political philosophy Flashcards
What does Locke believe about political obligation?
Consent is a prerequisite for a legitimate authoritarian society
He believes that everyone has a right to freedom –> Nobody should be forced to do something by someone else
Stems from belief in God
Therefore, insofar as the government gives instructions and compels others to comply, it involves subordinating a person to the demands of another, so violating the basic right to freedom of the subordinated individual
Criticisms of Locke’s Political Obligation?
Political authority is actually necessary to protecting each person’s equal freedom.
Locke himself argued that the state of nature would be quite threatening to each person’s ability to live freely because there are likely to be many disagreements about what rights each person has and so people are likely to trespass on each other’s rights.
Furthermore he argued that when there is such disagreement, we need an impartial judge to determine when rights have been violated described rather than applied to the Q here.
Once we have the above argument in mind, it is hard to see the force of the natural right argument for no political authority without consent good evaluation.
We might think that the very liberty that is being invoked to support the case for the necessity of consent is better protected by a reasonably just political authority.
Then, we can argue that one protects the liberty of each and every person better by instituting political authority and by treating its commands as authoritative.
And so the instrumentalist could argue that insofar as liberty is a fundamental value, it would be immoral not to support a reasonably just political authority and treat its commands as authoritative
Objections to the argument that Locke’s Political Obligation is wrong?
One might argue in response that the above argument seems to involve a kind of utilitarianism of rights.
Such a view says that it is justified to violate one person’s right in order to protect the rights of others.
I believe that it would be dangerous for everyone to live freely because human nature is fundamentally bad, which is supported by Thomas Hobbes’ view on the state of nature so society would become worse if everyone lives freely.
For this reason, Locke’s view on Consent as well as the consent theory sets unrealistic expectations. Thus, i will turn to Hobbe’s view on Political Consent.
Thomas Hobbes Political Obligation?
For Thomas Hobbes. we have an obligation to obey the sovereign since we enjoy the rights given by the sovereign well linked but this should be a claim rather than an outline of Hobbes’ view.
This is because of our state of nature, he argued, with no government and no law to guide us but the law of nature will be a state of war, for the “restless desire for Power after power” that drives all of us will lead to “a war of every man against every man” (Hobbes, chaps. 11, 13) goo subject knowledge, try to develop any quote with some explanation of how you understand it.
To escape so dreadful a condition, people surrender their independence by entering into a covenant to obey a sovereign power that will have the authority to make, enforce, and interpret laws. This form of the social contract Hobbes called “sovereignty by institution.”
Hobbes said, the subjects consent to obey those who have effective power over them, whether the subject has a choice in who holds power or not. Because they consent, they therefore have an obligation to obey the sovereign, whether sovereignty be instituted or acquired.
Criticisms of Thomas Hobbes Political Obligation?
One criticism regarding Hobbes social contract too abstract, focus on the precise point raised is that it is too unrealistic.
This is because if the state of nature is bad then we would be electing a bad leader, since everyone in the state of nature is bad.
Therefore, Hobbes’ society would also be living in the state of nature since he makes the assumption that only the leader of the state would not also be bad.
Therefore, although Hobbes has a valid interpretation of his state of nature, he has not proposed a solution to these issues.
What is Rawls Veil of Ignorance?
Think of yourself in a veil of ignorance
Behind this veil you know nothing about your life (wealth, natural abilities and position)
Behind such veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings
You do know there will be a natural distribution of natural assets and abilities and there will be differences of sex, race and culture.
We will all choose the stance where we are equal.
Rawls Two Principles of Justice?
- Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others
What two social and economic conditions must Rawl’s society satisfy? and why is this the case?
The greatest benefit of the least advantaged –>
Because people will be risk-averse –> Nobody wants to be poor
Attached to positions and offices open to all
People will be risk averse –> Implying that everyone is afraid of being poor.
Nozick’s criticisms of Rawls’s view of Justice?
- Rawls does appear to suggest that everyone would want to play it safe –> Refugees and other people in horrendous conditions would beg to differ
-
Michael Sandels Criticism of Rawls’s view of Justice?
Is it even possible to adopt a veil of ignorance
Hayek’s criticism of Rawls view of justice
‘Social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content’
Trying to ‘make people equal’ is very unequal –> Noting unjust about the market
Against Freedom
Why is Nozick against the idea of Social Justice (like a Rawsian-esque point of view?)
“Patterned principle of just distribution” –> Not compatible with liberty
Since any change in distribution of D1 violates the original pattern, the state would have to continually interfere in people’s ability to freely exchange things
What Is Hayek’s idea of Justice?
Subscribes to Hayek’s criticisms
- Justice = respecting people's natural rights
Which rights are we supposed to respect?
- Property and Self Ownership - People are 'ends in themselves' --> we cannot use them in ways they do not agree to, even if that would lead to some supposed 'greater good'
Radical conclusion: to take property away from people in order to redistribute it violates their rights
What are Nozick’s 3 Principles of Justice?
Justice in acquisition: how you acquire something that has not been owned
Justice in transfer: how you acquire property rights over something that has been transferred
Rectification of injustice: how to restore something to its rightful owner, in case of injustice in either acquisition or transfer
Entitlement theory explained?
SEE
