conventional way to get everyone’s consent (2) Natural route = extend the natural property rights of your person to other objects by mixing it with your labour (the provisos)

Answer 53

Means of exchanging things without bartering Money serves as a sign of value that you can exchange for objects BUT only works if we consent to this meaning of exchange Allows for legitimate acquisition beyond what was originally available as money does not rot/spoil = respect spoilage proviso

Answer 54

Sufficiency proviso = it is no longer easy to leave as much for others as some accumulate more capital than others and the fulfilment of the spoilage proviso becomes too easy Only Natural Right remaining is: Natural Right to Subsistence

Answer 55

(1) American Political Thought Only applies at the moment of acquisition The government can’t take away my natural private property rights without my consent because you had it prior to entering a political society which respects life, liberty and the state. (2) Non-American Political Thought The sufficiency proviso may be fulfilled but at some point, you can no longer fulfill it because land runs out so your estate is no longer legitimately yours = improper conventional distribution of property is prevented under natural law Your property is not yours anymore if there are not enough for others to do the same as people who are starving are legitimate and have the natural right to sustain themselves (if you are needy it is never stealing it is the right to survival so everything is yours) No more natural law as the sufficiency proviso can no longer be met Sufficiency proviso applies at the moment of acquisition and from then on continuously

Answer 56

To undertake some actions where the intention is to communicate to others your intention to wave some rights or take on an obligation EX: Promise to pay money tomorrow are you intending to communicate your intention to acquire an obligation to pay someone tomorrow Changing your normative relations with others

Answer 57

Communicate intention through the use of language where the content is exactly what you will do Explicit communication is a form of action consequence: Member of Society + Permanent Political Obligations When you consent to rulers explicitly (oath/contact) then the consequences are that you become a member of that society and have permanent obligations to obey. This is conditional on the notion that your government is doing what it is supposed to do. If the government violates your trust it suspends your duty to obey

Answer 58

No explicit communication EX: Some ask “Can I take this seat?” and in response, you look at them and say nothing but you don’t object so they sit. In this example, the individual sat even if you explicitly didn’t communicate yes or that there is a lot of room, you did not articulate your consent in language. consequence: Temporary Political Obligations If you tacitly consent to political rule in virtue of enjoying the benefits of the dominion where you live it is temporary as the rule lasts as long as you continue to stay and enjoy those benefits

Answer 59

When you promise or consent you change your normative relationship with others and now have moral obligations. Why? Explanation (1): When you use those words God supernaturally puts a moral obligation on you. Explanation (2): The institution of promise-making allows us to fo things we originally couldn’t do so promise-making is a win-win. I give you something you need now but you promise to give me something I need next week

Answer 60

Locke If you promise under duress (i.e., you have a gun to your head and if you don’t promise to give the man holding the gun money tomorrow then he will kill you) you are under no moral obligation to give the man money because you were under duress. You cannot extract moral obligations from people under duress Hobbes Anyone who has the sharpest sword is a legitimate ruler as long as they can protect people from disorder. Hobbes thinks that promising under duress counts because the state of nature is intrinsically a state of war and that is why people get out by forming a social contract and entering political society. Without any promise under duress (i.e., fear of being killed by this person) you would not join political society

Answer 61

1) Intentionality: consent must be given intentionally & knowingly 2) Voluntariness: consent must be given voluntarily (not under duress) at least rules out consent under threat of death = there are 2 conditions to voluntariness...there has to be an opportunity for you not to consent + the way you communicate your consent must not be costly (i.e., decapitated if you protest against the government)

Answer 62

1) situation clear to the agents involved that silence means something (intentional) 2) definite period to which objection/descent is invited (voluntary) 3) obvious limit: the way that you express your decent and the consequences of doing so can’t violate your rights, so not costly (voluntary)

Answer 63

(1) People (2) The Government Dispersing/constraining state power because the government’s purpose is to protect individuals (3) Corporations Organized groups are threats because they oppress (i.e., organized religion) + Organized economic/corporate power is a threat because capitalism affects the population (socialist tradition)

Answer 64

Mechanisms of divided government (legislature vs. executive vs. federalism)

Answer 65

The loss of legitimacy to rule The dissolution of the government does not lead to the dissolution of society!!!!

Answer 66

People undermine the legislative body… The executive has to respect the laws that the legislative passes if not the trust that the people placed in the social contract reverts back (delegated sovereignty/authority returns to the people) When the property is invaded by the government (arbitrarily seized) The executive seizes property contrary to the legislature/laws The executive corrupts the legislative/election (political process) or fails to enforce laws This leads to tyranny which triggers the right to revolution = You can only meet force with force

Answer 67

The common good is the protection of property which is done through mechanisms such as elections = the regulation of property through laws that people consented to by electing representatives who deploy majority rule in the legislative When trust is violated the sovereignty placed in the government reverts to the people

Answer 68

Horizontal Social society = we all consent to entering society = pact of association to form a community Vertical We submit to a government above us when entering a political society

Answer 69

There is a need for the government to be balanced by itself and by the people… The people must retain the right/capacity to resist even under a legitimate authority (not only under tyranny) such as the right to bear arms to keep the government in check Power is pitted against power so freedom/individual rights need to be backed up by force, not peace (a coercive element of liberal ideology)

Answer 70

(1) Natural Route = mix labour with the commons + provisions (2) Conventional Route = other peoples’ consent

Answer 71

(1) Nature = every individual is sovereign (2) Political society = Individuals’ powers delegated to the government

Answer 72

Locke wanted to assassinate the king Individuals were taking up arms against the government because there was a fear that the king would prosecute protestants Theories that the King was a secret Catholic (true)

Answer 73

Indigenous peoples of America are in a state of nature vs. political society = served as colonial justification for colonialism Indigenous peoples are in a state of nature so political society excludes indigenous society allowing colonizers to appropriate land without indigenous consent

Answer 74

(1) Indigenous Self-Understanding (shared by some settlers) = Indigenous peoples are self-governing people who have title to land from long-term land occupancy. The territory belonged to the jurisdiction of the people held by their chief (each clan had rights/responsibilities of use) Treaties with Europeans: Indigenous peoples counted on mutual agreement (same rights of use of land/trade) EX: 1664 Albany Treaty/Peace/Friendship Treaty → Iroquois allies of the Dutch (2) Sovereignty only resides in the Crown which indigenous peoples are subject to = The most prevalent view among settlers Indigenous rights are subjected to European law Because indigenous people did not work their land or “use it properly” it was subject to occupation (bc if it is nit worked/labour not mixed it belongs to the commons).

Answer 75

British understanding of the treaty: written on parchment the terms of the agreement and provided separate Iroquois and British persecution of criminal activities 2 row wampum belt: presented to the British by the Iroquois where 2 vessels travel down the same river but on separate paths (2 separate sovereign entities). These paths never crossed (no one would try to steal the other’s vessel).

Answer 76

1630s jurisdictional dispute between European colonies: the occupation of land so indigenous people have title vs. indigenous peoples only possess what they cultivate and the rest is up for grabs Agriculture was the only valid use of land (mix labour with land to appropriate the commons) as one could not possess land through hunting, gathering or clearing land. Indigenous peoples only have a natural right to the products of their labour so Europeans can appropriate land without indigenous consent through agriculture

Answer 77

Indigenous modes of government are not recognized as legitimate modes of society Indigenous peoples had no judiciary, legislative, or executive because as Locke claims they did not need it because they were peaceful Appropriation of land can only be done through industrious labour: produce more than what was before thus gaining hypothetical consent because who would say no to more resources and trade Indigenous peoples have no political society or natural property rights

Answer 78

(1) Control indigenous peoples (disregard indigenous political society) = when you violate the laws of nature (use colonial private property) you violate your liberty and can be killed or enslaved. American practice was where one could inherit slave status which is not in line with Locke’s theory (children are not covered but adults are if they interfere with private property) Under Locke’s theory, a child of a slave is not a slave Laws of nature continue to apply in political society (i.e., the right to survive) (2) Could deny any Indigenous property = When you hunt/gather you mix labour with animals/berries but not with the land because when you hunt/gather it is not industrious labour (you do not produce a surplus of what was already there)

Answer 79

If you hunt an animal and make clothing from it to sell it counts as industrial labour even if you did not mix your labour with the land as now there is a surplus with that piece of clothing, which can be traded

Answer 80

We are free and equal in the state of natural Political authority is conventional and can only be legitimized through a social contract

Answer 81

Set up political society in such a way it is consistent with the freedom of individuals in some way because natural freedom is permanently lost

Answer 82

in the state of nature, natural freedom comes from independence from others Independence prior to the development of social relations Prior to this development we were self-sufficient and had powers symmetrical with our needs because nature provides some of the materials we need (we also have limited/small needs) Nature and our power are enough not to depend on others. Types of dependence: objects (i.e., trees) Does not compromise independence because you are not dependent on someone’s will

Answer 83

Problem: in society, it is no longer possible to be independent Our needs have grown from physical survival needs to comfort needs (i.e., I now need a computer to do my job to earn a salary and buy food to feed myself) Our needs have grown and our capacities/powers have specialized (division of labour) Specialization allows trade and more things BUT we cannot specialize in everything so we depend on the will of others Freedom is threatened when one is personally dependent on another’s will Not necessarily: If we generalize our dependence on society instead of one person’s will we create a new freedom. i. free b/c independent ii. free b/c no personal dependence

Answer 84

(1) Natural Freedom: Free because of independence (2) New Freedom: Lacks independence but keeps personal dependence at bay. Eliminates personal dependence horizontally (dependence in social relations) and vertically (dependence on a ruler’s will) Example: You are not specialized in making shoes so you depend on the shoe maker's will to make your shoes but they refuse because of your race. This does not happen with the general will because the person is not dependent on the shoemaker's will or the will of others but dependent on the law and the law says to give shoes to all (gets rid of personal independence)

Answer 85

(1) Political: Live under laws that are in some sense your own (free vertically from a ruler’s will because of self-legislation/moral freedom) (2) Social: The content of laws arranges social relationships in such a way that no one is dependent socially on another. We do this by being dependent on a general will be shared by us and others (exceptions are children who are not free because they are dependent on the will of their parents)

Answer 86

(a) Establishes a community with a general will that is the source of the law (b) People itself Remains Sovereign: No Representatives: People are sovereign and cannot give up their sovereignty (unlike Locke’s view) Can’t set up representatives that pass laws for citizens (c) Complete alienation of individual’s powers to the community Individuals submit completely to the rule of law and give up their powers to the political community

Answer 87

Locke = Sovereignty originates from the people who make a horizontal pact of association and a vertical pact of submission to a ruler. Rousseau (rejects the doctrine of double contract) = Rousseau accepts the horizontal pact of association but not the vertical submission to a ruler as you cannot conditionally transfer sovereignty from the people to the ruler

Answer 88

Rousseau’s Solution: Political Rule via General Will & Laws Individual freedom is secured by political freedom (laws created by general will meaning laws must target all people and not discriminate → Rousseau sees racism as illegitimate) These laws have to be general in their source and object But while the social contract has to be unanimous, laws don’t have to be yet they have to target all The law has to be based on something we all share as citizens not as members of other groups so that the law can only serve as interests as subjects You don’t need limited government (Locke argues for limited government) to constrain what a sovereign can do based on individual rights = there are no constraints on people’s exercise of political power)

Answer 89

a. Locke: legitimacy from the limitation on the exercise of political power: protection of individual rights b. Rousseau: legitimacy from reflecting the general will of the people, something all individuals share in common

Answer 90

what we will together in common in our capacity as citizens when we ask ourselves what the general will of the community is

Answer 91

(1) Background Presupposition: common interests Common interest as citizens because the purpose of political society is the common good (2) Material precondition: Rough material equality: can’t be only large disparities of wealth in a society that is to have freedom. Large disparities compromise the general will in terms of common interests as the poor begin depending on the rich/ Disparities make the political process corrupted by the will of others (i.e., buying people off) (3) Cultural preconditions: In order for general will we need rough cultural homogeneity of shared values/virtues (rejecting multiculturalism) Virtues allow you to act for the common good = conformity of your particular will to the general will (this is not a compromise because it is in your best interest so even if you vote against a law and it passes you accept it as the general will because your primary identity is being a citizen and is that of patriotism) (4) Institutional/Procedural Requirements Majority rule to pass a proposed law The magistrate (executive/judiciary) proposes the law while the legislature passes it (the sovereign) A majority vote determines the general will but cannot be partially associations (groups advocating for their personal interests) in the legislative process because this will create illegitimate distortions to the legislative process. Through no communication, there is no bias (you have to ask your own conscience whether the law is in the general will) because there are silver-tongued orators who use rhetoric to pursue others

Answer 92

Ancien Régime (before the French Revolution of 1789)

Answer 93

(1) 1. The Clergy: Roman Catholic church economic power + owns 10% of French land + tax exemptions (2) The Nobility: a. Noblesse d’epée Noble families b. Noblesse de-robe Originally from the third estate but built their way up the hierarchy (3) The Third Estate: everyone else

Answer 94

Absolute Monarchy Parlements: courts of justice run by aristocracy which limit the monarch’s power An increase in taxes created unrest in 1788

Answer 95

(1) Aristocratic Revolt (2) Louis XVI calls Estates-General for May 5, 1789 (3) June 17: Deputees of the third estate declare themselves as the national assembly. The lower clergy from the second estate are also sympathetic to the third estate since they came from there. July 9: The National "Constituent Assembly" claims the right to make a new constitution Aug 4, 1789: Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which King Louis the 16th refuses to sign

Answer 96

New Regime = Redistribution of property through the nationalization of church property (secularism) Privileges are a set of rights particular to a certain class A. In the Ancien Régime, Aristocracy enjoy: estates being overrepresented compared to their population tax privileges/exemptions These privileges were constitutionally enshrined in the acien regime 1. different political rights: Political offices only open to their members 2. different civil rights: Different civil rights such as penalties for the same crime being more lenient

Answer 97

All individual citizens must be equal before the law with the same political/civil rights (no privileges) Argument or Justification for the Equality Thesis: Unified General Will of Nation a political justification (based on legitimate political authority) society vs politics: In society, people pursue their private affairs vs. in politics, public affairs are what we have in common as citizens (Rousseau)

Answer 98

(1) create divergent interests Privileges create divergent interests and pit some against others undermining the general will/sovereign will (2) the political expression of private interests and are misplaced in politics (3) Citizenship Equality is the basis of citizenship in the nation. If you claim privileges you claim you are not a member of the nation (no more citizenship) Constitutional order should be based on shared interests Politics has to be based on the unified will of the sovereign nation Privileges create divergent interests and pit some against others undermining the general/sovereign will Privileges are expressions of private interest, which are misplaced in politics Equality is the basis of citizenship in the nation. If you claim privileges you claim you are not a member of the nation (no more citizenship)

Answer 99

In a big country, the nation cannot gather to deliberate so they need to choose representatives to make up the national assembly Representatives are illegitimate because representing the people destroys freedom (Syès disagrees)

Answer 100

(1) People/nation is the legitimate sovereign and authority (2) Sovereignty cannot be given up (BUT Siyès says it can also be held in commission by the representative where the people lend their sovereignty) (3) The nation cannot bind itself as the nation stands prior to any constitutional form it takes on/legitimizes. The nation cannot legally bind itself because it is the source of legitimate authority derived by the nation’s will. The constitutional order is legitimate because it is adopted by the nation

Answer 101

The constitution is not a written document but refers to the way in which legal political order is structured/distributed in society. The Constitution is legitimate because it comes from the nation’s general will. First comes the nation/general will and then the constitution The nation stands prior to the constitutional order as the nation gave the constitution to itself = theory of legitimacy vs. But we can only have a nation with constitutional order (chasing tail) = theory of who the nation is

Answer 102

Democratic/political definition of thinking what the nation is members of the nation are those that share politics together 1. Individuals that have common representatives 2. Corporate Body 3. Living under a common law

Answer 103

Obtain legitimacy through self-rule (collective self)

Answer 104

1. Legitimacy of political power The will of the collective self (people/nation will). 2. Unity: Boundaries and binding questions of the nation

Answer 105

Body of associates living under a common law and are represented by a legislature. The body of associates are members of a nation. Aristocrats are excluded from national membership because they don’t live under common law (equality before the law) The body of associates lives under a common law Nation entity as a corporate existence capable of the corporate general will (Rousseau but Locke and Montesquieu disagree and want to disperse political power)

Answer 106

The corporate body under common law specifies boundaries and binds the nation Common security binds people + common freedom + republic (political association organized by things that are public/shared by all = commonwealth)

Answer 107

Common representatives by a single legislative bind the nations + laws produced by the legislature. National will is expressed through its national representatives which enable common interests in society to be expressed politically resulting in the common will (articulation of common interests)

Answer 108

Note: counterintuitive: Denying political rights based on citizenship tension between equal membership of the nation and the inequality it gives rise to between members and non-members Siyès chases his own tail = what legitimizes the constitutional order? The people = the nation’s will (nation > constitutional order logically and normatively) The constitutional order defines the nation BUT members of the nation live under a constitutional order

Answer 109

Legitimacy vs. Boundary i. Legitimacy: A nation is a nation under legal political order but also stands before it The will of the nation legitimizes the exercise of political power ii. Binding and Boundary: Binding Question: What makes the nation a single body/national community? What is the glue binding us? Who is a member of the nation and who isn’t? Can’t hold a referendum to decide the membership of the nation Answer: unity of will

Answer 110

Those who want to define nations through institutions

Answer 111

People who share a culture/language

Answer 112

No way to answer the unity/binding question non-arbitrarily because no two individuals will be invested in exactly the same ideas/institutions/practices = cross-cutting differences/similarities across individuals Can’t draw boundaries around cultures because they are cross-cutting (not every Canadian is a hockey fan) + cultures bleed into each other Boundaries between cultures are fuzzy such as cultural dialect in Italy Lines have been drawn by the nation-state (languages like Latin ones bleed into one another) Not only words are borrowed but meanings too (c’est le fun) Defending the purity of the culture of the nation is a political project (French Revolution 2% of people spoke French vs. Now because of the nationalist project of education) = that draws the line of the boundaries of culture However, cultures change over time and are not static (how do cultures persist through time?)

Answer 113

People who share common ancestors/heritage All humans have the same ancestors but we aren’t all a part of the same ethnic nation 1. which line? Matriarchy or patriarchal line? If you are black you would work off of race not matriarchy or patriarchy If you are Jewish you would work your way up the matriarchal line 2. how far up? If you go up one generation then the ethnic group is just you and your family (not what we want) Under certain regimes like Iraq, Arab and Kurdish speakers policy to force Kurdish speakers to adopt Arabic names (assimilation) Ethnicity is not about common ancestry but myths of ancestry (what one thinks their ancestors are) Ethnic Nationalism - Siyès chasing his own tail again: Nationalist legitimacy question has to answer the boundary question but to answer this we have to run in circles Political naturalists reach for cultural nationalism which reaches for ethnic nationalism

Answer 114

Augustinian Christians asserted virtues as the marks of a good character (chastity) these earthy goals (i.e., fame) are not reasonable or worthy of pursuit

Answer 115

The humanists asserted both Christian and classical virtues like justice (ancient Greece). They thought alongside Romans that the goal of human life was honour, fame, and glory which were not just up to fortune and were goals that should be pursued

Answer 116

“The Prince” is a mirror for Pinces, it is an advice book because people were interested in having an influence in society which influenced the prince. Argues that you have to rely on your own humanist/Christian virtues

Answer 117

Fame, Glory, Honour Agrees with the humanists that fame, glory, and honour are valuable ends for the prince (normative) but disagrees that virtues will lead to glory, fame, and honour. He disagrees on the means not the ends as he is against wishful thinking

Answer 118

A precondition for the principal is to learn to acquire and maintain power (political rule/power = empire) The prince provides political stability which is needed to maintain his power. He does this by maintaining political order in the state

Answer 119

Need good laws/army The prince must rely on his own virtue (being disposed of what is necessary to bromine success)

Answer 120

Uses virtue in a different way To do what is necessary to secure fame, glory, and honour (which is dependent on what people think of you) To behave in a way that is thought of as virtuous would lead the prince to destruction because the prince must rely on deceptions sometimes to maintain political order and his rule. This eventually gives him fame, glory, and power (this is why Machiavelli justifies the ends not the means). Virtue is what a wise person should strive for to gain glory, fame, and honour

Answer 121

The ends (political power) justify the means Dispositions of character are virtuous and the means are ethical because they attain stability. Some people believe God rules the world and no prudence is necessary (this is true to some extent) Fortune provides you with the opportunity to act (the level of water in a river is not up to you but building a dam is) Fortune is where goodness is not a blind force that favours the young and the audacious Fortune is a woman that needs to be seduced and beaten

Answer 122

Rejects traditional Christian morality Machiavelli thought that the Christian view was incompatible with politics Christian morality is a luxury for those who are; already in a stable political society and increases pre-conditions for such relations to be able to form in the first place Tries to pose a problem with the Christian way of thinking (he is not advocating that the people should cultivate these ends) Rehabilitation of Pagan Morality Emphasizess that political community leads to the best life = the reasons for state

Answer 123

Fragility is a human condition The reason the state maintains state order cannot be restricted by moral considerations because the state makes those conditions exist in the first place (1) Consequences are not only for you but for everyone (2) Ends do not justify the means Machiavelli is a consequentialist of sorts = a consequentialist cares about all of the consequences of your actions and not just the ends Does not think securing political stability is a one-shot issue but requires constant vigilance Glory comes from acting for the moral good of your political society (patriotism)

Answer 124

Virtues needed in politics similar to war Readiness to be cruel: Ready to be cruel and to act as necessary to secure political ends

Answer 125

There are 2 forces of arms (a) force of arms and (b) the force of laws (laws do not replace violence but organize violence)

Answer 126

We are not good, if you try to be good without considering the bad of others you will fall into ruin Not just how should I live in general but how should I live given the fact that you live in a polity with others. You learn what to do is necessary.

Answer 127

Limits given by the appropriate goals of politics (not just to gain power but to keep power, glory, fame, and honour) : 1. The use of cruelty a. Willing to be cruel e.g. Cesare Borgia Ordinary people don’t want to be commanded/oppressed but elites want to command and oppress so the prince is tasked with these opposing motives Willing to be cruel to maintain the order of the state (i.e, cruelty supplemented with deception to satisfy peoples’ thirst for revenge = Borgia sets up his minister in a chaotic situation and executes him too)

Answer 128

Appeals to Human Nature The appeal that Machiavelli makes is not grounded in science but in inferences about human nature based on observations of behaviour. These appeals grounded in observation have a problem where you chase your tail 2. Methodological Issues: How do you know what human nature is? = Observe human behaviour How will you explain human behaviour? = appeal to human nature After appealing to human nature how do you know if this is an accurate explanation and not just a factor of how you were socialized

Answer 129

Not just any mode of cruelty works Well use of cruelty is quick and se of good for the polity (the people see that this is for the good not just wanton which then allows them to bless you with glory/fame/honour) Badly used cruelty grows more cruel over time (it might yield political power but it won't be to your glory/fame/honour) (1) Don’t attack property/women (2) Don’t engage in wonton acts of killing that people can’t see reason in People in Syracuse killed the senate to seize power = not virtues because you can’t kill other citizens to acquire glory but you do acquire an empire Glowry is up to others not you. Others have to think about you in a certain way so you have to pass through others’ thinking and using cruelty is not one of them e.g. Agathocles the Sicilia Avoid being hated Fear > love because love is precarious and overwhelmed by interest (humans are inherently ungrateful) Being feared is up to you not love but don’t be hated (avoid wanton cruelty and attacks on property/women) Other issues of prudence: In war strike quickly but don’t overextend yourself (know your limits)

Answer 130

Realists argue that war will always be with us because of aggressive human nature. This is a conclusion based on observation throughout history. But what if humans are violent because get grew up in a war Rousseau disagreed with Kachiavelli’s observation technique to figure out human nature. The assumption of human nature is a self-fulfilling preface where it is not nature but the belief of human nature that leads behaviours (acting the way you think humans are supposed to as acting on those beliefs makes it true = confirmation bias) Our theories about social phenomena are part of the phenomena that the theory is trying to explain (Hermeneutical circle where your explanation of how things work is a part of how things work, thus the theory must take itself into account as a phenomenon) The Middle Ages/early modern period was composed of a predominantly Christian Europe there was no social order unless everyone shared the same religion so to avoid chaos/civil war people followed this belief. In all the cases under observation, religious pluralism resulted in war so you could say this belief is true and a part of society but Locke challenges this and says it is not that religious pluralism leads to disorder but when states persecute religious minorities on the basis of beliefs than war results because the minorities have no more reason to obey the state (self-fulfilling prophecy) Machiavelli is a republican defender of the free state that is free if one mobilizes forces against external interference (martial society)

Answer 131

Yes... (1) Allow people to arm themselves to protect themselves from the bad guys (because armed society creates aggressive people leading to distrust among neighbours out of fear = self-fulfilling prophecy) (2) Politics as war creates human beings in the image of what you think they are like (are they producing the thing that they say that they are responding to?)

Answer 132

Everyone except the wicked/demented believes in ethics (some actions are good/bad) Ethics is part of everyday human living It is a moral philosophy that gives reasons defending assertions of what is right/wrong

Answer 133

(1) Forbidden (2) Required (3) Permitted Consequences determine what is right/wrong (the consequences of shooting someone are that they die and you go to jail which are normative considerations against this action because they are good/bad) What is right means the quality of actions What is good/bad is the theory of the good not of the right (what things have value in the world?) Just because certain outcomes are valuable doesn’t mean you have to bring them about Consequentialism theory = anything that matters is the consequences, the right thing to do is to bring about the right consequences

Answer 134

Means: Instrumental Value = means to produce other effects E.X. we exercise not because we enjoy it but because we value our health

Answer 135

a. the means itself b. the constitutive parts Things that are consistently valuable because they are constituent parts of what is valuable (pleasure is a component of human well-being)

Answer 136

Means to an end (cause and effect): If I write a book I am the cause of the book but am a bit part of it a. Ultimate value (intrinsic value) Value does not depend on the value of anything (human welfare) b. Non-ultimate Final End (extrinsic value because it depends on the means)

Answer 137

Welfare has ultimate value (everything else is a means of it) What makes your life better > what is right/good (some things are good in the world but aren't necessarily good for you) Life goes better if you do what you have to do (Socrates did not have a preference to die but deemed that if he did not his life would be worse off)

Answer 138

Theory of the good: not just the fact that things are good for people (welfarist) may be of value in the world but the distribution as well (state of affairs overall)

Answer 139

Mental state = pleasure/pain e.g. Welfare Hedonism i. Quantitative The intensity of the pleasure is what matters most (pleasure from reading a book = the pleasure one gets from watching torture) All states of pleasure are equally valuable ii. Qualitative Pleasure offers different contributions to your life depending on the type of pleasure Example → 2 men have the same mental states but one of them has been living a lie what matters is if your preferences are satisfied not what you think is satisfying as what you believe may satisfy your preferences is an illusion (something else contributes to your well-being, not only pleasure). The second man’s preferences are not being fulfilled but these preferences are being fulfilled by the first man (we don’t know if the first man prefers these preferences too)

Answer 140

Preferences about your life matter (success theory of well-being). Restriction 1 There are certain kinds of preferences that you have that actually don't make a difference on how well your life goes (preferences that don't have anything to do with you like you prefer the moon is made of cheese) Restriction 2 (mistaken beliefs) Some preferences may be based on misinformation or prejudice (i.e., you usually drink water from your favourite glass but now there is gasoline in the glass which you drink because it is in your favourite glass) would your life go better off if this preference was satisfied? Filtered preferences = preferences you would have by gathering more information to make a reasoning >>> (these are the hypothetic preferences that make your life go better off, not the satisfaction of your actual preferences)

Answer 141

The components of your well-being are from a list of things that are independent of your subjective beliefs and preferences (Socrates/Plato → the unexamined life is not worth living) Not everything on this list will be about your mental state (pleasure/pain)

Answer 142

1. Equality in Distribution Distribution matters = Is it a world where well-being is well distributed or is it isolated to certain people? 2. Impersonal goods Some things have ultimate value independent of any contribution they make to the welfare of humans/animals

Answer 143

depending on your ability for welfare/preferences

Answer 144

what is the right thing to do? - what is morally forbidden/required/permitted?

Answer 145

That action is morally required that bring about the best consequences Does not say that the means justify the ends (i.e., the surgeon cuts up a man to give his kidneys to 5 dying people but the consequence is killing an innocent person + people being scared to ever come to surgeons again). Concequentialists care about all the consequences not just what you intended. Consequentialism doesn't reject moral principles as a whole but the idea that there are deontic moral principles but they do think the fundamental moral principle is to bring about the best consequences

Answer 146

An action is right if it produces good/well-being Theory of the right + theory of the good

Answer 147

The moral theory of the right There are normative factors that help determine what the right thing to do is regardless of the consequences (moral constraints) It’s more important to avoid doing harm than good (if I fail to save him it is different than killing him if the consequences are the same)

Answer 148

Moderate deontologist agrees with absolute deontologists that there are deontic constraints (some actions are morally forbidden even if they might maximize the good) BUT moderate deontologist thinks that there are thresholds and if it is met you may be morally required to maximize the good despite the fact that there was a moral constraint Amongst moderate deontologists, there can be a further disagreement that deontic constraint is no longer operative if the threshold has been met vs. deontic constraint is still operative (moral dilemma: whatever you do is morally wrong)

Answer 149

Against doing harm (not ommiting) Absolute Deontology Constraints: If a constraint is absolute it holds no matter how much is at stake A constraint is a constraint Reject thresholds Moderate Deontology Constraints: Some constraints have thresholds E.X. don’t kill an innocent person to save 5 lives but kill that person if a million lives are at stake (threshold)

Answer 150

Thresholds: Absolute vs Moderate Constraint Constraint of doing A (actions of doing harm) but the consequences of not doing A result in the end of the world (all that harm will be produced/all good would be lost) An absolute deontologist says that you can’t go through with A because it is morally wrong Moderate deontologists would say that when there is so much at stake you have to violate the constraint (threshold) -two possibilities: When the threshold is met, the constraint is no longer operative When the threshold is met, the constraint is still operative and the actor faces a moral dilemma The constraint falls to the side and is no longer operative (it is overridden as a normative force) so you don’t have to worry about acting against it When the threshold is met the constraint is still operative. This is a moral dilemma A threshold is vague and is drawn somewhat arbitrarily (i.e., it isn’t clear how much hair one has to have to be called bald)

Answer 151

Reject constraints and thresholds

Answer 152

Theory of the Right → What is the right thing you should do? (action) Consequentialism (the right actions produce the best outcomes) Deontology (goodness of outcomes matters but there are other normative factors/constraints)

Answer 153

Theory of the Good → Doesn't tell you what you should do, it just says what is of value in the world?

Answer 154

Moral Dilemma A circumstance in which all the alternatives are wrong Whatever you do is morally blameable An operative constraint Concequentialism Moral Dillema Consequentialists reject moral dilemmas (only wrong if you choose an action that doesn’t produce the best consequences) Deontology Moral Dillema Doing harm is morally worse than failing to prevent it

Answer 155

Consequentialists do not believe in moral dilemmas. Since the consequences are the same when choosing to kill or save someone, consequentialists do not face the same dilemma as deontologists. Deontologists say that to kill someone is worse (doing the act) than failing to save someone (allowing/omitting the act) Self-defence is a threshold under deontology but you get a moral dilemma because the constraints are still operative (you still harm someone in defence)

Answer 156

a. effective means Hoederer claims you have to use all the effective means at your disposal for the good/best results which shouldn’t be sacrificed for principles b. dirty hands You have to get your hands dirty because politics is a battle of power c. principles vs human beings We don’t sacrifice humans for principles/deontic constraints = consequentialism (you do no wrong as long as you pursue the best outcomes) d. deontology and politics? Hugo argues against Hoederer because he argues honesty is a principle that must be preserved. But even so, Hugo is dishonest and contradicts himself because he is an assassin. Hoederer responds that he values human lives not some abstract notion of justice. Therefore, he will compromise with the bourgeois nationalists in order to seize power e. Complication Instead of viewing Hoederer as a consequentialist, we can also view him as a moderate deontologist. Maybe he thinks you are morally required to be good as there are constraints but when the threshold is met (i.e., many lives at risk) you can violate the constraint. Even so, your hands are still dirty because the constraint is still operable

Answer 157

Dirty Hands issue ethics of political actor: e.g. politician People want politicians to not violate certain constraints and value principles from their politicians, to be honest, and virtuous v.s. People want their politicians to do what is necessary to achieve their goals Should politicians not be held blameworthy as long as they secure their goals? Or should the public hold politicians accountable by condemning politicians (re-election) if they attain their objectives by violating morals? Action and Knowledge/certitude Are citizens in a representative democracy who vote for these corrupt politicians responsible too? Are their hands getting dirty too? What about political activists like Hugo/Hoederer? a. Indecisiveness Is certitude necessary for actions? (we can’t predict the future) We are also uncertain of the actions of other actors b. rashness/hubris The rightness of your moral views is not absolute either (i.e., Julia asks Hugo how can he be so sure that Louis is right and Hoederer is wrong?) You might think these are the right moral principles even if you are wrong (attached to these principles of morality even if there is good at stake)

Answer 158

Hoederer says you can’t be in politics if you only act when you are certain of the outcomes as Hugo an intellectual would be paralyzed to act because of his lack of certitude (politician vs. intellectual) Some politicians take actions not knowing their decisions will produce bad outcomes = vice of Hubris (go into war even if some of the consequences are not what you intended) Antigone (Greek view) → we are not sovereign over all of the consequences and meanings of actions

Answer 159

Why did Kaliayev not kill the children? Yanek doesn’t kill the first time because he can’t bring himself to kill the children. There are moral limits/deontic constraints of what you are permitted to do to secure the best outcomes Anenkov says “I can’t allow you to say that everything is permissible because it is not always right (the ends do not justify the means) that’s why they want to overthrow the regime in the first place

Answer 160

a critique of the Communist Party: Everyone is sympathetic to Yanek except for Stepan (thousands of peasant children dying vs. 2 children) on this view Yanek allows thousands to die

Answer 161

Moral Dilemma You are morally blameable for whatever option you choose A. Kaliayev: accepts that there is a constraint against killing Even without the children, it was difficult for Yanek to kill the duke so this shows that he does believe in moral constraints B. constraint against killing innocents: Stepan/cop argues that there is no constraint because if you grant killing the duke you should have no problem killing the children The absolute constraint with children but a moderate constraint for killing people who are not innocent (Duke) because in this instance the threshold is passed as the lives of so many are at stake that you have to go through with the act → the constraint either falls to the side or is still operative where the threshold is met so Yanek is morally required to kill the grand duke but it is still morally wrong (both normative factors of not being morally right to kill (moral action) and securing the best consequences are now morally required The moral dilemma is to violate one of these moral constraints/normative factors when both apply

Answer 162

There are deontic constraints (maybe moderate) that you can only act to secure the best consequences if you recognize the normative force of the crime that you are committing so now you need to atone and wash your dirty hands E.X. You killed someone and now you have to atone for it even if it was morally required to acquire the best interests 1. violation of moral constraint: a new moral duty Camus: there are limits; not all means are acceptable Would present-day suicide bombers act in a way that is consistent with this version of Camus’s interpretation (your death is a means of achieving an end vs. your death is repentance/selfish because you are rewarded in the afterlife for being a hero) Terrorism (more people/citizens) vs. assassination Death as atonement (Christian view + your life is something valuable and you are willing to sacrifice it vs. escaping consequences of your actions)

Answer 163

Dutchess requested that Yanek repent and Yanek refused because if he did not die he would then be a murderer Yanek’s form of atonement is death which secures justification for what he has done (accepts to kill himself) = words can be cheap so now he must show his commitment through action He believes he should and shouldn’t have done it so repenting doesn’t cover both as it is regretting the decision

Answer 164

Why should Yanek be so conflicted even if so many lives are at stake (some actions have so much intrinsic disvalue that they cannot be outweighed)? Extreme consequences (follow the act) but also that you acted (this doing has occurred in the world) and is a consequence of itself. One of the consequences is that you have done this thing. Some actions are so bad that their presence outweighs any other consequence (no moral dilemma) this is the difference from deontology No significance of you doing the act or not as it is the result that counts vs. deontological constraint where actions count if you violated the constraint or not

Answer 165

The duke is dead Leading to the fall of the regimes + saving lives The act of killing affects Yanek’s character (certain actions change who you are because who you are is a result of what you do). You must only take the bad action if you are willing to take yourself out of the picture to secure the best consequences (Yanek is now a murderer and the moral dilemma he once had was wakened and is now evil as long as he is alive. When you kill publicly you weaken societal norms as killing becomes normalized (less forbidden) but through atonement through public death you re-establish these norms Dora now wants to kill and be the next

Answer 166

ncertainty about the means (p. 260) (3rd angle of the play) We don’t know if killing will produce the best consequences so it looks like there are deontic moral constraints. We can never be sure about the best consequences but be sure about the best consequences (i.e., killing someone will 100% save someone) Given the lack of full information, we should adopt some rules which are a device in the face of uncertainty (by adopting these rules we produce the best consequences overall even if we don’t know in this particular case if they do) Rules of thumb are not deontological constraints Rules guide us to produce the best consequences overall even if in a particular case we won’t know if it is the best consequences. The decision to go to war never goes how you intended so you have to place rules of thumb against yourself to not enter into war because people will die and you don’t know if it will produce the best outcome. Jessica shows us that our moral views are a result of how we were socialized (Hugo would side with Hoederer if he met him before Louis). People acquire beliefs through processes of socialization (shows the need to adopt a cautionary principle as you may have got it wrong) These considerations apply to just war theory where war war is just under some circumstances but there are deontological constraints on the kind of things that are permissible in war as not everything goes

Answer 167

The rise of… Modern science/technology The territorial base of a sovereign state Individual rights Nationalism Industrialism/Capitalism European colonialism

Answer 168

(1) Enslaving the natives by ruling over each body of each of the colonized natives. This affects not only the body but the mind. By oppressing the native the colonizer shapes both the mind and the body of the native creating the colonized (2) The colonizer must hold back from total oppression because then the native won’t be able to serve/act for the colonized (you cannot destroy what you want to use). This violence towards the natives is internalized by those colonized. Human response to abuse is to react in self-defence, however, the colonized cannot do so because they will face greater violence in return from the colonizer. Thus, the natives repress their response and internalize it. This then aggravates the desire to engage in the action more, which leads to more repression (i.e., think of telling a child not to open a door, this arouses their curiosity so that they want to open it even more) (3) The culmination of all the internal repression is external violence but since the natives cannot revolt against the settlers they project that violence among each other (i.e., tribal interwar). This is known as fratricide or self-destructive violence. The colonized participate in colonialism in this way where they become an instrument for colonialism (4) Eventually, violence is redirected to the original source of violence (the settlers). Fanon believes that the colonized become fully human through the act of killing the European settlers. This is the only way the colonizers can restore their dignity (by eradicating settler rule through killing)

Answer 169

1. individual release Individuals discharge of built-up aggression by engaging in violence against the source, which creates liberated individuals (heals psychological scars and liberates politically) 2. mobilize the masses Violence is used to overthrow settlers but to mobilize solidarity among the colonized who were fighting each other 3. ownership of liberation By engaging in violence this way the dignity of the colonized is restored because they take their destiny into their own hands Colonialism based on violence Fanon doesn’t think colonialism is a rational system based on reason but violence so the only way to delete colonialism is through violence

Answer 170

Machiavelli Violence is a means to political ends to establish order Fanon: Agrees with Machiavelli that violence is needed to overthrow an existing order and establish a new one

Answer 171

Camus’s play’s characters Violence is justified in attaining political ends but leads to dirty hands (moderate deontology) so one must atone through sacrifice Fanon disagrees with Camus concerning atonement because it is not the colonized that must atone for their violence against the settlers but it is the settlers who must atone because they started this cycle. The only way to fight violence is with violence

Answer 172

Reject European ideals The colonizers must reject Europe and its ideals so that they can create their own C. Why? Europe has blocked the progression of other men through colonialism so it should not be followed Fanon claims America is the 3rd Europe (synthesis gone bad) Europe’s ideals are freedom, fraternity, and capitalism, but can capitalism be achieved without colonialism if it is colonialism that funded Europe in the first place? Europe and America are built on colonialism (the labour and resources of the third world) Not very good at business but at repressing Everything enjoyed in America is illegitimate without repairing the damage done. This modern repair is not violence but are reparations (atonement)

Answer 173

The war that Fanon lives in is a world at war, which is why violence is needed It is an opportune moment because there are rising political movements back home so the colonized need to send their army to the countries they rule

Answer 174

Now is a good time to overthrow violently Once that is done monetary reparations are due because exploited wealth should be paid back The violence is to get Europeans out not to colonize them in return (it's not an eye for an eye) Violence can only be fought with violence to dissipate the aggressive energies that have been built

Answer 175

Truth-telling commitment in action and speech. Truth cannot exist without love (beyond human relations) Truth is what Gandhi refers to as god but truth is not in the fashion of facts but the embodiment of humans and our interactions

Answer 176

“truth-force” Non-violent social change brought from.... 1. Persuasion through the use of reasoning 2. persuasion through self-suffering to move the hearts of others though sincerity 3. civil disobedience; nonviolent noncooperation = moral duty to disobey unjust laws + willingness to sacrifice your life + noncooperation with authorities

Answer 177

1. Move the oppressor 2. Move the oppressed masses that will join in cooperation (mobilize the masses) Gandhi counts more on the underprivileged masses than the oppressor but would like all of the social strata to cooperate

Answer 178

triumph of the spiritual over the physical

Answer 179

1. We are Spiritual & Physical Beings = a triumph of spirituality over a physical body which is never total non-violence 2. Physical Aspect => Embodied Life = Absolute non-violence is impossible as to live we inherently harm others (even vegans) this is the physicality of our being. The true source of our power in the world is our will. 3. The Good Life = What is the best life that one can live a good life to minimize the violence of physicality to mobilize our spiritual capacities (ahimsa) 4. True Source of Human Power: is spiritual => First Critique of Fanon: his psychological theory Our powers come from our spiritual capacities (examine life, adopt principles to act on and act on them)

Answer 180

satyagraha requires tremendous spiritual discipline and detachment: from your self-interest (you are willing to sacrifice your interest including your life (can’t be prudent discipline) 1. Detach from our own interests = detach from the ends you are trying to achieve (best outcomes are not accomplished by shooting for them directly like happiness which is a product of shooting for other things) 2. How can a person respond to violence on their body with non-violence = and detach from the fruits of their own action

Answer 181

1. Criticism: people who resort to nonviolence only do so b/c they are physically weak Respond to those who resort to non-violence only because they are physically weak Non-violence should not be treated as a tactic but a way of life (not a consequentialist argument) 2. Gandhi: it must be a moral choice Doctrine and a practice of non-violence based on our capacity to adapt/act on our moral principles Non-injury is a deontic constraint and the good life is to act justly Gandhi is optimistic because in these circumstances living a life according to this deontic constraint produces the best consequences because when you are detached from the consequences (you can only control your actions and not that of others) and act based on moral principles produce good consequences because you don’t eradicate the violence of the physicality of the universe but you appeal to morality/spirituality of the people (social realm in relationships where beings have spiritual capacity) Ahumsa is the principle of non-injury and there is a deontic constraint against injuring other creatures but a moderate deontologist would advocate for self-defence in a conflict instead of letting yourself be killed 3. It is chosen from a position of strength Better to act violently to succeed Courageous non-violence based on the strength of your will Spiritual strength is the basis for dignity/courage Ordinary people can be heroes but require training like reading and writing It is difficult to sacrifice unless you have faith in the validity of these principles Strength is not only physical as we are also spiritual beings 4. Spiritual Strength => Matter of self-respect, dignity, courage The good life is tied to our spiritual capacity (Socrates)

Answer 182

1. Disposition to respond to oppression without anger 2. When oppressors beat the oppressed with anger you cannot submit to angry orders (ignore no matter the consequences because of self-respect) 3. Refuse spoiled food in prison because you refuse to be complacent in your humiliation vs. humility

Answer 183

Decentralize constitutionalism and focus on locality Gandhi advocates for a non-violent police shifting the way we think about human relations EXAMPLES 1. Peace brigades because South Asia suffered from religious violence and the best way to deal with this is the individuals of the peace brigade, people that live in the community and are respected and trained in satyagraha and draw on their stature. 2. In America, gang violence is dealt with through police oppression or social workers. Social workers like peace brigades are long-term options as they are embedded in the local community = A Christian minister got his car stolen and returned when word got out that his car was stolen not because of the threat of him but of the social capital he gathered with the work in the neighbourhood Peace officers can be very connected to the state because they are trying to envision the structure of the state even if the state is viewed as an institution that often oppresses = creates a state organized on nonviolent principles (reform of the state, political anarchism vs. anarchism) Legitimacy from non-injury vs. government legitimacy of guaranteeing individual rights (Locke)

Answer 184

1. No discharge aggression theory 2. Violence is only a momentary victory Gandhi’s end is to overthrow the colonial apparatus but he does not constantly think about this (the person detached from the outcome is best able to realize their ends) Not preoccupied with your own action on whether you will succeed, but the nature of your actions themselves He is not advocating for short-term thinking but is thinking about the consequences long-term (inspiring the civil rights movement) Gandhi wanted to minimize suffering (seek to live according to the spiritual truths of non-violence) = satyagraha is not a policy but a way of life that has to permeate all aspects of life), he does not think that satyagraha is just for saints but that all of us are capable of it with the right training To react with violence is to invite inhalation and only weak people are non-violent because only the physically strong can fight (Fanon) but Gandhi says that physical strength should not motivate your pursuit of non-violence mplications of Dignity (vs. Fanon) Dignity is not discharging violence but that we must rise above the violence to transcend the limitation of the physical body (that condemns us to violence) and live to our true spiritual station Gandhi’s account of life force that has to be nurtured and realized (capacity within us that has to be cultivated) Counting more on the underprivileged masses but would like for all strata of society to cooperate (unlike Fanon doesn’t view the British as a lost cause) = does not bank on British support but acknowledges its potential Dismantles but does not attack the apparatus that Fanon dismantles Similar to Fanon colonialism required the cooperation of the colonized (few British leading over masses)

Answer 185

1.Facts = Collect facts to determine if there is an injustice (Thoreay says only obey just law) 2. Negotiate to change the injustice 3 3. If negotiation does not work turn to self-purity (Gandhi's discipline of spiritual non-violence) 4. Direct action

Answer 186

Contrary to moral/divine law (Antigone) - Degrades human personality (content) - Imposed by a majority on the minority and not on itself (Rousseau says we need general will), imposed on a minority that did not participate in its creation

Answer 187

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor but must be demanded by the oppressed (empowering action) the difference is non-violence

Answer 188

Gandhi is located in a religious tradition like King but a different religion (India fasting power vs. America) (Indian minority controlling majority vs. America majority controlling a minority)

Answer 189

1. purpose of direct action: Even the oppressor has a moral conscience which you can appeal to in steps 2 and 4 (Gandhi) 2. Appeal to the Conscience of the Community appeal to the community through the will to sacrifice yourself

Answer 190

1. Prisons are not necessary, i.e., they feasibly could be abolished 2. Prisons as we know them are evil, they ought to be abolished

Answer 191

Prisons didn’t always exist, they are a 19th CE phenomenon originating in Europe that does not concern itself with rehabilitation Before the rise of penitentiary: punishment via torture and death -torture/death: served four of the functions, but not rehabilitation

Answer 192

1. Deterrence: (prospective) Deter from committing a similar crime in the future (good means to produce good outcomes) 2. Rehabilitation: (prospective) Punish offenders so they won’t make the same mistakes 3. Protection: (prospective) Protect others from the offender 4. Expression: Expression of a society of norms that underlie social cooperation (this norm exists and you violated it) 5. Retribution: (retrospective) Retrospective retribution = pleasure in the one that wronged you or offender deserves to suffer (imbalance in social order so equivalent harm needed)(Augustinian thought of Machiavelli)

Answer 193

1. Slavery 2. Functional equivalents to slavery a. Lynching b. Segregation and Black Codes (only black people commit these crimes) c. —> Racist historical genesis of the modern incarceration system Massive criminalization of the post-slavery black population in America exploded incarceration as petty theft was transformed into a felony. US racialization of incarceration because of slavery (control black labour population) seen as an inevitable/natural feature of society

Answer 194

The modern Incarceral system in the USA is racist not just in its historical genesis, but also in its structure and function Davis argues more than the racist origins but its racist character today (genesis is not the same thing as the constitution)(genesis does not determine what it is in the future)

Answer 195

1. Subordination = subjection to the will of others 2. Isolation from the general population 3. Coerced labour: Convict leasing Once abolished series of non-slave institutions arose to perform the same function to control black people

Answer 196

1. Political Function Political control to control the black population 2. Economic Function

Answer 197

Massive increase in level of incarceration + rise of privately owned and run prisons 1. What explains the massive increase? Economic profits because free labourers = increased incarceration because of more people which is not linked to a rise in crime but to profit (private prisons have corporate incentives and even sell prisoners in public prisons) 2. Davis’s thesis: profit motive: 3. Direct line b/w the institution of slavery and the modern incarceration system D. How is the modern incarceration system racist in its current structure and function? Violence is at the basis of slavery (state-sanctioned vaginal searches)

Answer 198

Objections to Davis Slavery is explicitly racist but now formal equality before the law Response Not in prion primarily because you break the law (breaking the law by pirating a movie but not being in prison because of it) Breaking the law vs. criminal incarceration

Answer 199

retribution vs reparation & reconciliation... Breaking the law is not sufficient to get you incarcerated. It is because of your position in the racial/class structure Replace the retributive model with reparation/reconciliation Decriminalize drugs, sex work, illegal immigration, etc. Does not address murderers and rapists… Massive amounts of money spent on origins is greater compared to what would be spent on rehabilitation and social services