Review Guide

Locke – 2nd Treatise

* State of Nature – All men are originally in a state of nature. A man in this original state is bound by the laws of nature, but he is otherwise able to live, act, and dispose of his possessions as he sees fit. More important, human beings, free from the arbitrary laws of other men, have an obligation to protect the interests of each other, since they are all equally children of God. They also have an obligation to punish those who go against God’s will and attempt to harm another by compromising his life, liberty, or possessions. * State of Nature involves people living together, governed by reason, without need of a common superior. The State of War occurs when people exert unwelcome force on other people, interfering with their own natural rights and freedom, without common authority. The difference between war in society and war in nature depends on when they end. In society, war ends when the act of force, such as fighting, is over. When the last blow has been thrown, both parties can appeal to common authorities for the final resolution of past wrongs. But in nature, war does not end until the aggressive party offers peace and offers to repair the damage done. Locke claims that one of the major reasons people enter into society is to avoid the state of war.

* Natural Rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. Locke also said that man’s natural rights are life, liberty, and property.

* Life – everyone is entitled to live once they are created. * Liberty – everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first right. * Estate – everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first two rights. * In contrast, Legal Rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. * Locke asked by what right an individual can claim to own one part of the world, when, according to the Bible, God gave the world to all humanity in common. He answered that persons own themselves and therefore their own labor. When a person works, that labor enters into the object. Thus, the object becomes property of that person.

* Locke bases his ideas about Slavery on the idea that freedom from arbitrary, absolute power is so fundamental that, even if one sought to, one could not relinquish it; it is therefore impossible for one to enlist into slavery voluntarily. The only possible State of Slavery is the extension of the state of war, between a lawful conqueror and a captive, when the captive has been forced into obedience. Locke notes that even in Exodus, the Jews did not sell themselves into slavery, but simply into drudgery, for their masters did not have full power over their lives, and therefore, did not have full control over their liberty. * Locke starts off by stating that an unjust conqueror never has the right to rule the conquered. Unjust Conquest is always unjust in Locke’s model, whether by petty thief or a despot. Locke then moves on to make provisions for the cases in which there is a Lawful Conquest (which he does not yet define). In lawful conquest, “The conqueror gets no power by his conquest over those that conquered with him.” In other words, those that help the conqueror conquer cannot suffer from having given their aid; rather, they should benefit from it.

* Social Contract theory is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.

* Consent Theory is a term for the idea in social philosophy that individuals primarily make decisions as free agents entering into consensual relationships with other free agents, and that this becomes the basis for political governance. * Express Consent is when you actively agree (either by voice or in writing) that you are in accord with a certain course of action. * Tacit Consent is assumed when you don’t actually state your agreement, but raise no objection (in voice or in writing) to a certain course of action. * Right of Revolution (or right of rebellion) is a right or duty, variously stated throughout history, possessed by subjects of a state that justifies their action to overthrow the government to whom the subjects otherwise would owe allegiance. * Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny.

Locke – Letter Concerning Toleration

* Liberty of Conscience is a civil power, which shows itself incapable of doing this job can be overthrown by the people.

* Freedom of Religious Belief for Locke, the only way a church can gain genuine converts is through persuasion and not through violence. This relates to his central conclusion, namely, that the government should not involve itself in care of souls. In support of this argument he presents three main reasons: 1. Individuals cannot divest control over their souls to secular forces, as God does not appoint the magistrate. 2. Force cannot create the change necessary for salvation, because while it can coerce obedience, it cannot change one’s beliefs. 3. Even if coercion could persuade someone of a notion, it would not help for the salvation of the soul, because then birth would be related with salvation. * Locke argued that atheists should not be tolerated because ‘Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist’ * The Roman Catholic Church cannot be tolerated either because ‘all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince.’ If this church were tolerated, a magistrate would have to abide by the settling of a ‘foreign jurisdiction’ in his own country and sees its followers ‘listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government’.

* Separation of Church and State, according to Locke, argues that more religious groups actually prevent civil unrest resulting from confrontations caused by any magistrate’s attempt to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their proliferation. Locke’s primary goal is to “distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion.” He wants to persuade the reader that government is instituted to promote external interests, relating to life, liberty, and the general welfare, which church exists to promote internal interests such as salvation. The two serve separate functions, and so, must be considered to be separate institutions.

* Proper Sphere of Civil Authority: The end of civil society is civil peace and prosperity, or the preservation of the society and every member thereof in a free and peaceable enjoyment of all the good things of this life that belong to each of them; but beyond the concernments of this life, this society bath nothing to do at all.

* Proper Sphere of Religious or Church Authority: The end of religious society is the attaining happiness after this life in another world.

* “Duty” of Religious Tolerance is stated by Locke as “That any man should think fit to cause another man – whose salvation he heartily desires – to expire in torments, and that even in an unconverted state, would, I confess, seem very strange to me, and I think, to any other also. But nobody, surely, will ever believe that such a carriage can proceed from charity, love, or goodwill.” Locke suspects that many missionaries and evangelizing magistrates are doing so for personal gain. “It is a consequence of his mitigated skepticism that Locke advocates a duty of religious toleration.” * “No one… neither single persons nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights or worldly goods of each other on pretense of religion. Those that are of another opinion would do well to consider with themselves how pernicious a seed of discord and war, how powerful a provocation to endless hatreds, rapines, and slaughters they thereby furnish to mankind. No peace and security, no, not so much as common friendship, can ever be established or preserved amongst men so long as this option prevails, that dominion is founded in grace and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms.”

Rousseau – Discourse on Inequality

* Natural Inequality stems from differences in age, health or other physical characteristics.

* Moral/Political Inequality is established by convention or the consent of men.

* There is no point, Rousseau argues, in asking what the source of natural inequality is. Nor is it worth asking whether there is an essential connection between moral and natural inequality. Rousseau says that this is a question for slaves to ask in earshot of their master, but not for free men.

* State of Nature: Claimed that Hobbes was taking socialized people and simply imagining them living outside of the society in which they were raised. He affirmed instead that people were neither good nor bad. In Rousseau’s State of Nature, people did not know each other enough, and they did have normal values. The modern society is blamed for blemishing the pure people. * Human Nature/Psychology: Rousseau repeatedly claims that a single idea is at the center of his world-view, namely, that human beings are good by nature but are rendered corrupt by society. Rousseau attributes to all creatures an instinctual drive towards self-preservation. Human beings have such a drive, which he terms amour de soi (self love). Amour de soi directs us first to attend to our most basic biological needs for things like food, shelter and warmth. Alongside this basic drive for self-preservation, Rousseau posits another passion with he terms pitié (compassion). Pitié directs us to attend to and relieve the suffering of others (including animals) where we can do so without danger to our own self-preservation. At each step of this evolution human beings change their material and psychological relations to one another and, correspondingly, their conception of themselves, or what Rousseau calls the “sentiment of their existence.” According to this narrative, humans live basically solitary lives in the original state of the human race, since they do not need one another to provide for their material needs. * The Noble Savage or “Savage” Man breathes nothing but repose and freedom, he wants only to live and remain idle, and even the Stoic’s ataraxia does not approximate his profound indifference to everything else.

* The Civilized Man or Citizen, forever active, sweats and scurries, constantly in search of ever more strenuous occupations: he works to the death, even rushes toward it in order to be in a position to live, or renounces life in order to acquire immortality. He courts the great whom he hates, and the rich whom he despises; he spares nothing to attain the honor of serving them; he vaingloriously boasts of his baseness and of their protection and, proud of his slavery, he speaks contemptuously of those who have not the honor of sharing it.

* Natural Sentiments/Faculties: To Rousseau, natural pity is the adhesive force that binds human beings together, such as laws do in civil states, pity serves as ‘moral compass’ so to speak when directing the actions of man in this condition. “It is therefore quite certain that pity is a natural sentiment, which, by moderating in each individual the activity of the love of oneself, contributes to the mutual preservation of the entire species…. Pity is what in the State of Nature, takes the place of laws, mores, and virtue…”

* Self-Preservation: The root of natural pity, which enables the human species to have some primitive means of pre-contractual solidarity. As the self-preservation factor in man’s behavior slowly changes, the force that drives his natural pity shifts as well, allowing him to justify actions that deny his pity in seeing his fellow man suffer. “Reason is what engenders egocentrism, and reflection strengthens it. Reason is what turns man upon himself. Reason is what separates him from all that troubles him and afflicts him.”

* Compassion: “For Rousseau, man is born free, but kept free only by compassion.” The statement that man is born free, and is everywhere in chains, is partly only about politics. On a deeper level it is a statement of a dichotomy fundamental to the idea of mankind (as distinct from the animals): that man’s enslavement is the flipside of the coin on which is stamped his basic freedom. Man is free, in other words, precisely because he becomes susceptible to enslavement. And for Rousseau, the one thing that maintains the relationship between the two sides, and prevents enslavement from taking over completely (though he might well argue that it is now too late), is a leftover from our natural state: the supreme human institution of compassion or pity. The idea that we should privilege forms of interaction which develop our compassion – such as, above all for Rousseau, music, remains spot on.

* Free Will: The earliest solitary humans possessed a basic drive for self-preservation and a natural disposition to compassion or pity. They differed from animals, however, in their capacity for free will and their potential perfectibility. As they began to live in groups and form clans they also began to experience family love, which Rousseau saw as the source of the greatest happiness known to humanity.

* Self-Improvement: The development of reason and artificial passions and needs reduce humans from independence to mutual dependence. In the natural condition, human beings are solitary, nomadic, and innocent, being motivated by a desire for self-preservation and pity. But humans also possess a faculty of self-improvement, or perfectibility, which enables the species to develop all of its other capabilities and drives it out of this original condition into the settle life of families in small communities united by custom, which is humanity’s golden age.

* Private Property: Rousseau “… preferred common ownership of all land…[and] arrangements for establishing some common land… Civil laws must constantly combat personal acquisition that exceeds natural need.” He states that each member of the community, at the moment of its formation, gives himself up to it just as he is: himself and all his forces, of which his wealth forms a part… [This] fundamental compact substitutes… a moral and legal equality for that physical inequality (in the form of property) which nature place among men. He then writes “no citizen shall be rich enough to buy another and none so poor at to be forced to sell himself.” Then he goes on to explain that “…the right which each individual has over his own property is always subordinate to the right which the community has over all; without which there would be no solidity in the social bond, nor any real force in the exercise of sovereignty.” According to Rousseau, private property is a ‘civil’ right, but not a ‘natural’ right.

Tocqueville – Democracy in America

* Tyranny of the Majority: Used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body has been used to counter the problem. Tocqueville believes democracy has a tendency to degenerate into “soft despotism” as well as the risk of developing a tyranny of the majority.

* Equality of Conditions: Describes a state in which people have approximately the same material wealth or, more generally, in which the general economic conditions of their lives are similar. Achieving this requires reducing or eliminating material inequalities between individual households in a society. This could involve a transfer of income and/or wealth from wealthier to poorer individuals, or adopting other institutions designed to promote equality of condition from the start. A related way of defining equality of outcome is to think of it as “equality in the central and valuable things in life.”

* Love of Equality: “The first and liveliest of the passions inspired by equality of status, I need not say, is the love of equality itself.” “Then, with no man different from his fellows, nobody will be able to wield tyrannical power; men will be completely free because they will be entirely equal; they will all be completely equal because they will be entirely free.” Democratic nations aim for this ideal.

* Absence of Feudalism: Tocqueville recognized that America was unique in the world, for America had never had a monarchy, or feudalism, or an established church, or other privileged classes. The absence of these conditions, and an abundance of land made American democracy possible. “What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.”

* Individualism: Tocqueville argues that individualism (as opposed to the more general egotism) is a peculiar problem under democracy that spreads in proportion with the equality of conditions. In aristocracies, each member of a community from peasant to the king is a link in a chain of obligation. Each then, is closely linked to several fellow citizens of different classes – “the result is that each of them sees a man above himself whose patronage is necessary to him, and below himself another whose cooperation he may claim.” According to Tocqueville, this means that they are often likely to forget themselves.” In democracies, on the other hand, the past and future are frequently forgotten and people are more and more likely to believe that they are “self-made men” – that is they don’t owe anything to anybody and no one owes them, that they solely control their own destinies. “Aristocracy had made a chain of all the members of the community from the peasant to the king: democracy breaks that chain, and severs every link of it.”

* Materialism and Striving for World Comfort

* Materialism: Tocqueville observes that Americans emphasize material comfort more than Europeans, and that the pursuit of physical gratification and material goods leaves them emotionally enervated and anxious despite the physical comfort they enjoy. Their taste for physical gratifications must be regarded as the original source of that secret disquietude which the actions of the Americans betray and of that inconstancy of which they daily afford fresh examples. He who has set his heart exclusively upon the pursuit of worldly welfare is always in a hurry, for he has but a limited time at his disposal to reach, to grasp, and to enjoy it. * Striving for World Comfort: “He who has set his heart exclusively upon the pursuit of worldly welfare is always in a hurry, for he has but a limited time at his disposal to reach, to grasp, and to enjoy it.” The democratic soul has] petty aims, but the soul cleaves to them; it dwells on them every day and in great 
detail; in the end they shut out the rest of the world and sometimes come between the soul and God. * Popular Participation in Local, Decentralized Governance: Decentralization has kept its promise as far as the strengthening of democracy at the national level is concerned, as well as the central government’s commitment in favor of rural development. It has thus contributed toward moving away from the bias toward urban areas in matters of development; to better management of the coordination of integrated rural development projects, and ensuring their sustainability. Decentralization has also reduced poverty which results from regional disparities, in paying more attention to the attendant socio-economic factors, in facilitating the gradual increase in development efforts, and the promotion of cooperation between the government and NGOs, while increasing transparency, accountability, and the response capacity of institutions. * Associationalism: A political project where “human welfare and liberty are both best served when as many of the affairs of a society as possible are managed by voluntary and democratically self-governing associations.” Associationalism “gives priority to freedom in its scale of values, but it contends that such freedom can only be pursued effectively if individuals join with their fellows.” * Religiosity: Tocqueville’s theory concerning religion clearly is the peerless articulation of George Washington’s version which stated that religion in general was the crucial source and mainstay of republican private as well as public morality. Tocqueville, however, theorizes aims to show the highly ambiguous and paradoxical nature of the function of religion in democracy. Mill – On Liberty * Utilitarianism: A theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. * Individual Liberty and Individuality

* Individuality: Individuality is essential to the cultivation of the self. A basic problem that Mill sees with society is that individual spontaneity as having any good in itself, and is not seen as essential to wellbeing. Rather, the majority thinks its ways should be good enough for everybody. * Individual Liberty: Mill wishes to encourage people to act out against deeply engrained social norms, then one might wonder if society might simply lose cohesion and become polarized under his system. One might also wonder if there aren’t some actions that are simply worthless for human development. * Social Tyranny: The collective “voice” of the people drowning out that of the individual. It is the majority rule or rule by the loudest. Mill contends that social tyranny is more dangerous than government tyranny because “it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the souls itself.” * Harm Principle: Holds that actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” * Anti-Censorship: “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great as a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” * Human Fallibility and Perfectibility * Fallibility: Either capable of making an error; or tending or likely to be erroneous. The fallibility of majority opinions is exemplified by looking at past history, according to Mill. * Perfectibility: Capable of becoming perfect or being made perfect. Mill questions whether it is an error to suppose mankind capable of great improvement. He says it is really a mark of wisdom, to deride all grand schemes of human amelioration as visionary. * Dead Dogma vs. Living Truth (emphasis on Truth-Seeking) * Mill believes that in order to make good decisions, men must use discussion and experience. Men who are fair keep their mind open to all ideas and search for opposing arguments, realizing the necessity of a devil’s advocate. To Mill, a so-called fact must be held up to debate or “it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.” Mill also points out that even in the doctrine of Christianity, which is assumed by Christians to be correct, the importance to listening to all sides is expressed. * Truth-Seeking: Mill’s ideas on society are tempered with his views on religion and its importance in the search for truth. Although Mill believes in the sovereignty of the individual, he refutes the idea that government should adhere to popular opinion. He doesn’t believe that the government should ever stop victimless free expression even if public opinion deems it necessary. * Diversity of Opinion: Mill first states that one could say that people should be taught the grounds for their opinions, and that having been taught these grounds, they do not then merely hold prejudices but really understand the basis of their opinions. Secondly, he states that it isn’t necessary for mankind in general to be familiar with potential objections to their beliefs, but only for philosophers and theologians to be thus aware. Mill – On the Subjection of Women * Perfect Equality: Mill is in favor of equality between the sexes. Mill defends the emancipation of women on utilitarian grounds. Mill was convinced that the moral and intellectual advancement of humankind would result in greater happiness for everybody. He also believed everyone should have the right to vote, with the only exceptions being barbarians and uneducated people. * Nature vs. Nurture: This debate concerns relative importance of individual’s innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. * Social Utility: The principle of utility – that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” He compares the legal status of women to the status of slaves and argues equality in marriage and under the law. Marx – German Ideology and Communist Manifesto * Ruthless Criticism: “I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.” * Armchair Philosophy: Progressivism will kill you. Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform. * Materialism: For Marx, materialism was about acknowledging the way the real world impacts on people’s lives, and acknowledging their ability to come together to change society. For materialists, all of reality is based on matter, including the human brain which is itself a result of the organization of matter in a particular way. * Economic Base vs. Superstructure * Economic Base: The base comprehends the forces and relations of production – employer-employee work conditions, the technical division of labor, and property relations – into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. These relations determine society’s other relationships and ideas which are described as its superstructure. * Superstructure: The superstructure of a society includes its culture, institutions, political power structures, roles, rituals and state. The base determines (conditions) the superstructure, yet their relation is not strictly casual, because the superstructure often influences the base; the influence of the base, however, predominates. In Orthodox Marxism, the base determines the superstructure in a one-way relationship. However, in more advanced forms and variations of Marxist thought their relationship is not strictly one-way, as some theories claim that just as the base influences the superstructure, the superstructure also influences the base. * Ideology as a “Camera Obscura” * Ideology: Ideology itself represents the “production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness,” all that “men say, imagine, conceive,” and include such things as “politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc.” Ideology functions as the superstructure of a civilization: the conventions and culture that make up the dominant ideas of a society. The “ruling ideas” of a given epoch are, however, those of the ruling class: “The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of their dominance.” * Alienation vs. Emancipation * Alienation: Marx’s theory of alienation, which describes separation of things that naturally belong together; and the placement of antagonism between things that are properly in harmony. Alienation is the systemic result of living in a socially stratified society, because being a mechanistic part of a social class alienates a person from his and her humanity. * Emancipation: There are two alternate versions of emancipation: emancipation as inclusion, where the oppressed individual or group acquires equal rights of participation in the existing social or political structure, and emancipation as revolution, or the wholesale eradication of the existing social structure, with the assumption that that very social structure itself is both the cause of oppression and beyond reform. For Marx, emancipation is one thing and one thing only: the complete eradication of the inherent contradictions between social structures and man’s true nature, species being. “It is not radical revolution, universal human emancipation which is a Utopian dream for Germany, but rather a partial, merely political revolution which leaves the pillars of the building standing. What is the basis of a partial, a merely political revolution? Simply this: a section of civil society emancipates itself and attains universal domination; a determinate class undertakes, from its particular situation, a general emancipation of society. This class emancipates society as a whole, but only on condition that whole society is in the same situation as this class.” * Theory of Universal History and Historical Dialectical Materialism * Theory of Universal History: This is the presentation of the history of humankind as a whole, as a coherent unit. Marx presented general theories of history that shared essential characteristics with the Biblical account: they conceived of history as a coherent whole, governed by certain basic characteristics or immutable principles. * Historical Dialectical Materialism: Marx’s theory of dialectic materialism is essential to his general concept of history: that the struggle to dominate means of production governs all historical development. * Class Conflict/Class Struggle: The tension or antagonism which exists in society due to competing socioeconomic interests and desires between people of different classes. Marx argues that class is formed when its members achieve class-consciousness and solidarity. According to Marx, a class will take action against those that are exploiting the lower classes after the class realizes their shared interests and common identity. This leads to conflict between individual members of different classes. * Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat * Bourgeoisie: In the Western World, since the late 18th century, the bourgeoisie describes a social class “characterized by their ownership of capital, and their related culture”; hence, the personal terms bourgeois (masculine) and bourgeoisie (feminine) culturally identify the man or woman who is a member of the wealthiest social class of a given society, and their materialistic worldview. In Marxist philosophy, the term bourgeoisie denotes the social class who owns the means of production, and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital, in order to ensure the perdurance of their economic supremacy in society. * Proletariat: The proletariat is a term used to identify a lower social class, usually the working class; a member of such class is proletarian. The term proletariat is used in Marxist theory to name the social class that does not have ownership of the means of production and whose only means of subsistence is to sell their labor power for a wage or salary. * Crises and Contradictions of Capitalism * Crisis Theory: In Marxian economics, the term ‘crisis’ refers to what is called, even currently outside Marxian theory in many European countries as a “conjuncture” or especially sharp bust cycle of the regular boom and bust pattern of what Marxists term “chaotic” capitalist development, which, if no countervailing action is taken, develops into a recession or depression. In terms of historical materialism, such crises repeat until objective and subjective factors combine to precipitate the transition to the new mode of production * Marx’s 10 Immediate Demands in the Communist Manifesto vs. Suggestions about the Future of Communism as a Classless Society