Discuss the claim that art does not imitate or copy reality.
Plato argued that art is an 'imitation' or 'copy' of reality - he believed that the ultimate reality is the Forms and that 'particular things' we detect with our senses are a kind of 'copy' of the Forms; for example, the Form of beauty is perfect beauty and all beautiful things are beautiful because they 'participate' in the Form, therefore 'particular things' (that we can sense) are a kind of imperfect 'copy' of the Forms. In terms of art, Plato believed that pieces of art are simply copies of particular things (i.e. they are copies of copies) - for example, there is the perfect Form of a bed; a carpenter makes a bed, which is a copy of the Form, and an artist paints a copy of the carpenters bed.
Firstly, we can argue against the idea of art being a 'copy' of particular things
[NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS BC I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE AO2/O3 POINTS SO THERE'S NO POINT IN JUST COPYING FROM THE BOOK TO MAKE AN ESSAY BC IDGI]
Give and explain two counterexamples to the view that art is representational.
Firstly, we can argue that art is not representational using the example of abstract art - for example, Kadinsky's abstract paintings clearly do not represent reality. However, it could also be argued that Kadinsky's works is representation in that it represents three-dimensional space through the use of overlapping shapes, therefore, just because the representation isn't entirely recognisable doesn't mean that it isn't representing anything at all.
However, there are some forms of abstract art which don't appear to represent anything at all - for example, Barnett Newman's 'Adam' - in this painting we see three red vertical lines with a dark background; this does not overtly represent reality in the same way other paintings do, but is still considered a piece of art.
We can also use the art form of music to explain that art is not representational - it could be argued that music does not represent a mood or emotion, but rather expresses a mood or emotion; for example, Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 could be described as joyful, however it does not represent joy. Therefore, this supports the view that not all art is supposed to be representational, unless it is the artists intention to be so. Furthermore, music rejects the view that a system of conventions is not the same as representation - classical music has many conventions (the idea of 'key', the types of instruments used), however it doesn't represent anything, but rather 'expresses'.
Explain why Kant calls aesthetic pleasure 'disinterested'.
Kant describes aesthetic pleasure as being 'disinterested' because it is has nothing to do with gaining pleasure from what we like, or from what is morally good i.e. it is not influenced by personal advantage. This is described in a number of ways - firstly, Kant says that we simply enjoy contemplating art, therefore whether or not what the art piece is representing is fictional is irrelevant to how aesthetically pleasurable it is. Personal approval of what is being represented is also irrelevant (for example, Caravaggio's 'Salome', a painting of a severed head), we can still gain aesthetic pleasure even from, say, a gruesome painting. Also, whether what is being represented is something that we personally want or could use is also irrelevant to aesthetic pleasure. Lastly, the pleasure taken from the piece of art is not the same as any other pleasure coming from an independent desire or practical interest - for example, being pleased for simply owning a painting, or being pleased about owning a painting that will make money is not the same as aesthetic pleasure.
So, Kant says that there is an internal appreciation we have for art in which we can gain aesthetic pleasure; a special kind of pleasure that is simple and independent of all other reasons to value art. ???
Friday 27 March 2015
Wednesday 25 March 2015
legitimacy and popular approval
Assess the claim that legitimacy requires popular approval. (AO3)
Plato argued that legitimacy does not rest on popular approval and instead requires theoretical authority (an ability and the expertise/knowledge to govern). He believed that gaining consent from the people through a democracy is problematic as people are more likely to consent what they want (which can be based on irrational emotions and desires), rather than what is good for them. Thus, he makes the argument that politics should be about the common good and that politicians should be knowledgeable about what this common good is and how to go about achieving it. (AO1)
Firstly, although what Plato argues is plausible, it is also unreasonable to entirely reject democracy in favour of some other form of government - it could be argued that democracy is the most realistic and least problematic of the options available; other forms of government (e.g. dictatorship) have proven to be prone to corruption, therefore, although democracy has its flaws, it's impractical to suggest so without also suggesting a realistic, or less problematic solution. Furthermore, at least in gaining popular approval (through a democracy) corruption is avoided, therefore making it the safest, most effective option.
Hume rejects Plato's distinction between what is good and what the people want, and suggests that the two are synonymous - he believed that what the people want is personally beneficial, and what is beneficial is good, therefore knowledge of what people want for society is what is good. However, Plato would argue that people are often confused about what is really beneficial, and legitimacy rests on what really is beneficial, not what people think is. A weakness of this idea is that it rejects the view that individuals are free and equal as it states that people will inevitably be unable to decide what they want for themselves and consequently that they should be forced to obey the state without consent. Whereas an advantage of basing legitimacy on popular approval is that it respects and protects these values and individuals' autonomy, thus supporting this view overall.
[insert conclusion?]
Discuss the relation between obligation, the right to dissent and consent.
The relation between political obligation and consent is that a person can only have an obligation to obey the law when they consent to do so - for example, voting is seen as a platform of which provides consent. However, if this is the case, it could be argued then that if a person chooses not to vote (i.e. to dissent) then they have no obligation to obey the law - if true, this is problematic because then only those who vote, or those who vote for a party that accepts the current system, have to obey the law, which then implies that the government has no justified authority over those who dissent/don't vote. Furthermore, even if those who choose not to vote/dissent still have an obligation to obey the law, then this would imply that their dissent is meaningless, which is also problematic as their dissent has no effect on their relation to the state i.e. they still have to obey.
It could be argued that these explanations are too simplistic, and rather, political obligation requires the right to consent - there are other legitimate democratic platforms a person can use, such as joining pressure groups, which can express dissent, and for that dissent to have meaning i.e. it can have an effect on the government.
However, an objection of this counter-argument is that political obligation should be based on freedom and equality - in joining pressure groups and other forms of influence, the individual does not have equal influence, therefore while this secures political obligation, it doesn't protect equality. Furthermore, it could be argued that, by joining things like pressure groups, consent is no longer the basis of a person's political obligation, rather, political obligation is based on the opportunity to engage in legitimate activity (but this opportunity isn't equivalent to consent), therefore perhaps there is no political obligation (as there's technically no consent being provided).
Assess the role consequences play in justifying civil disobedience.
The consequences on civil disobedience can be harmful for society, for example, they may encourage disrespect for the law, increase political instability, or even encourage retaliation from other's who don't support the aims of the protest - these potential consequences may make certain acts of civil disobedience unjustifiable. Therefore, it is important for those taking action to consider whether gaining the desired outcome is likely, or realistic to happen, otherwise the act of civil disobedience would be irresponsible.
However, while there are potential negative consequences of civil disobedience which may make the act unjustifiable, there are certain features of civil disobedience which generally avoid these dangers. Firstly, protesters are usually willing to submit to punishment - this shows that they have a general respect for the authority of law, which is likely to minimise any further disrespect or disobedience, therefore arguably justifying the act itself. Furthermore, this shows that protesters feel strongly about the things they are trying to change, therefore the act is not for personal gain but rather a genuine belief that what they are protesting for is the right thing to do. This would likely diminish any stigma or resentment from those who disagree with the protesters as they are more likely to respect their beliefs, therefore decreasing any risk of harmful retaliation. Thus, making the act of civil disobedience more justifiable as it isn't increasing any major harmful risks on society.
However, overall it is important to consider that acts of civil disobedience differ from one another, therefore making it difficult to place an accurate decision on whether or not all acts are justifiable. Thus, because the consequences of acts differ from one another, it could be argued that each individual act must be judged by the context it is in, rather than following strict guidelines of what is just or unjust.
Assess the view that, to be justified, civil disobedience must aim to change a substantial injustice.
Rawls believed that the motivation of civil disobedience must be a clear and substantial injustice, this is because he believed that this is the only way to justify breaking the law in the first place. However, it could be argued that the injustice must only be in proportionate with the specific act of civil disobedience for it to be justified - for example, a group of parents illegally blocking a street as part of a campaign to get a crossing installed for their children - according to Rawl, this act of civil disobedience may be unjustified simply because the issue isn't socially substantial, but this clearly isn't right. Therefore, this goes against Rawls' view that an injustice must be substantial for civil disobedience to be justified as, as exemplified, a small protest for a small aim is not obviously wrong.
Assess the claim that violent direct action that goes beyond civil disobedience cannot be justified.
Some characteristics of direct action (that isn't legal or doesn't take the form of civil disobedience) are that it is covert, that the protesters do not submit to arrest or punishment, and that it works through violence. A view to support the claim that this type of direct action cannot be justified is the general view that violence can never be justified if it is used against innocent people, for instance, even in war targeting non-troops is not (usually) justified.
However, some may disagree with this and claim that if the end goal of the action is important enough then it is justifiable to kill people who don't contribute to the injustice they are protesting about. This is a problematic and controversial argument which comes very close, or could arguably be considered a form of terrorism. However, most involved in this type of direct action do not refer to themselves using this term and rather argue that the act is justifiable if it attacks the people contributing to the injustice. For example, this argument may be used against people who use the threat of violence against people who carry out abortions or experimental research on animals; part of the defences in these two cases, however, are that both of the injustices also involve death and violence i.e. death of foetuses and animals. Thus, it could be argued that direct action of this kind can be justified if the aim is to prevent violence against innocent creatures.
Overall, these are complicated moral issues, but from a political standpoint, according to Locke and Hobbes, the most important value that the state protects is security. Therefore, to violate this by using violence when one disagrees with the state is unjustifiable as it is challenging the exact reason why the state exists in the first place. The state exists to help people co-exist peacefully, rather than living in a state of nature whereby people decide things individually rather than as a society as a whole, which would most likely cause violence. Therefore, politically, justifying this form of direct action is extremely difficult as it's contradictory of the foundations of the state itself.
Plato argued that legitimacy does not rest on popular approval and instead requires theoretical authority (an ability and the expertise/knowledge to govern). He believed that gaining consent from the people through a democracy is problematic as people are more likely to consent what they want (which can be based on irrational emotions and desires), rather than what is good for them. Thus, he makes the argument that politics should be about the common good and that politicians should be knowledgeable about what this common good is and how to go about achieving it. (AO1)
Firstly, although what Plato argues is plausible, it is also unreasonable to entirely reject democracy in favour of some other form of government - it could be argued that democracy is the most realistic and least problematic of the options available; other forms of government (e.g. dictatorship) have proven to be prone to corruption, therefore, although democracy has its flaws, it's impractical to suggest so without also suggesting a realistic, or less problematic solution. Furthermore, at least in gaining popular approval (through a democracy) corruption is avoided, therefore making it the safest, most effective option.
Hume rejects Plato's distinction between what is good and what the people want, and suggests that the two are synonymous - he believed that what the people want is personally beneficial, and what is beneficial is good, therefore knowledge of what people want for society is what is good. However, Plato would argue that people are often confused about what is really beneficial, and legitimacy rests on what really is beneficial, not what people think is. A weakness of this idea is that it rejects the view that individuals are free and equal as it states that people will inevitably be unable to decide what they want for themselves and consequently that they should be forced to obey the state without consent. Whereas an advantage of basing legitimacy on popular approval is that it respects and protects these values and individuals' autonomy, thus supporting this view overall.
[insert conclusion?]
Discuss the relation between obligation, the right to dissent and consent.
The relation between political obligation and consent is that a person can only have an obligation to obey the law when they consent to do so - for example, voting is seen as a platform of which provides consent. However, if this is the case, it could be argued then that if a person chooses not to vote (i.e. to dissent) then they have no obligation to obey the law - if true, this is problematic because then only those who vote, or those who vote for a party that accepts the current system, have to obey the law, which then implies that the government has no justified authority over those who dissent/don't vote. Furthermore, even if those who choose not to vote/dissent still have an obligation to obey the law, then this would imply that their dissent is meaningless, which is also problematic as their dissent has no effect on their relation to the state i.e. they still have to obey.
It could be argued that these explanations are too simplistic, and rather, political obligation requires the right to consent - there are other legitimate democratic platforms a person can use, such as joining pressure groups, which can express dissent, and for that dissent to have meaning i.e. it can have an effect on the government.
However, an objection of this counter-argument is that political obligation should be based on freedom and equality - in joining pressure groups and other forms of influence, the individual does not have equal influence, therefore while this secures political obligation, it doesn't protect equality. Furthermore, it could be argued that, by joining things like pressure groups, consent is no longer the basis of a person's political obligation, rather, political obligation is based on the opportunity to engage in legitimate activity (but this opportunity isn't equivalent to consent), therefore perhaps there is no political obligation (as there's technically no consent being provided).
Assess the role consequences play in justifying civil disobedience.
The consequences on civil disobedience can be harmful for society, for example, they may encourage disrespect for the law, increase political instability, or even encourage retaliation from other's who don't support the aims of the protest - these potential consequences may make certain acts of civil disobedience unjustifiable. Therefore, it is important for those taking action to consider whether gaining the desired outcome is likely, or realistic to happen, otherwise the act of civil disobedience would be irresponsible.
However, while there are potential negative consequences of civil disobedience which may make the act unjustifiable, there are certain features of civil disobedience which generally avoid these dangers. Firstly, protesters are usually willing to submit to punishment - this shows that they have a general respect for the authority of law, which is likely to minimise any further disrespect or disobedience, therefore arguably justifying the act itself. Furthermore, this shows that protesters feel strongly about the things they are trying to change, therefore the act is not for personal gain but rather a genuine belief that what they are protesting for is the right thing to do. This would likely diminish any stigma or resentment from those who disagree with the protesters as they are more likely to respect their beliefs, therefore decreasing any risk of harmful retaliation. Thus, making the act of civil disobedience more justifiable as it isn't increasing any major harmful risks on society.
However, overall it is important to consider that acts of civil disobedience differ from one another, therefore making it difficult to place an accurate decision on whether or not all acts are justifiable. Thus, because the consequences of acts differ from one another, it could be argued that each individual act must be judged by the context it is in, rather than following strict guidelines of what is just or unjust.
Assess the view that, to be justified, civil disobedience must aim to change a substantial injustice.
Rawls believed that the motivation of civil disobedience must be a clear and substantial injustice, this is because he believed that this is the only way to justify breaking the law in the first place. However, it could be argued that the injustice must only be in proportionate with the specific act of civil disobedience for it to be justified - for example, a group of parents illegally blocking a street as part of a campaign to get a crossing installed for their children - according to Rawl, this act of civil disobedience may be unjustified simply because the issue isn't socially substantial, but this clearly isn't right. Therefore, this goes against Rawls' view that an injustice must be substantial for civil disobedience to be justified as, as exemplified, a small protest for a small aim is not obviously wrong.
Assess the claim that violent direct action that goes beyond civil disobedience cannot be justified.
Some characteristics of direct action (that isn't legal or doesn't take the form of civil disobedience) are that it is covert, that the protesters do not submit to arrest or punishment, and that it works through violence. A view to support the claim that this type of direct action cannot be justified is the general view that violence can never be justified if it is used against innocent people, for instance, even in war targeting non-troops is not (usually) justified.
However, some may disagree with this and claim that if the end goal of the action is important enough then it is justifiable to kill people who don't contribute to the injustice they are protesting about. This is a problematic and controversial argument which comes very close, or could arguably be considered a form of terrorism. However, most involved in this type of direct action do not refer to themselves using this term and rather argue that the act is justifiable if it attacks the people contributing to the injustice. For example, this argument may be used against people who use the threat of violence against people who carry out abortions or experimental research on animals; part of the defences in these two cases, however, are that both of the injustices also involve death and violence i.e. death of foetuses and animals. Thus, it could be argued that direct action of this kind can be justified if the aim is to prevent violence against innocent creatures.
Overall, these are complicated moral issues, but from a political standpoint, according to Locke and Hobbes, the most important value that the state protects is security. Therefore, to violate this by using violence when one disagrees with the state is unjustifiable as it is challenging the exact reason why the state exists in the first place. The state exists to help people co-exist peacefully, rather than living in a state of nature whereby people decide things individually rather than as a society as a whole, which would most likely cause violence. Therefore, politically, justifying this form of direct action is extremely difficult as it's contradictory of the foundations of the state itself.
Tuesday 24 March 2015
political obligation and consent II
Assess the view that political obligation is based on tacit consent.
Because explicit consent is hard to gain, Locke developed the theory of tacit consent which is consent that is not actually spoken, but is implied. Locke believed that simply living under a state means that tacit consent is given.
We can first object that tacit consent doesn't allow much room for dissent, therefore doesn't involve political obligation - the only form of dissent we can express, if Locke is right, would be to leave the country. However, Hume argues that it is unreasonable to expect people (e.g peasants or artisans) to have a free choice to leave their country when they know no foreign language, or manners and enough money to live; just because they remain in the country and under the state should not imply that they give their consent to the state itself. Therefore, as there is no room for all to dissent, then there is no political obligation as, without the option to dissent, consent is meaningless. Furthermore, Locke's explanation may not be easily understood or recognised generally, for example, walking on a road (according to Locke) probably doesn't express consent to obey all the various laws a government has passed, thus consent is meaningless unless it's understood by the person consenting.
... (all above irrelevant idk?)
Assess the view that political obligation is based on tacit consent. (2)
It could be argued that to vote in itself is an expression of tacit consent to that system, therefore one is agreeing to abide by the rules, one of the rules being to accept the result of the vote. However, it could be argued that in certain situations this isn't true - for example, if a person votes for a party that has promised a revolution it would be wrong to say that someone who has initially voted for the abolition of the state then consents for its continuation, simply because they voted in the first place. To say that by voting in the first place, without taking into consideration the intention the voter was trying to express, makes the vote meaningless as a form of consent, therefore it could be argued that the individual has no political obligation as there is no consent.
Furthermore, being able to express dissent is what makes consent meaningful in the first place - however, tacit consent essentially says that a person cannot express consent through voting (e.g. for a revolutionary party), therefore the consent is meaningless and one has no political obligation. However, it could be argued that dissent from a current political system can alternatively be expressed through not voting at all, therefore dissent is still an option and thus political obligation remains.
It could also be said that those who don't bother at all are also giving tacit consent, because they have the opportunity to vote (but just aren't taking it) - this also makes it impossible to dissent as every person at least has the opportunity to vote, thus again, making the consent meaningless as the option to dissent is unavailable, thus making this form of consent meaningless.
Explain and assess the view that political obligation is based on hypothetical consent.
Hypothetical consent is the idea that actual consent (e.g. tacit or explicit) is not necessary for political obligation to exist, and if consenting would be (hypothetically) rational or deserved (for example, some philosophers argue that in the state of nature it would be rational to create the state and obey its law), then consent is being given. This then means that political obligation exists regardless of any "actual" consent being given by the people.
However, this idea is flawed, primarily because just because it would be rational for someone to consent doesn't mean that they consent; hypothetical consent ignores the free equality of a person in that it fails to respect a person's choices (even when we believe they are irrational). Secondly, some philosophers justify this idea with the idea that if we existed under the state of nature then it would be rational to create a state and obey it - however, just because it would be rational to do so in the state of nature, doesn't mean in other situations that the same would apply; decisions have to be made taking into consideration the type of state a person lives under and what the real alternatives to this state are. Lastly, many philosophers define 'rationality' to mean to appeal to the individuals self-interest - if this were the case, then being rational would not establish a secure and stable society as people are likely to withdraw their consent once it becomes in their interests to do so. Therefore, hypothetical consent is not an effective basis for political obligation, as people need to believe that they have a duty to obey the state, rather than simply thinking it's a good idea.
Because explicit consent is hard to gain, Locke developed the theory of tacit consent which is consent that is not actually spoken, but is implied. Locke believed that simply living under a state means that tacit consent is given.
We can first object that tacit consent doesn't allow much room for dissent, therefore doesn't involve political obligation - the only form of dissent we can express, if Locke is right, would be to leave the country. However, Hume argues that it is unreasonable to expect people (e.g peasants or artisans) to have a free choice to leave their country when they know no foreign language, or manners and enough money to live; just because they remain in the country and under the state should not imply that they give their consent to the state itself. Therefore, as there is no room for all to dissent, then there is no political obligation as, without the option to dissent, consent is meaningless. Furthermore, Locke's explanation may not be easily understood or recognised generally, for example, walking on a road (according to Locke) probably doesn't express consent to obey all the various laws a government has passed, thus consent is meaningless unless it's understood by the person consenting.
... (all above irrelevant idk?)
Assess the view that political obligation is based on tacit consent. (2)
It could be argued that to vote in itself is an expression of tacit consent to that system, therefore one is agreeing to abide by the rules, one of the rules being to accept the result of the vote. However, it could be argued that in certain situations this isn't true - for example, if a person votes for a party that has promised a revolution it would be wrong to say that someone who has initially voted for the abolition of the state then consents for its continuation, simply because they voted in the first place. To say that by voting in the first place, without taking into consideration the intention the voter was trying to express, makes the vote meaningless as a form of consent, therefore it could be argued that the individual has no political obligation as there is no consent.
Furthermore, being able to express dissent is what makes consent meaningful in the first place - however, tacit consent essentially says that a person cannot express consent through voting (e.g. for a revolutionary party), therefore the consent is meaningless and one has no political obligation. However, it could be argued that dissent from a current political system can alternatively be expressed through not voting at all, therefore dissent is still an option and thus political obligation remains.
It could also be said that those who don't bother at all are also giving tacit consent, because they have the opportunity to vote (but just aren't taking it) - this also makes it impossible to dissent as every person at least has the opportunity to vote, thus again, making the consent meaningless as the option to dissent is unavailable, thus making this form of consent meaningless.
Explain and assess the view that political obligation is based on hypothetical consent.
Hypothetical consent is the idea that actual consent (e.g. tacit or explicit) is not necessary for political obligation to exist, and if consenting would be (hypothetically) rational or deserved (for example, some philosophers argue that in the state of nature it would be rational to create the state and obey its law), then consent is being given. This then means that political obligation exists regardless of any "actual" consent being given by the people.
However, this idea is flawed, primarily because just because it would be rational for someone to consent doesn't mean that they consent; hypothetical consent ignores the free equality of a person in that it fails to respect a person's choices (even when we believe they are irrational). Secondly, some philosophers justify this idea with the idea that if we existed under the state of nature then it would be rational to create a state and obey it - however, just because it would be rational to do so in the state of nature, doesn't mean in other situations that the same would apply; decisions have to be made taking into consideration the type of state a person lives under and what the real alternatives to this state are. Lastly, many philosophers define 'rationality' to mean to appeal to the individuals self-interest - if this were the case, then being rational would not establish a secure and stable society as people are likely to withdraw their consent once it becomes in their interests to do so. Therefore, hypothetical consent is not an effective basis for political obligation, as people need to believe that they have a duty to obey the state, rather than simply thinking it's a good idea.
Explain and assess two reasons why we should submit to an authority.
Firstly, submitting to an authority solves the problem of co-operation - we are better off in life if we work together to secure the things we need to live our lives, also if we coordinate how we behave with other people. Without cooperation co-existing with others would be more chaotic and there would be more room for disagreements, inequality and unfairness, therefore it makes sense for us to obey an authority i.e. a platform whereby laws are decided and thus how we are to act cooperatively in order to ensure a good standard of living.
Secondly, relying on an authority gives us a short-cut into rational thinking and thus behaviours, some of which that we would have anyway - for example, not driving when drunk because it is dangerous. The law provides us with rational reasons to do and not do certain things that are in place to protect us. Furthermore, as Hume argues, the law gives us reasons to help others and contribute to the common good, which also ultimately improves our quality of living.
Assess whether it is rational to submit to an authority.
Anarchists believe that it is irrational to submit to an authority as we have no political obligation and the state has no legitimate authority over us. They believe that obeying the state stops people from thinking for themselves about what is wrong, as they simply accept whatever the authority says, which undermines individual moral judgement. Furthermore, moral judgement is replaced with self-interested thinking, such as submitting to an authority in order to avoid getting into trouble, rather than obeying for moral reasons, for instance, Milgram's electric shock experiment. Subsequently, anarchists believe that it is irrational to submit to an authority because we would be undermining our ability to make and act upon moral judgements (autonomy), furthermore because this may lead to bad consequences.
However, it can be argued that if the authority respects individual autonomy, then the two aren't incompatible and it isn't irrational to obey. By upholding rights that protect the individuals ability to act as they think is right in many cases, a degree of autonomy and moral judgement is maintained whilst also obeying an authority. This can be enforced by an authority, for example, through holding elections when making its laws - this shows that the authority respects and takes into account individuals' views.
Explain and illustrate two ways in which people can act irrationally.
In the state of nature it would be rational, in the long-term, for every individual to keep/seek peace with every other individual, as this in the long-term would sustain self-preservation as there would be no need for violence in order to survive. However, some individuals may be driven by their irrational emotions (e.g. greed) and seek to gain their desires in the short-term, for example, attacking someone for their food - this would provide the attacker with food and thus be a short-term advantage, but in the long-term it might create a fearful environment. A fearful environment would then potentially create violence, as people are trying to protect themselves, which would ultimately be undesirable for all. Therefore, it is irrational in this example to seek the short-term gain as in the long-term it would create an undesirable state of fear and violence; it would be rational to agree to keep peace and focus more on long-term benefits.
--
Compare and contrast Locke and Hobbes on the Law of Nature.
Locke's idea of the Law of Nature interprets liberty and equality from a moral standpoint - he believed that we have the duty to preserve and not to harm our own and other lives, This idea of a peaceful state differs from Hobbes who argued that there is no place for morality in the state of nature, and rather than morality, individuals are driven by rationality (ultimately in the pursuit of self-preservation).
Hobbes argued that the Law of Nature creating an 'agreement' between individuals to be peaceful is not enough to ensure that peace will definitely be maintained - this is because humans are irrational and can be driven by emotions, therefore we can't put our trust in them. Even if two different people agree within the Law of Nature to not harm one another, we can't always be sure they will keep their word, which means that we still have to be prepared to be violent, therefore the Law of Nature isn't enough on its own to ensure peace.
Furthermore, Hobbes believed that some may not even want to be rational and seek peace in the first place - people can be driven by emotions such as greed and seek to be powerful, which may result in violence. Others may not recognise the long-term benefits of keeping peace and would rather seek an easier short-term solution, for example, stealing food from others is easier than growing your own crops.
Ultimately, Hobbes argues, even if there is a Law of Nature and even if the majority of people follow it, we can't always be sure that every single person will do so, therefore this creates a state of fear.
Explain Locke's reason for saying that, in the state of nature, we all have the right to punish.
Locke believed that, in the state of nature, we all have the right to punish those who break the Law of Nature - this is because Law breakers are a threat to everyone, and so everyone else has the right to punish them to make amends and force them to compensate for the harm they have caused, as well as to prevent others from breaking the law again.
Assess Locke's account of why we would leave the state of nature and set up the state.
Locke believed that the disadvantages and ineffectiveness of punishment within the state of nature would eventually amount to us setting up the state. This is because, firstly, without a powerful authority figure, those who are punished are likely to end up ganging up on those who punished them in the first place, this would also make it more likely for people to repeatedly break the Law, thus making punishment in itself ineffective and crime more likely.
Locke also believed that, although at first there wouldn't be many Law-breakers (given the large amount of land available to all), eventually, with the invention on money, this would bring about more problems - as people are then able to buy and sell land, pay people to work etc, making the availability of land for all limited and thus increasing the likelihood of violations of the Law of Nature.
This proves that an effective system of punishment is needed to avoid problems - however, in there are issues that may arise - firstly, disagreements are likely to arise on whether someone has broken to law, and this could end up going unresolved and thus causing tension. Secondly, punishments are likely to be subjective rather than objective as humans are driven by irrational emotions, therefore this may end up with unfair and perhaps too severe punishments. Lastly, it is likely that the ability to administer the punishment won't be available, therefore there will be no incentive for people not to break it.
Overall, living under a state would be more beneficial as there would be a single, common interpretation of the law, whereby punishments are administered fairly and that is actually enforced.
Compare Hobbes and Locke on the type of state we should submit to.
Locke believed that the type of state we must admit to must be some form of democracy - he believed that the Law of Nature and our own moral equality would place constraints on the state, therefore making it effective for enforcing punishment.
However, Hobbes believed that there must be a single person or political body (an 'absolute sovereign') with total power and whereby there are no restraints on the law. Hobbes believed that the state needs to have absolute power to create whatever law it thinks is necessary, as well as create its own interpretation on the law in order to be effective because otherwise conflict could break out between people on what the law should be and how it should be enforced.
Assess the claim that any state is better than no state at all.
Hobbes argued that any state is better than no state at all - this is understandable, as Hobbes also strongly believed that the state of nature would ultimately become a state of fear, whereby violence is often necessary for self-preservation, and where each individual is set up against each other in order to survive. From Hobbes' perspective it is rational to say that any state is better than his theory of the state of nature as his beliefs about what it would be like is ultimately the worst-case scenario of life.
However, it can be argued that, from another person's perspective about the way humans would naturally co-exist together could be based on morality and peace (e.g. Locke's theory of the Laws of Nature) - this would make a far better state of nature than, for example, a totalitarian state whereby there is one absolute ruler.
In the state of nature it would be rational, in the long-term, for every individual to keep/seek peace with every other individual, as this in the long-term would sustain self-preservation as there would be no need for violence in order to survive. However, some individuals may be driven by their irrational emotions (e.g. greed) and seek to gain their desires in the short-term, for example, attacking someone for their food - this would provide the attacker with food and thus be a short-term advantage, but in the long-term it might create a fearful environment. A fearful environment would then potentially create violence, as people are trying to protect themselves, which would ultimately be undesirable for all. Therefore, it is irrational in this example to seek the short-term gain as in the long-term it would create an undesirable state of fear and violence; it would be rational to agree to keep peace and focus more on long-term benefits.
--
Compare and contrast Locke and Hobbes on the Law of Nature.
Locke's idea of the Law of Nature interprets liberty and equality from a moral standpoint - he believed that we have the duty to preserve and not to harm our own and other lives, This idea of a peaceful state differs from Hobbes who argued that there is no place for morality in the state of nature, and rather than morality, individuals are driven by rationality (ultimately in the pursuit of self-preservation).
Hobbes argued that the Law of Nature creating an 'agreement' between individuals to be peaceful is not enough to ensure that peace will definitely be maintained - this is because humans are irrational and can be driven by emotions, therefore we can't put our trust in them. Even if two different people agree within the Law of Nature to not harm one another, we can't always be sure they will keep their word, which means that we still have to be prepared to be violent, therefore the Law of Nature isn't enough on its own to ensure peace.
Furthermore, Hobbes believed that some may not even want to be rational and seek peace in the first place - people can be driven by emotions such as greed and seek to be powerful, which may result in violence. Others may not recognise the long-term benefits of keeping peace and would rather seek an easier short-term solution, for example, stealing food from others is easier than growing your own crops.
Ultimately, Hobbes argues, even if there is a Law of Nature and even if the majority of people follow it, we can't always be sure that every single person will do so, therefore this creates a state of fear.
Explain Locke's reason for saying that, in the state of nature, we all have the right to punish.
Locke believed that, in the state of nature, we all have the right to punish those who break the Law of Nature - this is because Law breakers are a threat to everyone, and so everyone else has the right to punish them to make amends and force them to compensate for the harm they have caused, as well as to prevent others from breaking the law again.
Assess Locke's account of why we would leave the state of nature and set up the state.
Locke believed that the disadvantages and ineffectiveness of punishment within the state of nature would eventually amount to us setting up the state. This is because, firstly, without a powerful authority figure, those who are punished are likely to end up ganging up on those who punished them in the first place, this would also make it more likely for people to repeatedly break the Law, thus making punishment in itself ineffective and crime more likely.
Locke also believed that, although at first there wouldn't be many Law-breakers (given the large amount of land available to all), eventually, with the invention on money, this would bring about more problems - as people are then able to buy and sell land, pay people to work etc, making the availability of land for all limited and thus increasing the likelihood of violations of the Law of Nature.
This proves that an effective system of punishment is needed to avoid problems - however, in there are issues that may arise - firstly, disagreements are likely to arise on whether someone has broken to law, and this could end up going unresolved and thus causing tension. Secondly, punishments are likely to be subjective rather than objective as humans are driven by irrational emotions, therefore this may end up with unfair and perhaps too severe punishments. Lastly, it is likely that the ability to administer the punishment won't be available, therefore there will be no incentive for people not to break it.
Overall, living under a state would be more beneficial as there would be a single, common interpretation of the law, whereby punishments are administered fairly and that is actually enforced.
Compare Hobbes and Locke on the type of state we should submit to.
Locke believed that the type of state we must admit to must be some form of democracy - he believed that the Law of Nature and our own moral equality would place constraints on the state, therefore making it effective for enforcing punishment.
However, Hobbes believed that there must be a single person or political body (an 'absolute sovereign') with total power and whereby there are no restraints on the law. Hobbes believed that the state needs to have absolute power to create whatever law it thinks is necessary, as well as create its own interpretation on the law in order to be effective because otherwise conflict could break out between people on what the law should be and how it should be enforced.
Assess the claim that any state is better than no state at all.
Hobbes argued that any state is better than no state at all - this is understandable, as Hobbes also strongly believed that the state of nature would ultimately become a state of fear, whereby violence is often necessary for self-preservation, and where each individual is set up against each other in order to survive. From Hobbes' perspective it is rational to say that any state is better than his theory of the state of nature as his beliefs about what it would be like is ultimately the worst-case scenario of life.
However, it can be argued that, from another person's perspective about the way humans would naturally co-exist together could be based on morality and peace (e.g. Locke's theory of the Laws of Nature) - this would make a far better state of nature than, for example, a totalitarian state whereby there is one absolute ruler.
Wednesday 18 March 2015
What is the difference between conscientious objection and civil disobedience.
Both conscientious objection and civil disobedience is motivated by sincere views about what is morally right. However, conscientious objectors usually do not have the desire to change the law, they are simply seeking to not participate in something, for example, a pacifist may object to participating in a war, but doesn't necessarily object to anybody else participating. Whereas civil disobedience usually arises from a concern about what is best for society and thus seek to change some law or policy, usually publicly. Thus, conscientious objectors don't necessarily try to publicise their actions, whereas acts of civil disobedience always has this political aim.
Outline and illustrate the spectrum of expression of dissent.
At one end of the spectrum there's legal direct action, for example, boycotts and protest rallies. Then there is civil disobedience, which includes cases that fit into Rawls' restrictive definition, and then cases that don't fit into this definition. Next, on the border between civil disobedience and revolution there are cases which don't aim at changing specific law or laws, but the whole structure of the state - for example, Gandhi's protest against the British Raj. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, there are cases of direct action and revolutionary action that don't aim to bring about change in a peaceful manner, but through violence and intimidation.
Explain Rawls' justification of civil disobedience.
In Plato's Crito, Socrates argues that it's never right to break the law, even if it treats you wrongly. This is because we are obliged to obey the law in order to receive all of the benefits it provides. He also suggests that by simply living under the state we have agreed to abide by its laws.
Rawls, however, objects that under certain conditions, if the aim of an act of civil disobedience is important enough, then the act can be justified. One of the conditions being that all legal attempts to change the law have failed i.e. civil obedience must be a 'last resort'. The second condition must be that the civil disobedience is non-violent - this is because the most important thing that the law protects, according to Rawls, is our safety, so to threaten our protection is unjustifiable, because the aim of civil disobedience cannot ultimately outweigh the importance of our protection. Furthermore, the consequences of non-violence are likely to be much better than the consequences of violence, for example, using violence in certain present situations may encourage further violence in other future situations. Therefore, according to Rawls, non-violence is the better, more rational option.
Discuss whether civil disobedience must be non-violent to be justified.
Rawls argued that, in regards to civil disobedience, violence cannot be justified because ultimately the most important thing the law protects is our safety, and by using violence we would be jeopardising this protection. However, it's important to consider whether the consequences of an action can be justified by its aim. Sometimes the consequences of non-violence can be just as bad as violence itself, for example, ambulance drivers going on strike. Furthermore, sometimes limited direct violence may be more effective than non-violence, for instance, when civil obedience occurs in an unjust state.
(AO3?) Therefore, it is irrational to use violence and non-violence in black and white terms without considering the context they are in, and it's more effective to evaluate the greater-good that can come out of a situation, rather than following specific guidelines.
Both conscientious objection and civil disobedience is motivated by sincere views about what is morally right. However, conscientious objectors usually do not have the desire to change the law, they are simply seeking to not participate in something, for example, a pacifist may object to participating in a war, but doesn't necessarily object to anybody else participating. Whereas civil disobedience usually arises from a concern about what is best for society and thus seek to change some law or policy, usually publicly. Thus, conscientious objectors don't necessarily try to publicise their actions, whereas acts of civil disobedience always has this political aim.
Outline and illustrate the spectrum of expression of dissent.
At one end of the spectrum there's legal direct action, for example, boycotts and protest rallies. Then there is civil disobedience, which includes cases that fit into Rawls' restrictive definition, and then cases that don't fit into this definition. Next, on the border between civil disobedience and revolution there are cases which don't aim at changing specific law or laws, but the whole structure of the state - for example, Gandhi's protest against the British Raj. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, there are cases of direct action and revolutionary action that don't aim to bring about change in a peaceful manner, but through violence and intimidation.
Explain Rawls' justification of civil disobedience.
In Plato's Crito, Socrates argues that it's never right to break the law, even if it treats you wrongly. This is because we are obliged to obey the law in order to receive all of the benefits it provides. He also suggests that by simply living under the state we have agreed to abide by its laws.
Rawls, however, objects that under certain conditions, if the aim of an act of civil disobedience is important enough, then the act can be justified. One of the conditions being that all legal attempts to change the law have failed i.e. civil obedience must be a 'last resort'. The second condition must be that the civil disobedience is non-violent - this is because the most important thing that the law protects, according to Rawls, is our safety, so to threaten our protection is unjustifiable, because the aim of civil disobedience cannot ultimately outweigh the importance of our protection. Furthermore, the consequences of non-violence are likely to be much better than the consequences of violence, for example, using violence in certain present situations may encourage further violence in other future situations. Therefore, according to Rawls, non-violence is the better, more rational option.
Discuss whether civil disobedience must be non-violent to be justified.
Rawls argued that, in regards to civil disobedience, violence cannot be justified because ultimately the most important thing the law protects is our safety, and by using violence we would be jeopardising this protection. However, it's important to consider whether the consequences of an action can be justified by its aim. Sometimes the consequences of non-violence can be just as bad as violence itself, for example, ambulance drivers going on strike. Furthermore, sometimes limited direct violence may be more effective than non-violence, for instance, when civil obedience occurs in an unjust state.
(AO3?) Therefore, it is irrational to use violence and non-violence in black and white terms without considering the context they are in, and it's more effective to evaluate the greater-good that can come out of a situation, rather than following specific guidelines.
Explain why obligation requires the right to dissent.
According to philosophers such as Locke and Hobbes, political obligation can be acquired through consenting to be ruled. However, consent must be given freely for it to become an obligation and not, for example, through threats. For one to consent freely, one must also be given the option to refuse consent i.e. through being able to dissent. This is because individuals are free and equal, but coercion fails to respect the freedom and equality of the individual, so consent is meaningless if it is coerced. Thus, unless one has the right to dissent to someone, one cannot become obliged to do it.
Outline and illustrate different forms dissent takes.
People can dissent from a particular law or laws, as well as from the government as a whole. In democracies there are legal ways to express dissent, for example, voting against the government that currently make the laws, protests or pressure groups. In these examples, dissent remains meaningful. A stronger sense of dissent is to say 'I refuse to obey the law', which involved illegal action - this can take the form of civil disobedience or conscientious objection.
The most famous example of conscientious objection is to refuse to fight for one's country because of their own personal pacifism, which describes refusal to obey a law because of one's individual moral objection. This form of dissent usually means although the individual does not want to fight, they don't necessarily think that others should take the same stance. Many conscientious objectors will also not resist being imprisoned (for example, if joining the armed forces is a legal requirement and they refuse to do so), this is because they don't disrespect or dissent from the authority of the law in general. In many countries where conscientious objection is legal, it is required to perform an alternative, non-violent task as a substitute. However, when conscientious objection is legal, the objector technically isn't dissenting from the law, but dissenting from the taste they are refusing to do (in the example given, they are dissenting from fighting for their country).
Another example of dissent is a revolution, which is to dissent to the state as a whole, and involves a country's rulers being replaces, as well as its structure and institutions being replaced. Hobbes and Locke argued that political obligation comes from consenting to being ruled, which means we must also have the right to dissent from being ruled (or at least from the state as it is).
How can conscientious objection be justified.
A conscientious objector is someone who refuses to obey a certain law, due to moral reasons. The most famous example is to refuse to fight in a war because of their own personal pacifism.
Objector's actions can be justified through explaining how their own moral values conflict with the specific law. To force an individual to do something they don't morally agree with (e.g. fighting in a war) would have an adverse effect on their moral integrity, which could in turn harm the individual, so it is ideal that this is avoided. Furthermore, conscientious objectors' actions can be justified as they tend to be individuals who don't generally disrespect the law or dissent from its authority, furthermore they don't encourage others to break the law. Also, the social and political consequences of their actions are usually minimal, because they are objections based on personal moral principles, rather than disrespect of the law itself.
Therefore, ultimately, it is better to treat this form of dissent leniently - because this form of dissent is still breaking the law, some punishment should be enforced (otherwise conscientious objection would become legal), so it is best to apply a light sentence, for example, doing productive work instead of serving in the army. This would ultimately avoid any adverse and unnecessary effects whilst also maintaining the law itself.
Compare and contrast Hobbes and Locke on the right to revolution.
Both Hobbes and Locke agree that dissenting from the state is justified if the state fails to perform the main function it's supposed to serve, however, both had different ideas on exactly what that purpose was.
Hobbes believed that the purpose of the state is to protect us from violent and threat of violence - it was believed that, in the state of nature, humans have a 'natural right' to do what we need to stay alive, so Hobbes stated that if any law or command threatens our self-preservation, we have the right to dissent from and disobey, because the state would be failing to serve its purpose.
Locke, however, believed that the purpose of the state is to enforce the Law of Nature* - but similarly believed that failing to do so or by losing the support of its citizens means that the people no longer have an obligation to obey as it's not a legitimate authority (as citizens aren't providing their consent). Furthermore, if those in power decide to try and stay in power (without the consent of their citizens), then it is they who are technically 'rebelling' against the people. This means that the people have the right to respond to this assertion of power and overthrow these people, as they are no longer a legitimate authority.
*the Law of Nature: no person subordinate another, harm their life, health, liberty or possessions, except in self-defence.
According to philosophers such as Locke and Hobbes, political obligation can be acquired through consenting to be ruled. However, consent must be given freely for it to become an obligation and not, for example, through threats. For one to consent freely, one must also be given the option to refuse consent i.e. through being able to dissent. This is because individuals are free and equal, but coercion fails to respect the freedom and equality of the individual, so consent is meaningless if it is coerced. Thus, unless one has the right to dissent to someone, one cannot become obliged to do it.
Outline and illustrate different forms dissent takes.
People can dissent from a particular law or laws, as well as from the government as a whole. In democracies there are legal ways to express dissent, for example, voting against the government that currently make the laws, protests or pressure groups. In these examples, dissent remains meaningful. A stronger sense of dissent is to say 'I refuse to obey the law', which involved illegal action - this can take the form of civil disobedience or conscientious objection.
The most famous example of conscientious objection is to refuse to fight for one's country because of their own personal pacifism, which describes refusal to obey a law because of one's individual moral objection. This form of dissent usually means although the individual does not want to fight, they don't necessarily think that others should take the same stance. Many conscientious objectors will also not resist being imprisoned (for example, if joining the armed forces is a legal requirement and they refuse to do so), this is because they don't disrespect or dissent from the authority of the law in general. In many countries where conscientious objection is legal, it is required to perform an alternative, non-violent task as a substitute. However, when conscientious objection is legal, the objector technically isn't dissenting from the law, but dissenting from the taste they are refusing to do (in the example given, they are dissenting from fighting for their country).
Another example of dissent is a revolution, which is to dissent to the state as a whole, and involves a country's rulers being replaces, as well as its structure and institutions being replaced. Hobbes and Locke argued that political obligation comes from consenting to being ruled, which means we must also have the right to dissent from being ruled (or at least from the state as it is).
How can conscientious objection be justified.
A conscientious objector is someone who refuses to obey a certain law, due to moral reasons. The most famous example is to refuse to fight in a war because of their own personal pacifism.
Objector's actions can be justified through explaining how their own moral values conflict with the specific law. To force an individual to do something they don't morally agree with (e.g. fighting in a war) would have an adverse effect on their moral integrity, which could in turn harm the individual, so it is ideal that this is avoided. Furthermore, conscientious objectors' actions can be justified as they tend to be individuals who don't generally disrespect the law or dissent from its authority, furthermore they don't encourage others to break the law. Also, the social and political consequences of their actions are usually minimal, because they are objections based on personal moral principles, rather than disrespect of the law itself.
Therefore, ultimately, it is better to treat this form of dissent leniently - because this form of dissent is still breaking the law, some punishment should be enforced (otherwise conscientious objection would become legal), so it is best to apply a light sentence, for example, doing productive work instead of serving in the army. This would ultimately avoid any adverse and unnecessary effects whilst also maintaining the law itself.
Compare and contrast Hobbes and Locke on the right to revolution.
Both Hobbes and Locke agree that dissenting from the state is justified if the state fails to perform the main function it's supposed to serve, however, both had different ideas on exactly what that purpose was.
Hobbes believed that the purpose of the state is to protect us from violent and threat of violence - it was believed that, in the state of nature, humans have a 'natural right' to do what we need to stay alive, so Hobbes stated that if any law or command threatens our self-preservation, we have the right to dissent from and disobey, because the state would be failing to serve its purpose.
Locke, however, believed that the purpose of the state is to enforce the Law of Nature* - but similarly believed that failing to do so or by losing the support of its citizens means that the people no longer have an obligation to obey as it's not a legitimate authority (as citizens aren't providing their consent). Furthermore, if those in power decide to try and stay in power (without the consent of their citizens), then it is they who are technically 'rebelling' against the people. This means that the people have the right to respond to this assertion of power and overthrow these people, as they are no longer a legitimate authority.
*the Law of Nature: no person subordinate another, harm their life, health, liberty or possessions, except in self-defence.
Tuesday 17 March 2015
What is the difference between theoretical and practical authority?
The first type of authority is theoretical authority - this is authority in the sense of someone being an expert in something and from whom we can gain knowledge from, because we trust them and their source of knowledge. For instance, we could ask an engineer if we want to build a bridge, as they know how to build a bridge that won't collapse.
A second type of authority is practical authority - this is in the sense of someone being an 'authority figure'. An authority can get us to act in particular ways, simply because they have power. However, just having power is not enough to also have authority.
There are two types of practical authority - one being in the descriptive sense: this means a state has authority if it maintains public order and makes laws that are generally obeyed by its citizens. Thus, this type of authority imposes laws successfully - authority goes beyond power when it can secure public order, which also depends in part, on people respecting the law. In a state where the law is often broken, but its police force is still used to punish its law-breakers i.e. the citizens and state are in conflict, the state no longer has authority.
Explain normative authority. What does it add to authority in the descriptive sense?
Normative authority says that a state has practical authority if its authority in the descriptive sense is legitimate. Hobbes argued that any state with authority in the descriptive sense is legitimate, so there is no real distinction, however, other philosophers believed that the descriptive sense of practical authority is too weak and doesn't distinguish between mere power and genuine authority. They argue that a state only has authority of any kind if the citizens obey the law because they believe a state has authority in the normative sense, i.e. if the state is legitimate. A state in which the citizens obey the law because they're too scared to break it does not have authority, only power. For descriptive authority, the citizens must believe that the state is legitimate, whereas for normative authority, the state must actually be legitimate.
Discuss the relations between power, authority and legitimacy.
Explain Plato's analogy of the beast.
Plato used the analogy of a beast to illustrate how, although democracy is based on the freedom to do what you want, this freedom can be harmful if you don't know what is good for you. He first compares people in a democracy to a powerful beast, and compares their rulers to the beasts tamer. The rulers govern by giving people what they want, as if they don't they will be voted out of government, but this misses the point of what is good for the state as a whole. Plato says that democracy is really rule by ignorance, because neither the politicians nor the citizens who have elected them, know what's beneficial for the state.
Discuss Plato's objection to the view that legitimacy depends upon popular approval.
Plato argued that legitimate practical authority is founded on theoretical authority (expertise), as opposed to consent or providing important benefits. He explained this by comparing politics with skills - for example, if you want to build a bridge, you ask an expert (an engineer) for advice on how to do it, also if you are ill, you consult a qualified doctor, not just any person. Likewise, a state is legitimate only if those in power have knowledge to rule and skill in ruling, thus popular approval is irrelevant.
He argued that democracy is based on the freedom to do what you want, but if the people don't know what's good for them, then this could be harmful on society as a whole. Plato believed that a state which is governed by what the voters want, rather than what is good for the state, is ruled by ignorance. A portrayal of this is in general elections, whereby the way many people vote is determined by many different desires and prejudices, furthermore it's important to consider how many voters actually bother to read party manifestos, or research the impact of policies? This exemplifies potential incompetence and irrationality that people often have, plus how rare it is for people to think about what is good for the people as a whole, rather than being driven by selfishness. Therefore, if politicians what they want, they would not be doing what's best for the state. What would be best is to have politicians with skills, knowledge and insightful judgement; they need to understand economics, psychology, to have excellent people skills, a large capacity for work, a good memory, and many more things. We won't get the best politicians by letting incompetent and irrational people vote, we'll only get politicians who are willing to give the people what they want. Plato believed that because people don't know much about what is good for society as a whole, and people are mostly selfish, politicians giving people what they want through democracy won't be governing what is best for the state.
The first type of authority is theoretical authority - this is authority in the sense of someone being an expert in something and from whom we can gain knowledge from, because we trust them and their source of knowledge. For instance, we could ask an engineer if we want to build a bridge, as they know how to build a bridge that won't collapse.
A second type of authority is practical authority - this is in the sense of someone being an 'authority figure'. An authority can get us to act in particular ways, simply because they have power. However, just having power is not enough to also have authority.
There are two types of practical authority - one being in the descriptive sense: this means a state has authority if it maintains public order and makes laws that are generally obeyed by its citizens. Thus, this type of authority imposes laws successfully - authority goes beyond power when it can secure public order, which also depends in part, on people respecting the law. In a state where the law is often broken, but its police force is still used to punish its law-breakers i.e. the citizens and state are in conflict, the state no longer has authority.
Explain normative authority. What does it add to authority in the descriptive sense?
Normative authority says that a state has practical authority if its authority in the descriptive sense is legitimate. Hobbes argued that any state with authority in the descriptive sense is legitimate, so there is no real distinction, however, other philosophers believed that the descriptive sense of practical authority is too weak and doesn't distinguish between mere power and genuine authority. They argue that a state only has authority of any kind if the citizens obey the law because they believe a state has authority in the normative sense, i.e. if the state is legitimate. A state in which the citizens obey the law because they're too scared to break it does not have authority, only power. For descriptive authority, the citizens must believe that the state is legitimate, whereas for normative authority, the state must actually be legitimate.
Discuss the relations between power, authority and legitimacy.
Explain Plato's analogy of the beast.
Plato used the analogy of a beast to illustrate how, although democracy is based on the freedom to do what you want, this freedom can be harmful if you don't know what is good for you. He first compares people in a democracy to a powerful beast, and compares their rulers to the beasts tamer. The rulers govern by giving people what they want, as if they don't they will be voted out of government, but this misses the point of what is good for the state as a whole. Plato says that democracy is really rule by ignorance, because neither the politicians nor the citizens who have elected them, know what's beneficial for the state.
Discuss Plato's objection to the view that legitimacy depends upon popular approval.
Plato argued that legitimate practical authority is founded on theoretical authority (expertise), as opposed to consent or providing important benefits. He explained this by comparing politics with skills - for example, if you want to build a bridge, you ask an expert (an engineer) for advice on how to do it, also if you are ill, you consult a qualified doctor, not just any person. Likewise, a state is legitimate only if those in power have knowledge to rule and skill in ruling, thus popular approval is irrelevant.
He argued that democracy is based on the freedom to do what you want, but if the people don't know what's good for them, then this could be harmful on society as a whole. Plato believed that a state which is governed by what the voters want, rather than what is good for the state, is ruled by ignorance. A portrayal of this is in general elections, whereby the way many people vote is determined by many different desires and prejudices, furthermore it's important to consider how many voters actually bother to read party manifestos, or research the impact of policies? This exemplifies potential incompetence and irrationality that people often have, plus how rare it is for people to think about what is good for the people as a whole, rather than being driven by selfishness. Therefore, if politicians what they want, they would not be doing what's best for the state. What would be best is to have politicians with skills, knowledge and insightful judgement; they need to understand economics, psychology, to have excellent people skills, a large capacity for work, a good memory, and many more things. We won't get the best politicians by letting incompetent and irrational people vote, we'll only get politicians who are willing to give the people what they want. Plato believed that because people don't know much about what is good for society as a whole, and people are mostly selfish, politicians giving people what they want through democracy won't be governing what is best for the state.
Tuesday 10 March 2015
Explain why, according to Hobbes, the state of nature will be a state of war.
Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature would ultimately be driven by the human 'right' (in the absence of authority) to self-preservation/survival. He believed that we, as humans, desire power to obtain what we want - more accurately, to posses the 'means' to get what we want in the future, because in order to get what we want in the first place requires possessing the means to do so. For example, through making others like us or be intimidated by us, we can get what we want.
Hobbes believed that our desires as humans are never-ending - once we fulfil one desire, we are instantly trying to fulfil the next i.e. we will try to satisfy our desires for now, as well as the future. The vulnerability of humans is also a factor as other people can cause us to fail to achieve the power we need to satisfy our desires. Furthermore, Hobbes said that there is a scarcity of goods, meaning that not everyone can get everything that they want, especially when that includes power to get things in the future. This will create war among humans with the right to survive as their desires and needs will conflict with others' desires and needs.
Hobbes believed that these factors create a vicious cycle of human desire to get what we want and perpetual fear of losing what we have gained. Even those who may not want to resort to violence have more reason to become violent if their survival, desires or possessions are being jeopardised. This will essentially create a society driven by the 'survival of the fittest', whereby each individual has the best chance of self-preservation through the most effective means of obtaining power, the most extreme method being through violence or killing. Hobbes believed that in order to get what we need in the future, we will fight for security. He also said that humans would fight for 'glory' (the reputation of being powerful) - perhaps simply for enjoyment of power, or because having power itself is tactical in gaining more power itself as people tend to be more compliant towards those with power.
Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature would ultimately be driven by the human 'right' (in the absence of authority) to self-preservation/survival. He believed that we, as humans, desire power to obtain what we want - more accurately, to posses the 'means' to get what we want in the future, because in order to get what we want in the first place requires possessing the means to do so. For example, through making others like us or be intimidated by us, we can get what we want.
Hobbes believed that our desires as humans are never-ending - once we fulfil one desire, we are instantly trying to fulfil the next i.e. we will try to satisfy our desires for now, as well as the future. The vulnerability of humans is also a factor as other people can cause us to fail to achieve the power we need to satisfy our desires. Furthermore, Hobbes said that there is a scarcity of goods, meaning that not everyone can get everything that they want, especially when that includes power to get things in the future. This will create war among humans with the right to survive as their desires and needs will conflict with others' desires and needs.
Hobbes believed that these factors create a vicious cycle of human desire to get what we want and perpetual fear of losing what we have gained. Even those who may not want to resort to violence have more reason to become violent if their survival, desires or possessions are being jeopardised. This will essentially create a society driven by the 'survival of the fittest', whereby each individual has the best chance of self-preservation through the most effective means of obtaining power, the most extreme method being through violence or killing. Hobbes believed that in order to get what we need in the future, we will fight for security. He also said that humans would fight for 'glory' (the reputation of being powerful) - perhaps simply for enjoyment of power, or because having power itself is tactical in gaining more power itself as people tend to be more compliant towards those with power.
Monday 9 March 2015
Illustrating your answer, explain the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. (15 mark)
A priori knowledge is knowledge which does not require sense experience to be known to true, i.e. if you know what the proposition means, you don't need to check experience to know whether it's true. A common example of an a priori proposition is 'all bachelors are unmarried men' - in knowing the meaning/definition of the word 'bachelor' (an unmarried man), we can know that the proposition is true, without having to confirm this through experience. Another example is 'all squares have four sides' - again, we know that by definition the word 'square' is a four-sided shape, confirming that the proposition is true. Empiricists believe that all a priori knowledge is analytic (true or false just in the virtue of the meaning on the words). Rationalists argue that it is possible for us to have a priori knowledge about the way the world is (synthetic knowledge), and this forms the basis of the rationalist/empiricist debate.
A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that isn't know to us through the meaning of the words, but can only be established through experience - for example, 'snow is white' or 'grass is green' - we only know that this is true because of our sense experiences of snow. We can't know these two propositions analytically, because the word 'grass' doesn't necessarily equate to the colour green. Empiricists believe that all a posteriori knowledge is synthetic (true or false because of the way the world is). They also claim that this type of knowledge is the most meaningful as we can use it to learn about the world, whereas they consider a priori/analytic knowledge to be less useful.
A priori knowledge is knowledge which does not require sense experience to be known to true, i.e. if you know what the proposition means, you don't need to check experience to know whether it's true. A common example of an a priori proposition is 'all bachelors are unmarried men' - in knowing the meaning/definition of the word 'bachelor' (an unmarried man), we can know that the proposition is true, without having to confirm this through experience. Another example is 'all squares have four sides' - again, we know that by definition the word 'square' is a four-sided shape, confirming that the proposition is true. Empiricists believe that all a priori knowledge is analytic (true or false just in the virtue of the meaning on the words). Rationalists argue that it is possible for us to have a priori knowledge about the way the world is (synthetic knowledge), and this forms the basis of the rationalist/empiricist debate.
A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that isn't know to us through the meaning of the words, but can only be established through experience - for example, 'snow is white' or 'grass is green' - we only know that this is true because of our sense experiences of snow. We can't know these two propositions analytically, because the word 'grass' doesn't necessarily equate to the colour green. Empiricists believe that all a posteriori knowledge is synthetic (true or false because of the way the world is). They also claim that this type of knowledge is the most meaningful as we can use it to learn about the world, whereas they consider a priori/analytic knowledge to be less useful.
Friday 6 March 2015
Outline and illustrate the view that certainty is confined to introspection and
the tautological. (15 marks)
A tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice, but in different words. A tautological statement is another term for an analytic proposition (one that is true just in the virtue of the meaning of the words). It is universally agreed that analytic propositions are necessary (cannot be false); thus making it difficult to argue that they are not certain. One example of this is as follows, 'they followed after each other in succession' - this is a tautology because '...following one after the other...' and 'in succession' mean the same thing and are just a repetition of a statement using different words.
Beliefs based on introspection are the observation of one's mental states and processes, and are beliefs that one cannot doubt, even if they aren't necessarily true. Both Descartes and Hume agreed that I cannot doubt my experience themselves, for example, I can doubt that I am seeing a table, but I cannot doubt that I seem to be seeing a table - this claim isn't necessarily true, but it is contingent (it's possible that it is certain).
A tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice, but in different words. A tautological statement is another term for an analytic proposition (one that is true just in the virtue of the meaning of the words). It is universally agreed that analytic propositions are necessary (cannot be false); thus making it difficult to argue that they are not certain. One example of this is as follows, 'they followed after each other in succession' - this is a tautology because '...following one after the other...' and 'in succession' mean the same thing and are just a repetition of a statement using different words.
Beliefs based on introspection are the observation of one's mental states and processes, and are beliefs that one cannot doubt, even if they aren't necessarily true. Both Descartes and Hume agreed that I cannot doubt my experience themselves, for example, I can doubt that I am seeing a table, but I cannot doubt that I seem to be seeing a table - this claim isn't necessarily true, but it is contingent (it's possible that it is certain).
Exam practice
1) Illustrating your answer, explain the difference between analytic and synthetic propositions (15 marks).
An analytic proposition is a statement that is true (or false) just in the virtue of the meaning of the words i.e. it is definitional. For example, 'squares have four sides' - the definition of the word 'square' is that it is four-sided, therefore we can know that the aforementioned statement is true. A second popular analytic example is 'all bachelors are unmarried men' - again, by definition, the word 'bachelor' is an unmarried man. Often analytic truths are known as Tautologies or 'logical truths', because they are true by definition. Empiricists believe that all a priori knowledge (knowledge of which does not require sense experience to be known or true) is analytic, and thus doesn't tell us anything about how the world is, since such knowledge would be true even if there world were somehow different.
Synthetic propositions are statements which are not true because of the meaning of the words, but because of the way the world is; for example, 'snow is white', or 'roses are red'. Such propositions are regarded by empiricists as contingently true, meaning that the contrary statement (e.g. snow is green) is a possibility, as well as being a posteriori (knowledge that can only be derived from sense experience).
An analytic proposition is a statement that is true (or false) just in the virtue of the meaning of the words i.e. it is definitional. For example, 'squares have four sides' - the definition of the word 'square' is that it is four-sided, therefore we can know that the aforementioned statement is true. A second popular analytic example is 'all bachelors are unmarried men' - again, by definition, the word 'bachelor' is an unmarried man. Often analytic truths are known as Tautologies or 'logical truths', because they are true by definition. Empiricists believe that all a priori knowledge (knowledge of which does not require sense experience to be known or true) is analytic, and thus doesn't tell us anything about how the world is, since such knowledge would be true even if there world were somehow different.
Synthetic propositions are statements which are not true because of the meaning of the words, but because of the way the world is; for example, 'snow is white', or 'roses are red'. Such propositions are regarded by empiricists as contingently true, meaning that the contrary statement (e.g. snow is green) is a possibility, as well as being a posteriori (knowledge that can only be derived from sense experience).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)