Week #3: (Justifying the State)

Question 1

Anarchism

Answer 1

• No such thing as legitimate political authority
• we would be better off without government
• cooperation is possible without coercion

Question 2

Hobbes’ reply to Anarchism

Answer 2

• fear, suspicion, and competition will overwhelm cooperation

Question 3

Anarchist responses to Hobbes

Answer 3

• humans are naturally good
  
  • the state corrupts them
• social cooperation without coercion
  
  • even if we are not ‘naturally good’ we can still communicate and cooperate without a state or law

Question 4

Negative Justifications of the State:

Answer 4

• The state is the only alternative to a state of nature

- A state of some form is better that no state

Question 5

Problem of political obligation

Answer 5

• is there a positive argument for a moral duty to obey they state?

Question 6

Why political authority is morally problematic

Answer 6

• People are naturally free, equal, and independent
  
  • Locke’s belief of humanity
• Legitimate power is created by us
  
  • Political authority is a human creation
• Authority requires my consent

Question 7

Key features of the state

Answer 7

• Claims a monopoly of legitimate violence
• In return, it has a responsible for protecting us
• Responsibility to citizens

Question 8

Universal political obligations

Answer 8

• Justifying the state = showing that there are universal political obligations
• Should we obey the law because it’s the law?
• “universal” means “applies to everyone”

Question 9

Parent analogy

Answer 9

• state-citizen relation is like the parent child relation
• life and benefits generate gratitude and the duty to obey
• problem: unreasonable orders and laws
• Positive Justification of the state

Question 10

Voluntarism and the social Contract

Answer 10

• voluntarism – state’s political authority depends on my consent
• social contract: political obligation based on contract or agreement

Question 11

Original contract

Answer 11

• actual, historical deal to consent to the state
  
  • No evidence for it
  • Highly improbably
  • Main problem: even if there were such a thing, it was a contract between different people back then, but it is suppose to obligate us now

Question 12

Express Consent

Answer 12

• If every individual actually consented to the state then the problem would be solved and we would have universal political obligations
• Only a minority explicitly consent
• What counts as consent?

Question 13

Voting as consent issues:

Answer 13

• “I didn’t vote for them”

- abstainers can’t be counted as consenters

Question 14

Tacit Consent:

Answer 14

• By quietly enjoying the protection of the state on is giving it one’s tacit consent
• This is enough to bind each individual to the state
• Against tacit consent: nothing could count as dissent, except leaving the country
• The state cannot be justified through tacit consent

Question 15

Hypothetically Consent :

Answer 15

• Rational individuals would consent if they were in the state of nature
• Objection: hypothetical consent is not actually consent
  Non voluntarism – worthy of consent
  Voluntarism: HC gets us to realize what we already consent to
  First objections: not really consent
  Second objection: some still might refuse to consent

Question 16

Anarchism revisited

Answer 16

• I didn’t – and wouldn’t – consent, so the state is illegitimate
• Correct to reject blind obedience
• But, people disagree about the justice of laws

Question 17

Three Parts of Utilitarianism

Answer 17

• Theory of Good (happiness)
• Commitment to equal concern
• Requirement of Maximization

Question 18

Utilitarianism and Political Obligation

Answer 18

• obey the law IF AND ONLY IF doing so will produce greater happiness that disobeying
• Objection: this is a law-breaker’s charter

Question 19

Indirect utilitarianism

Answer 19

• if we all reason directly in utilitarian terms things will go very badly, so we need to follow non –utilitarian reasoning – obey the laws – to maximize happiness
• Paradox of Edenism – don’t aim for pleasure, aim for other things that indirectly give you pleasure

Question 20

A General objection to utilitarianism

Answer 20

• It fails to explain why actions are morally right or wrong
• It can get the right answer, but not for the right reason

Question 21

Benefits and Burdens: utilitarianism

Answer 21

• Benefits: peace, order, and security provided by a functioning legal system
• Burdens: obeying the law
• It would be unfair to disregard the burdens, so don’t ‘free ride’

Question 22

Long term benefits: utilitarianism

Answer 22

• Enforced laws benefit everyone

- I sacrifice in the short term, but this pays off in the long term

Question 23

David Hume - on utilitarianism

Answer 23

• make long and short term interests coincide

Question 24

utilitarianism: Receiving and accepting benefits

Answer 24

• If other fore benefits on me, am I obligated reciprocate
• I have a duty of fairness to do my part ONLY if I ACCEPT the benefits
• Problem: how can we NOT accept the benefits the state provides?
• If you can not decline the benefits, its not your fault if they are given to you, why in the world would I reciprocate something I didn’t ask for?
• So, the fairness principle is flawed

Question 25

prisoners dillema

Answer 25

action which individually increases happiness collectively diminishes it

Question 26

three premises of state justification: utilitarianism

Answer 26

1. The morally best society is the one in which happiness is maximized
2. The state promotes happiness better than the state of nature
3. The state and the state of nature are the only alternatives we have
   - Therefore: We have a moral duty to bring about and support the state