JUSTIFYING ILLEGAL DIRECT ACTION:
- so when it's violent + protesters don't submit to punishment
- most agree that violence isn't justified if it harms innocent people, even in war soldiers usually don't target unarmed combatants
- others believe that it is justified if it attacks people who are associated with or contribute to the injustice e.g. attacking those who wear fur, or work in laboratories which test on animals
- hobbes + locke: violence is hard to justify because it threatens our security and one of the main reasons why the state was set up in the first place was to protect people -> so would seem like a contradiction to advocate violence
- HOWEVER, could argue that it's a matter of what the specific injustice is e.g. french citizens resisting nazi's in WWII most would agree is justified
Wednesday 13 May 2015
JUSTIFYING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
- in plato's 'crito' -> socrates: breaking the law is NEVER justified even if the state treats you bad -> obligation to obey under any circumstance bc of the benefits the law provides -> living under the state = agreeing to obey (tacit consent)
- rawls, CD is justified under certain conditions:
1) when all legal attempts to make change have failed SO CD is last resort HOWEVER -> who decides when all legal attempts have been justified? who decides when to stop campaigning?
2) if it is non-violent -> violence is never justified as it increases overall threat for citizens -> HOWEVER -> use of violence should be considered case-by-case -> surely it can sometimes be necessary (and therefore justified) under unjust states e.g. french citizens resisting against the nazi's in WW2
ronald dworkin:
- we have a right to civil disobedience when the law wrongly violates our other rights (e.g. human rights, for example the right to choose my own religion)
- however, we don't have a GENERAL right to CD -> needs to be considered case-by-case + cases need to be exceptional
- we DO have the right to dissent legally (bc consent is the basis of political obligation)
- if the state fails to protect this right + our others, then CD is justified
need to consider:
1) consequences:
- because CD can cause harm to society (e.g. encourage further disrespect for the law, create conflict amongst opposing sides on an issue)
- aim must have a REALISTIC chance of being achieved, otherwise the potential negative effects of CD outweigh the act itself
HOWEVER- can avoid negative consequences by:
- being willing to submit to punishment - shows respect for the law -> minimises further disrespect -> also shows genuinely believe in the issue they are righting for -> may increase respect from opposer's and thus decrease any hostility/conflict
2) motivation:
- RAWLS- must be a clear + substantial injustice to motivate CD -> only something v serious could justify breaking the law
HOWEVER, could argue that even things that aren't considered to be major societal issues should still be protested if people believe in them - for example, parents illegally blocking a road to protest getting a crossing installed for their children -> SO it's arguably more important that the act is proportional to the end, rather than the act being considered socially significant
- MILL - we should be GRATEFUL for protesters -> help us think for ourselves + change is good if it's in the right direction -> healthy for politics
- rather than think protesters are annoying/irritating -> appreciate their contribution for change in society -> can be beneficial -> after-all change is how we progress as a society and no great change has ever been achieved by sticking to the status quo
- in plato's 'crito' -> socrates: breaking the law is NEVER justified even if the state treats you bad -> obligation to obey under any circumstance bc of the benefits the law provides -> living under the state = agreeing to obey (tacit consent)
- rawls, CD is justified under certain conditions:
1) when all legal attempts to make change have failed SO CD is last resort HOWEVER -> who decides when all legal attempts have been justified? who decides when to stop campaigning?
2) if it is non-violent -> violence is never justified as it increases overall threat for citizens -> HOWEVER -> use of violence should be considered case-by-case -> surely it can sometimes be necessary (and therefore justified) under unjust states e.g. french citizens resisting against the nazi's in WW2
ronald dworkin:
- we have a right to civil disobedience when the law wrongly violates our other rights (e.g. human rights, for example the right to choose my own religion)
- however, we don't have a GENERAL right to CD -> needs to be considered case-by-case + cases need to be exceptional
- we DO have the right to dissent legally (bc consent is the basis of political obligation)
- if the state fails to protect this right + our others, then CD is justified
need to consider:
1) consequences:
- because CD can cause harm to society (e.g. encourage further disrespect for the law, create conflict amongst opposing sides on an issue)
- aim must have a REALISTIC chance of being achieved, otherwise the potential negative effects of CD outweigh the act itself
HOWEVER- can avoid negative consequences by:
- being willing to submit to punishment - shows respect for the law -> minimises further disrespect -> also shows genuinely believe in the issue they are righting for -> may increase respect from opposer's and thus decrease any hostility/conflict
2) motivation:
- RAWLS- must be a clear + substantial injustice to motivate CD -> only something v serious could justify breaking the law
HOWEVER, could argue that even things that aren't considered to be major societal issues should still be protested if people believe in them - for example, parents illegally blocking a road to protest getting a crossing installed for their children -> SO it's arguably more important that the act is proportional to the end, rather than the act being considered socially significant
- MILL - we should be GRATEFUL for protesters -> help us think for ourselves + change is good if it's in the right direction -> healthy for politics
- rather than think protesters are annoying/irritating -> appreciate their contribution for change in society -> can be beneficial -> after-all change is how we progress as a society and no great change has ever been achieved by sticking to the status quo
DIRECT ACTION:
- legal e.g. organised demonstrations agreed with police beforehand -> non-violent
- illegal e.g. breaking into a lab to release animals
DEFINING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
- type of illegal direct action
- rawls' definition: public, non-violent, conscientious (yet political) breach of the law, with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policy
1) public - motives communicated with rest of society
HOWEVER not all acts of CD should be public, e.g. releasing lab animals would prevent act from working
2) non-violent - may not be justified, but can still count as CD
- some violence may not be justified but is necessary: e.g. small amounts of violence with a proper moral focus in mind
- big amounts of violence with no particular aim in mind = more like rioting -> not considered C.D.
3) breach of the law
- CD is always illegal
- in liberal democracies the act of CD itself isn't punished but the crime committed in the act e.g. trespassing
4) conscientious yet political
- a belief in what is being protested -> genuinely believe it is damaging to society
- trying to actually change the law
- e.g. suffragettes to get women's vote + MLK civil rights movement
HOWEVER, rawls places emphasis on CD being political, however, this ignores CD towards social institutions such as companies + universities
- legal e.g. organised demonstrations agreed with police beforehand -> non-violent
- illegal e.g. breaking into a lab to release animals
DEFINING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
- type of illegal direct action
- rawls' definition: public, non-violent, conscientious (yet political) breach of the law, with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policy
1) public - motives communicated with rest of society
HOWEVER not all acts of CD should be public, e.g. releasing lab animals would prevent act from working
2) non-violent - may not be justified, but can still count as CD
- some violence may not be justified but is necessary: e.g. small amounts of violence with a proper moral focus in mind
- big amounts of violence with no particular aim in mind = more like rioting -> not considered C.D.
3) breach of the law
- CD is always illegal
- in liberal democracies the act of CD itself isn't punished but the crime committed in the act e.g. trespassing
4) conscientious yet political
- a belief in what is being protested -> genuinely believe it is damaging to society
- trying to actually change the law
- e.g. suffragettes to get women's vote + MLK civil rights movement
HOWEVER, rawls places emphasis on CD being political, however, this ignores CD towards social institutions such as companies + universities
locke: believes political obligation relies on the consent of its citizens
- consent must be meaningful -> can't be forced/coerced -> must be able to refuse consent (dissent) -> otherwise there is no political obligation
HOWEVER, dissenting does = no political obligation -> there are limits (legal dissent) -> this protects our right to dissent + expression of dissent
types of legal dissent: protest, pressure groups, protest voting
HOWEVER argue: legal dissent doesn't have equal influence/impact on social issues -> THUS doesn't protect our equality
illegal dissent:
1) conscientious objection: not actually trying to change law / morally disagree with a particular law / but don't have problem with others obeying it - just want to protect personal moral values e.g. pacifist refusal to join army -> not a threat bc generally obey the law + thus accept any punishment given to them... so best to give a lenient punishment (still have to be punished bc still breaking the law) + social consequences = minimal -> can be justified in court by explaining moral views + thus why they refuse to obey a particular law
2) revolution: aim to change every component of the state (it's laws, it's rulers etc)
this is justified when:
locke: when state fails to provide the benefit of uniform punishment
hobbes: state fails to provide benefits (protection)
justifying dissent: locke
- point of state = provide protection of uniform punishment + enforcing the LoN
- if state does this = has tacit consent of citizens
- if fails to do this = citizens have the right to dissent
HOWEVER:
Locke assumes citizens are
1) informed: that they know whether the state is enforcing the laws of nature -> might be unaware -> THUS won't know whether to give consent or not
2) rational: perhaps even if the state provides what its supposed to citizens might still dissent bc perhaps they aren't rational enough to acknowledge the long-term advantages
lock: only the majority have the right to dissent
- bc allowing individuals to dissent brings back problem of state of nature: individual judgements = conflict
HOWEVER- basically saying that if the majority are happy with the way things are then the minority's opinion isn't to be taken into account -> what about a society where the majority control an unjust society and the minority suffers? surely dissent is justified then e.g. a majority exploiting a minority for unfairly cheap labour -> seems wrong that the minority simply aren't justified to dissent.
- ALSO disregards freedom + equality + autonomy of the individual
- consent must be meaningful -> can't be forced/coerced -> must be able to refuse consent (dissent) -> otherwise there is no political obligation
HOWEVER, dissenting does = no political obligation -> there are limits (legal dissent) -> this protects our right to dissent + expression of dissent
types of legal dissent: protest, pressure groups, protest voting
HOWEVER argue: legal dissent doesn't have equal influence/impact on social issues -> THUS doesn't protect our equality
illegal dissent:
1) conscientious objection: not actually trying to change law / morally disagree with a particular law / but don't have problem with others obeying it - just want to protect personal moral values e.g. pacifist refusal to join army -> not a threat bc generally obey the law + thus accept any punishment given to them... so best to give a lenient punishment (still have to be punished bc still breaking the law) + social consequences = minimal -> can be justified in court by explaining moral views + thus why they refuse to obey a particular law
2) revolution: aim to change every component of the state (it's laws, it's rulers etc)
this is justified when:
locke: when state fails to provide the benefit of uniform punishment
hobbes: state fails to provide benefits (protection)
justifying dissent: locke
- point of state = provide protection of uniform punishment + enforcing the LoN
- if state does this = has tacit consent of citizens
- if fails to do this = citizens have the right to dissent
HOWEVER:
Locke assumes citizens are
1) informed: that they know whether the state is enforcing the laws of nature -> might be unaware -> THUS won't know whether to give consent or not
2) rational: perhaps even if the state provides what its supposed to citizens might still dissent bc perhaps they aren't rational enough to acknowledge the long-term advantages
lock: only the majority have the right to dissent
- bc allowing individuals to dissent brings back problem of state of nature: individual judgements = conflict
HOWEVER- basically saying that if the majority are happy with the way things are then the minority's opinion isn't to be taken into account -> what about a society where the majority control an unjust society and the minority suffers? surely dissent is justified then e.g. a majority exploiting a minority for unfairly cheap labour -> seems wrong that the minority simply aren't justified to dissent.
- ALSO disregards freedom + equality + autonomy of the individual
political obligation -> need consent
to have genuine authority -> state need to be legitimate (not just have power)
DOES LEGITIMACY REQUIRE POPULAR APPROVAL?
- argument: people are likely to approve if:
1) state provides benefits (hobbes)
2) citizens give their consent (locke)
- SO maybe the basis of legitimacy is popular approval?
PLATO'S OBJECTION:
- legitimacy based on theoretical authority (people w expertise who can provide knowledge for example, viewing an engineer as an authority when building a bridge bc trust their skills + expertise)
- democracy = freedom to choose what citizens want for themselves
- citizens = irrational desires + emotions + prejudices
- SO won't vote for what's best for the state but rather what is best for THEM
- SO freedom is harmful
- beast analogy: citizens = beast / rulers = tamers -> rulers will try to accommodate citizens to keep them happy -> so also won't be doing what's best for the state
- what citizens WANT isn't necessarily what is GOOD :( -> won't contribute to the common good, which plato believes is the purpose of the state
OBJECTIONS TO PLATO:
- hume: what people want + what is good = same thing ---> PLATO: people are confused about what they want
- ignores importance of freedom + equality > important -> shouldn't force people to obey ---> undermines human moral judgements -> perhaps humans are able to decide what is good for the state whilst also accommodating their own needs -> perhaps they aren't as selfish as plato implies
- even theoretical authorities (experts) mess up too -> are human -> driven by irrational emotions + desires + prejudices
- churchill: democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time -> democracy = best option -> other forms of gov = prone to corruption e.g. stalinist russia. -> easy to point out the flaws in democracy, but not easy to suggest a more effective option THUS pointless argument
POWER + AUTHORITY
- power = ability to get others to do things even when they don't want to (either through persuasion or coercion)
- if a state has power it is likely to have practical authority (obeying simply bc authority figure, can get people to act how they want bc they have power)
HOWEVER, two types of practical authority:
- descriptive practical authority: literally just ability to enforce laws and whereby citizens generally obey laws
- normative practical authority: where there is descriptive authority + the state is legitimate
- JUST having power isn't necessarily seen as having genuine authority bc citizens could simply be obeying because they are scared, not because they consent to do so.
- SO simply having power = likely to have descriptive practical authority
- BUT having power + being legitimate = normative practical authority
- HOBBES argues that any state with descriptive practical authority = legitimate
- others emphasise that there's a difference between simply having power + having genuine authority -> they argue that to be a genuine authority require legitimacy
- power = ability to get others to do things even when they don't want to (either through persuasion or coercion)
- if a state has power it is likely to have practical authority (obeying simply bc authority figure, can get people to act how they want bc they have power)
HOWEVER, two types of practical authority:
- descriptive practical authority: literally just ability to enforce laws and whereby citizens generally obey laws
- normative practical authority: where there is descriptive authority + the state is legitimate
- JUST having power isn't necessarily seen as having genuine authority bc citizens could simply be obeying because they are scared, not because they consent to do so.
- SO simply having power = likely to have descriptive practical authority
- BUT having power + being legitimate = normative practical authority
- HOBBES argues that any state with descriptive practical authority = legitimate
- others emphasise that there's a difference between simply having power + having genuine authority -> they argue that to be a genuine authority require legitimacy
POLITICAL OBLIGATION:
- obeying the law bc it's the law (not for individual moral reasons bc then would only obey particular laws)
- argument: if humans are free + equal, why should we be bound by the law? shouldn't we be able to do what we want?
- philosophers: we must have agreed to obey the state i.e. we must have given consent somehow, thus giving us political obligation.
EXPLICIT:
- literally/overtly agreeing to set up a government and to follow it's rules -> P.O.
- only relevant to first ever generation
- later generations born into it
- established society = no P.O. if it rests on explicit consent
----could argue voting = form of E.C - BUT voting for an oppositional party to the winning party = not consenting the winner
- E.C. = if i say 'i do not consent' then i have no P.O.
TACIT:
- locke: implied consent -> this is gained through utilising what the state owns/offers -> e.g. simply living in a place means i give tacit consent
HOWEVER: hume: what about those who don't have the choice/money to leave the country? e.g. a peasant. implausible to say this is still giving consent
- doesn't make sense = me walking on a street means i give consent? meaningless if citizens aren't aware of it or don't know what it means
VOTING tacit consent: in a way YES bc voting means voluntarily take part in system -> agreeing to play by the rules
- NO: what about revolutionary vote? a party which promises revolution thus abolition of the state -> if they don't win then surely i don't necessarily give my consent?
HYPOTHETICAL:
- where consent is given if it would be rational to do so
- SO in state of nature it is argued that it's rational to obey the law
HOWEVER:
- just bc rational in SoN doesn't make it rational now - completely different circumstances.. irrelevant point to make
- ALSO just bc it's rational doesn't mean i do? maybe i am irrational. -> i should have freedom to choose however i want
- obeying the law bc it's the law (not for individual moral reasons bc then would only obey particular laws)
- argument: if humans are free + equal, why should we be bound by the law? shouldn't we be able to do what we want?
- philosophers: we must have agreed to obey the state i.e. we must have given consent somehow, thus giving us political obligation.
EXPLICIT:
- literally/overtly agreeing to set up a government and to follow it's rules -> P.O.
- only relevant to first ever generation
- later generations born into it
- established society = no P.O. if it rests on explicit consent
----could argue voting = form of E.C - BUT voting for an oppositional party to the winning party = not consenting the winner
- E.C. = if i say 'i do not consent' then i have no P.O.
TACIT:
- locke: implied consent -> this is gained through utilising what the state owns/offers -> e.g. simply living in a place means i give tacit consent
HOWEVER: hume: what about those who don't have the choice/money to leave the country? e.g. a peasant. implausible to say this is still giving consent
- doesn't make sense = me walking on a street means i give consent? meaningless if citizens aren't aware of it or don't know what it means
VOTING tacit consent: in a way YES bc voting means voluntarily take part in system -> agreeing to play by the rules
- NO: what about revolutionary vote? a party which promises revolution thus abolition of the state -> if they don't win then surely i don't necessarily give my consent?
HYPOTHETICAL:
- where consent is given if it would be rational to do so
- SO in state of nature it is argued that it's rational to obey the law
HOWEVER:
- just bc rational in SoN doesn't make it rational now - completely different circumstances.. irrelevant point to make
- ALSO just bc it's rational doesn't mean i do? maybe i am irrational. -> i should have freedom to choose however i want
IS IT RATIONAL/BENEFICIAL TO SUBMIT TO AUTHORITY:
- hume: co-operation -> more effective means to gain what we want/need (as we are needy creatures but don't possess the means to get thingz) - more ability/power/support if work together - alone we are useless + weak
- laws can act as a sort of moral short-cut/guideline: sometimes isn't so clear what is right/wrong -> if we obey the law bc it's the law then we're more likely to act in the 'right', moral way which is good bc humans can be stupid + selfish
- HOWEVER, this denies us of our autonomy (arguably v important) - acting morally/on rules give to self -> goes against freedom + assumes humans are terrible creatures who can't tell right from wrong
- ALSO anarchists agree: submitting undermines moral judgement - only following rules bc we have to, not bc we believe we morally should (e.g. doing something bc don't wanna get in trouble rather than bc i know it is morally wrong) + risk of doing bad things because told to by authority (e.g. milgrams study) -> SO irrational to obey
HOWEVER this is arguably safer than not putting any rules in place at all bc humans are prone to irrationality + corruption -> if no punishment system in place then more likely to do bad things
- hume: co-operation -> more effective means to gain what we want/need (as we are needy creatures but don't possess the means to get thingz) - more ability/power/support if work together - alone we are useless + weak
- laws can act as a sort of moral short-cut/guideline: sometimes isn't so clear what is right/wrong -> if we obey the law bc it's the law then we're more likely to act in the 'right', moral way which is good bc humans can be stupid + selfish
- HOWEVER, this denies us of our autonomy (arguably v important) - acting morally/on rules give to self -> goes against freedom + assumes humans are terrible creatures who can't tell right from wrong
- ALSO anarchists agree: submitting undermines moral judgement - only following rules bc we have to, not bc we believe we morally should (e.g. doing something bc don't wanna get in trouble rather than bc i know it is morally wrong) + risk of doing bad things because told to by authority (e.g. milgrams study) -> SO irrational to obey
HOWEVER this is arguably safer than not putting any rules in place at all bc humans are prone to irrationality + corruption -> if no punishment system in place then more likely to do bad things
WHAT TYPE OF STATE SHOULD WE SUBMIT TO?
hobbes:
- when we obey we give up our wills + judgements
- absolute sovereign = only state that will protect us properly
- otherwise disagreements = conflict arise = war
HOWEVER:
- locke: threat + risk of threat = greater under absolute ruler - bc so much power
- SO irrational
HOWEVER;
- would b irrational for ruler to be ruthless tyrant -> would provoke rebellion -> in self-interest to treat ppl well so can stay in power
HOWEVER:
- ruler = still human + prone to irrational desires + prejudices + faults
- dictatorship = often corrupt
locke:
- when we obey we give up freedom to punish as we see fit BUT gain uniform system of punishment which is better
- some kind of democracy
- no risk bc LoN places constraints on the state - if it is corrupt its power will be taken -> citizens have degree of power over state -> SO not that risky
hobbes:
- when we obey we give up our wills + judgements
- absolute sovereign = only state that will protect us properly
- otherwise disagreements = conflict arise = war
HOWEVER:
- locke: threat + risk of threat = greater under absolute ruler - bc so much power
- SO irrational
HOWEVER;
- would b irrational for ruler to be ruthless tyrant -> would provoke rebellion -> in self-interest to treat ppl well so can stay in power
HOWEVER:
- ruler = still human + prone to irrational desires + prejudices + faults
- dictatorship = often corrupt
locke:
- when we obey we give up freedom to punish as we see fit BUT gain uniform system of punishment which is better
- some kind of democracy
- no risk bc LoN places constraints on the state - if it is corrupt its power will be taken -> citizens have degree of power over state -> SO not that risky
Benefits of political obligation:
PO: a general obligation / obeying the law bc it's the law not for any moral/personal reason
locke, punishment:
- eventually resources will become scarce with the invention of money, employment, exchanging of goods etc.. this will create inequality -> inequality = violations of the law of nature
- w/o the state we are all free + equal SO have the right to punish as we see fit: this is problematic (bias = severity = unfair, lack of ability to administer punishments, hostility between ppl whoo disagree -> overall a bad idea)
- to solve this problem create the state: uniform punishment = fairer society -> protects society from those who break the law of nature
- living under a state protects our long-term interests (peace + stability) through creating uniform punishment -> SO better to obey SO don't get punished, than focus on short-term gain = less crime
hobbes: protection against violence
hume: co-operation: working as a team is more effective in getting what we need + want, more powerful as a team - stronger, more powerful. alone, we aren't v useful.
PO: a general obligation / obeying the law bc it's the law not for any moral/personal reason
locke, punishment:
- eventually resources will become scarce with the invention of money, employment, exchanging of goods etc.. this will create inequality -> inequality = violations of the law of nature
- w/o the state we are all free + equal SO have the right to punish as we see fit: this is problematic (bias = severity = unfair, lack of ability to administer punishments, hostility between ppl whoo disagree -> overall a bad idea)
- to solve this problem create the state: uniform punishment = fairer society -> protects society from those who break the law of nature
- living under a state protects our long-term interests (peace + stability) through creating uniform punishment -> SO better to obey SO don't get punished, than focus on short-term gain = less crime
hobbes: protection against violence
hume: co-operation: working as a team is more effective in getting what we need + want, more powerful as a team - stronger, more powerful. alone, we aren't v useful.
Explain why, according to Hobbes, the state of nature will be a state of war.
plan:
Hobbes state of nature: the right to self-preservation + the right to fulfil this right in whatever way we choose (bc humans are equal + there's no authority)
causes of war: human never-ending desires, scarcity, fear of threat/violence, human desire for power
- continual fear and danger of violent death
- a vicious circle
- life = nasty, brutish + short
"a war of all against all"
contrast with Locke:
- free + equal BUT limitations on what we can do
- constricted by laws of nature -> no power over anyone else/can't harm anyone else
- LoN - comes from God -> must abide
weaknesses: LoN not enough to ensure peace -> humans will want power + scarcity will cause state of war
- locke argues: scarcity not an issue -> at the beginning enough resources to go around
- major weakness: issue of TRUST- agreeing to be peaceful = not enough -> not worth risk -> irrational + motivated by desires -> rather fulfil short-term gain than long-term (peace + stability)
- even under state we lock doors/hide valuables
weakness of state of nature theory overall:
- humans are social beings so perhaps state developed naturally -> need societal value from birth to be taken care of as a baby to survive -> hobbes: assumes we are selfish + alone
- doesn't tell us much about why the state came to exist.
Thursday 7 May 2015
Assess the view that we have no innate knowledge.
Empiricism-
- Locke's definition of innate knowledge: tabula rasa, blank slate from birth, if knowledge is innate then it is universal -> clear that it isn't universal (children + idiots)
Hume: knowledge is derived from sense experience - divided into impressions (what we really see) + ideas (memories of what we've seen) - ideas are a type of concept
- Hume: simple + complex ideas -> idea of god isn't innate -> comes from our knowledge of simple ideas (powerful, loving, wise) to form the complex idea of god
- HOWEVER criticise Locke's definition of 'innate' -> nativism is generally more accepted -> sense experience triggers innate concepts -> to support: Chomsky (grammar is innate) + study of animal behaviour (bird songs seem to be innate) + children learning how to speak at around 18 months old (exposure to stimuli = knowledge)
- Plato's theory of the forms: innate knowledge derived from our soul's experience of the forms in a past life,
Empiricism-
- Locke's definition of innate knowledge: tabula rasa, blank slate from birth, if knowledge is innate then it is universal -> clear that it isn't universal (children + idiots)
Hume: knowledge is derived from sense experience - divided into impressions (what we really see) + ideas (memories of what we've seen) - ideas are a type of concept
- Hume: simple + complex ideas -> idea of god isn't innate -> comes from our knowledge of simple ideas (powerful, loving, wise) to form the complex idea of god
- HOWEVER criticise Locke's definition of 'innate' -> nativism is generally more accepted -> sense experience triggers innate concepts -> to support: Chomsky (grammar is innate) + study of animal behaviour (bird songs seem to be innate) + children learning how to speak at around 18 months old (exposure to stimuli = knowledge)
- Plato's theory of the forms: innate knowledge derived from our soul's experience of the forms in a past life,
Wednesday 6 May 2015
the religious point of view- god and the world
Explain and illustrate the claim that all perception is experiencing-as.
John Hick argued that perception is not simply registering what is right there in front of us, but rather, that we 'see-as' or 'see-in'. To illustrate this, he uses the example of the Necker cube, an optical illusion of which shows that one set of lines can be seen a number of different ways, thus making it hard to tell which side of it faces which way. In this example, we see the lines 'as' a cube facing one way or another, we are not merely seeing a cube, we are seeing it 'as' it is. Another example is how we see patterns in natural objects - for example, seeing particular shapes in clouds - we see shapes 'in' the clouds, thus we are not just perceiving a cloud neutrally.
However, it could be argued that this kind of perception first requires concepts to be recognised - for example, someone from a completely different culture may not see a book 'as' a book, as maybe they have never acquired the concept of book, thus see it differently; perhaps as a clump of paper. This also applied to sounds (e.g. hearing a bird song) and smells (e.g. smelling coffee) - we first need concepts of these example to recognise what we are perceiving.
John Hick argued that perception is not simply registering what is right there in front of us, but rather, that we 'see-as' or 'see-in'. To illustrate this, he uses the example of the Necker cube, an optical illusion of which shows that one set of lines can be seen a number of different ways, thus making it hard to tell which side of it faces which way. In this example, we see the lines 'as' a cube facing one way or another, we are not merely seeing a cube, we are seeing it 'as' it is. Another example is how we see patterns in natural objects - for example, seeing particular shapes in clouds - we see shapes 'in' the clouds, thus we are not just perceiving a cloud neutrally.
However, it could be argued that this kind of perception first requires concepts to be recognised - for example, someone from a completely different culture may not see a book 'as' a book, as maybe they have never acquired the concept of book, thus see it differently; perhaps as a clump of paper. This also applied to sounds (e.g. hearing a bird song) and smells (e.g. smelling coffee) - we first need concepts of these example to recognise what we are perceiving.
Tuesday 5 May 2015
Rawls' definition of civil disobedience:
'civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious (yet political) breach of the law, undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies.
1) public:
- Rawls argues civil disobedience must always be public
- must communicate with society their disagreements with the law + why they think it should be changed
- must be communicated publicly to work
- however, could argue that some acts don't need to be done publicly, as doing so might prevent them from actually working, e.g. you wouldn't announce that you're releasing lab rats bc you'd probably get stopped.
- thus, a flaw of one of Rawls' components for civil disobedience
2) non-violent:
- just because violence might not be justified, doesn't mean that all acts of violent protest are NOT acts of civil disobedience
- because not all acts of civil disobedience are justified
- depends on the type of violence: if violence is unfocused + widespread = riots/revolutionary acts... not civil disobedience
- but if there is a small amount of focused violence may = protest of morally wrong laws = civil disobedience
3) conscientious, yet political:
- motivated by sincere, serious views about what is immoral/damaging to society (like conscientious objectors)
- trying to do what they believe is right
- but, differ from conscientious objectors - actually try to change some law or policy
- always a political aim
- e.g. suffragette movement- right for women to vote; MLK- equal rights for non-whites; student protests to end the Vietnam War
- contemporary examples: anti-abortion campaigns- trespass on abortion clinics; animal rights movement- releasing animals from labs
- HOWEVER, not all civil disobedience aims at changing the laws or policies of the government - e.g. protests against companies + universities (e.g. strict anti-rape policies to be implemented at universities)
- SO Rawls ignores civil disobedience against social institutions
4) breach of the law:
- always involves something illegal
- however, in most democratic countries civil disobedience is not illegal itself - the laws that are broken in the act of civil disobedience itself are the ones people are punished for e.g. trespassing in a laboratory)
'civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious (yet political) breach of the law, undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies.
1) public:
- Rawls argues civil disobedience must always be public
- must communicate with society their disagreements with the law + why they think it should be changed
- must be communicated publicly to work
- however, could argue that some acts don't need to be done publicly, as doing so might prevent them from actually working, e.g. you wouldn't announce that you're releasing lab rats bc you'd probably get stopped.
- thus, a flaw of one of Rawls' components for civil disobedience
2) non-violent:
- just because violence might not be justified, doesn't mean that all acts of violent protest are NOT acts of civil disobedience
- because not all acts of civil disobedience are justified
- depends on the type of violence: if violence is unfocused + widespread = riots/revolutionary acts... not civil disobedience
- but if there is a small amount of focused violence may = protest of morally wrong laws = civil disobedience
3) conscientious, yet political:
- motivated by sincere, serious views about what is immoral/damaging to society (like conscientious objectors)
- trying to do what they believe is right
- but, differ from conscientious objectors - actually try to change some law or policy
- always a political aim
- e.g. suffragette movement- right for women to vote; MLK- equal rights for non-whites; student protests to end the Vietnam War
- contemporary examples: anti-abortion campaigns- trespass on abortion clinics; animal rights movement- releasing animals from labs
- HOWEVER, not all civil disobedience aims at changing the laws or policies of the government - e.g. protests against companies + universities (e.g. strict anti-rape policies to be implemented at universities)
- SO Rawls ignores civil disobedience against social institutions
4) breach of the law:
- always involves something illegal
- however, in most democratic countries civil disobedience is not illegal itself - the laws that are broken in the act of civil disobedience itself are the ones people are punished for e.g. trespassing in a laboratory)
Friday 1 May 2015
politics- the state of nature
Explain and illustrate the advantages of cooperation in the state of nature.
David Hume argues that, in the state of nature, there should be an emphasis on cooperation - this is because, humans are unique in how much they need, but how little is naturally available to them. He argued that we can lack power, ability and fortune to gain what we want or need, thus it is harder to survive. However, Hume says that by grouping together, these problems can be resolved; firstly, we can gain power through numbers of people working together, secondly, we can gain ability to gain what we want/need by creating a division of labour to exchange goods, and lastly, through mutual support, we are less vulnerable to misfortune. Thus, Hume argues, cooperation is a more effective means of ensuring survival.
However, it is then realised that, no matter how much we as people cooperate, there is always the risk of temptation to commit unjust acts (and vice-versa) out of self-interest; it is easier and faster to attack and rob someone of their food for short-term gain than it is to, say, grow crops. Therefore, there needs to be an incentive of some kind put in place to protect people from temptation.
Hume argues that the laws of justice can enforce punishment against those who commit unjust act, therefore, with this in place, people are less likely to commit crimes if they know they will be punished. Furthermore, introducing these laws will overall reduce injustices, thus increasing peace and stability. Because it is in our long-term interests to live peacefully and stably, it is rational to obey the laws which can make this more likely, rather than focusing on short-term gains of which are likely to decrease peace and stability, thus, it is far more rational to obey the law.
Compare Hobbes and Locke on the type of state we should submit to.
Both Hobbes and Locke agree that submitting to a state is rational, because it provides us with protection we need to co-exist peacefully, however, Hobbes believed that it is logical to submit to an 'absolute sovereign'. This means giving up our wills and judgement to the state, but it is necessary to do so for us to be protected adequately, because if we didn't then conflict would still arise through disagreements and decisions about justice. Therefore, the most effective means of providing protection to ensure self-preservation is if the state has total power and control over the law.
Locke would disagree and ultimately believes that the right type of state that we should submit to would be some form of democracy. This is because, unlike Hobbes who believed that conflict would arise through the state if not controlled, he believed that the Law of Nature and our moral equality would place constraints on the state, and thus prevent this from happening. For Locke, obeying the state means that we give up our right to punish where we see fit, but this is outweighed by gaining an objective justice system of punishment whereby conflict is avoided. Therefore, submitting to the state is not risky, because there will still be some form of control over the justice system, also the benefits outweigh the loses.
Assess the claim that any state is better than no state at all.
Hobbes argues that
Explain and assess two reasons why we should submit to authority.
Firstly, submitting to authority solves the problem of cooperation - the fact that, through working together, we can secure more effective means of gaining what we need to live our lives as individuals. Through obeying an authority, we agree to a set number of rules (laws), this avoids conflict, through disagreement etc, and this encourages togetherness.
Secondly, submitting provides us with a type of moral 'short-cut' - often, we are aware of what is wrong (such as driving whilst drunk), and laws aren't necessary for us to see that and thus avoid making bad decisions. However, other times, certain acts aren't as clear to us in knowing their degree of risk, therefore, it is good that we obey the law often just because it's the law as humans can often be short-sighted.
However, anarchists would argue that obeying the law just because it is the law does more harm than good - they argue that submitting undermines moral judgement, because people end up not thinking for themselves and, instead, are being told what to think. It is argued that this can have negative repercussions - firstly, it replaces moral thinking with self-interested thinking, which means a person may act moral for selfish reasons, rather than wanting to contribute to the greater-good of humanity, thus they aren't being moral in the first place. Furthermore, it can result in people submitting to an authority in a way that is morally wrong, simply because they are told to. An example of this is Milgram's electric shock experiment whereby participants were told by an authority figure to deliver electric shocks to a number of stooges and proceeded to do so - this is evidence that moral judgement can diminish in submitting to authority, thus having detrimental effects.
Furthermore, some philosophers argue that submitting to authority deprives the individual of their autonomy (individuals acting on rules they set for themselves). This, in turn, deprives the individual of their freedom, as they are handing their judgement over to someone else. It is argued that this is not only wrong, but irrational. John Stuart Mill argues that the only justification for the existence of the law is to prevent harm to others, thus the law should not get involved in the views of citizens. It is argued that autonomy is protected through, firstly, respecting individuals' views by taking them into account, for example, through elections. Secondly, it is argued that individuals should give their consent to authority on specific, individual basis' - this will ensure that individuals are making their own moral judgements depending on the situation, thus ensuring autonomy.
David Hume argues that, in the state of nature, there should be an emphasis on cooperation - this is because, humans are unique in how much they need, but how little is naturally available to them. He argued that we can lack power, ability and fortune to gain what we want or need, thus it is harder to survive. However, Hume says that by grouping together, these problems can be resolved; firstly, we can gain power through numbers of people working together, secondly, we can gain ability to gain what we want/need by creating a division of labour to exchange goods, and lastly, through mutual support, we are less vulnerable to misfortune. Thus, Hume argues, cooperation is a more effective means of ensuring survival.
However, it is then realised that, no matter how much we as people cooperate, there is always the risk of temptation to commit unjust acts (and vice-versa) out of self-interest; it is easier and faster to attack and rob someone of their food for short-term gain than it is to, say, grow crops. Therefore, there needs to be an incentive of some kind put in place to protect people from temptation.
Hume argues that the laws of justice can enforce punishment against those who commit unjust act, therefore, with this in place, people are less likely to commit crimes if they know they will be punished. Furthermore, introducing these laws will overall reduce injustices, thus increasing peace and stability. Because it is in our long-term interests to live peacefully and stably, it is rational to obey the laws which can make this more likely, rather than focusing on short-term gains of which are likely to decrease peace and stability, thus, it is far more rational to obey the law.
Compare Hobbes and Locke on the type of state we should submit to.
Both Hobbes and Locke agree that submitting to a state is rational, because it provides us with protection we need to co-exist peacefully, however, Hobbes believed that it is logical to submit to an 'absolute sovereign'. This means giving up our wills and judgement to the state, but it is necessary to do so for us to be protected adequately, because if we didn't then conflict would still arise through disagreements and decisions about justice. Therefore, the most effective means of providing protection to ensure self-preservation is if the state has total power and control over the law.
Locke would disagree and ultimately believes that the right type of state that we should submit to would be some form of democracy. This is because, unlike Hobbes who believed that conflict would arise through the state if not controlled, he believed that the Law of Nature and our moral equality would place constraints on the state, and thus prevent this from happening. For Locke, obeying the state means that we give up our right to punish where we see fit, but this is outweighed by gaining an objective justice system of punishment whereby conflict is avoided. Therefore, submitting to the state is not risky, because there will still be some form of control over the justice system, also the benefits outweigh the loses.
Assess the claim that any state is better than no state at all.
Hobbes argues that
Explain and assess two reasons why we should submit to authority.
Firstly, submitting to authority solves the problem of cooperation - the fact that, through working together, we can secure more effective means of gaining what we need to live our lives as individuals. Through obeying an authority, we agree to a set number of rules (laws), this avoids conflict, through disagreement etc, and this encourages togetherness.
Secondly, submitting provides us with a type of moral 'short-cut' - often, we are aware of what is wrong (such as driving whilst drunk), and laws aren't necessary for us to see that and thus avoid making bad decisions. However, other times, certain acts aren't as clear to us in knowing their degree of risk, therefore, it is good that we obey the law often just because it's the law as humans can often be short-sighted.
However, anarchists would argue that obeying the law just because it is the law does more harm than good - they argue that submitting undermines moral judgement, because people end up not thinking for themselves and, instead, are being told what to think. It is argued that this can have negative repercussions - firstly, it replaces moral thinking with self-interested thinking, which means a person may act moral for selfish reasons, rather than wanting to contribute to the greater-good of humanity, thus they aren't being moral in the first place. Furthermore, it can result in people submitting to an authority in a way that is morally wrong, simply because they are told to. An example of this is Milgram's electric shock experiment whereby participants were told by an authority figure to deliver electric shocks to a number of stooges and proceeded to do so - this is evidence that moral judgement can diminish in submitting to authority, thus having detrimental effects.
Furthermore, some philosophers argue that submitting to authority deprives the individual of their autonomy (individuals acting on rules they set for themselves). This, in turn, deprives the individual of their freedom, as they are handing their judgement over to someone else. It is argued that this is not only wrong, but irrational. John Stuart Mill argues that the only justification for the existence of the law is to prevent harm to others, thus the law should not get involved in the views of citizens. It is argued that autonomy is protected through, firstly, respecting individuals' views by taking them into account, for example, through elections. Secondly, it is argued that individuals should give their consent to authority on specific, individual basis' - this will ensure that individuals are making their own moral judgements depending on the situation, thus ensuring autonomy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)