Introduction to Political
Philosophy
Diego Horschovski
Abstract:
In
this essay I will regard the most important approaches -in Political
Philosophy- about the necessity of the State and about the condition of human
beings living together. In order to get that far we will consider the responses
that philosophers as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have given to this kind of
issues in this field. Finally, we will compare these approaches with the
platonic perspective of the State.
Keywords: State, Contractual theories, state of nature.
Index
A)
Introduction
B)
The contractual theories: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau.
C)
Plato: Republic –Ideal State.
D)
Critical analysis
E)
Bibliography
A)
Introduction
Boarding
the topic of Contractual Theories involves a prior approximation to the main
concepts that we will work with, and which have been developed by the thinkers
we are regarding in this investigation.
The writers above mentioned have discoursed about the
structure and nature of the State as a necessity of human beings. Nowadays we
are debating very often in the mass media and universities about topics as democracy, war, human rights, citizenship, and
so on. After the two World Wars in
Europe this issues became crucial to understand our present. The last economic
World Crisis and the strategies of the governments to face those problems are
evidences of the necessity of questioning how are we coexisting, and how the
structures of power are. A philosophical point of view leads us to board our
nature as human beings, our potential to live in community and our capacities
to achieve justice and freedom.
In first place, we will focus on the State of Nature. This notion was developed as a concept by these
thinkers mentioned above to denote how people might have been lived before the
existence of societies. Each of them has set hypothetical conditions which help
to understand their subsequent theories about civil society. Second, Social Contract is a concept based on
the idea that, given a group, all its members make an agreement. This contract
admits the existence of an authority and laws which such members should obey.
In some case we will see that there are specific instances in which citizens
are able to rebel against authorities. Third, the State is the form of political organization that is delimited in a
territory and integrates the population. This political organization contains a
set of institutions which regulate the life in society.
B)
The contractual theories
Thomas
Hobbes
Hobbes
(1588-1679) was an English philosopher. His most important work is Leviathan, which established the social
contract theory. He is known as the
biggest exhibitor of absolutism.
According
to Hobbes men are equal in their corporal faculties. The weakest could kill the
strongest by joining others who are in the same danger. Men are even more equal
in regard to mental skills, because each of them use to think that is his-self
wiser than the others. That’s why all of them are equal, because everyone
believes the same. Besides, there is an equality on trying to get the same
goals. So, if two different men wish the same thing that both cannot share they
became enemies.
<From this equality of ability ariseth equality of
hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same
thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in
the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes
their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from
hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another
man’s single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat,
others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to
dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of
his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.>[1]
The man have no pleasure living
together if they are not submitted to a common power. Hobbes describes this
situation as the war of all against all -bellum
omnium contra omnes-. So there are three causes of war in this state of
nature: First, competition; second, diffidence; third, glory. The first make man
invade for gain; second, for safety, and third for reputation. In this kind of hostile coexistence it is not
possible to develop industry or arts, and trade is difficult to carry out also.
In regard to the Justice Hobbes set: <To this war of every man
against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The
notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place.>[2]
That’s because
right and wrong are qualities related to men living in society in which laws
take place. The men have passions (fear of death, desire of things…) that
incline them to peace. But men are also rational, so they find convenient to
agree in articles of peace.
That’s how the social contract generates the State and the natural rights (that
men have in the state of nature) are limited by laws which men find necessary
to come out of hostile situation.
<The right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man
hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own
nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything
which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest
means thereunto>[3]
While natural law assumes absolute freedom, laws impose
limits and obligations.
The law requires people to seek peace, to renounce the natural right and freedom for peace and the laws obligate to respect the covenant (So, the conception of justice is born). In order to guarantee peace it is necessary a social contract that generates the State. In this contract, all men agree and decide to assign all their rights irrevocably to a man or assembly of men, reducing all the will to one in order to ensure peace. But as we can see this approach does not mean defending democracy. Hobbes justifies the absolutism and denies the convenience of the distribution of powers. The pact is made exclusively between the subjects and implies an irrevocable assignment of the rights. Therefore the sovereign, does not submit to any condition, its power is absolute.
The law requires people to seek peace, to renounce the natural right and freedom for peace and the laws obligate to respect the covenant (So, the conception of justice is born). In order to guarantee peace it is necessary a social contract that generates the State. In this contract, all men agree and decide to assign all their rights irrevocably to a man or assembly of men, reducing all the will to one in order to ensure peace. But as we can see this approach does not mean defending democracy. Hobbes justifies the absolutism and denies the convenience of the distribution of powers. The pact is made exclusively between the subjects and implies an irrevocable assignment of the rights. Therefore the sovereign, does not submit to any condition, its power is absolute.
John
Locke
John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher. One of
his most important works is Two Treatises of Government. Locke is considered as the father of liberalism.
In his first treatise on
civil government, John Locke developed a critical view of the divine theory of
the law of kings. Locke rejected the idea that political authority was granted
by God to Adam and transmitted by succession to his descendants. It means, Locke
reject absolutism:
<Firstly. That Adam had not, either by natural right of
fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his
children, nor dominion over the world, as is pretended. Secondly. That if he
had, his heirs yet had no right to it. Thirdly. That if his heirs had, there
being no law of Nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the
right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and
consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined.
Fourthly. That if even that had been determined, yet the knowledge of which is
the eldest line of Adam’s posterity being so long since utterly lost, that in
the races of mankind and families of the world, there remains not to one above
another the least pretence to be the eldest house, and to have the right of
inheritance>[4]
The state of
nature is characterized by the freedom and equality of all men, in the absence
of a common authority. Unlike Hobbes, for Locke the state of nature is not an
state of war, because war constitutes a degeneration of the state of nature.
There is a natural moral law that regulates the state of nature. Such a law can
be discovered by reason. This law is universally binding, promulgated by human
reason as a reflection of God and his rights. This law is imposed on men in the
absence of all State and legislation. The natural moral law proclaims, at the
same time, the existence of some natural rights and their corresponding duties.
Among them, Locke emphasizes: the right to own conservation, to defend his
life, to freedom, and to own private property. Locke develop this notions in
the Second Treatise of government: <To
understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must
consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect
freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as
they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or
depending upon the will of any other man.>[5]
Moreover, the
work constitutes the source of appropriation of yield and only those products
on which the man has invested his own work belong to him. In nature, laws are
not imposed by man, rather man has to be subjected to them. Natural laws do not
depend on his will. In society, however, laws are conventional. It means that
the product of agreement between men and their obedience depends on their free
will.
In the state of nature, men have mutual respect for the rights.
Men are limited by the rights of others. Hence, unlike Hobbes, they do not live
in a war of all against all. The individuals have the right to punish the
violators of "these rights". But, in the State of Nature there is no
political organization that guarantees the exercise of natural rights and the
application of rational and just sanctions to violators. Men can violate the
rights of others. But it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily bad, because
they have a natural moral law discovered by reason that imposes limits on their
behavior. However, a rational defense of rights is difficult, therefore a
political organization and an objective law are necessary. <
Wherever, therefore, any
number of men so unite into one society as to quit every one his executive
power of the law of Nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there
only is a political or civil society>[6]
One of the
main Locke’s critics of Hobbes is that if there were absolute power over the
community, according to the former, it would not really have gotten out of the
state of nature. In absolute monarchy the powers are confused, there is no
impartiality, there is no division. That is incompatible with the existence of
a civil society. For there to be civil society there must be a judge separate from
the executive which might be impartial. The superior power is the legislative
power (which includes the judicial power). And the executive power is
subordinated to the former.
<90. And hence it is evident that absolute
monarchy, which by some men is counted for the only government in the world, is
indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be not form of civil
government at all. For the end of civil society being to avoid and remedy those
inconveniences of the state of Nature which necessarily follow from every man’s
being judge in his own case, by setting up a known authority to which every one
of that society may appeal upon any injury received, or controversy that may
arise, and which every one of the society ought to obey.2 Wherever any persons
are who have not such an authority to appeal to, and decide any difference
between them there, those persons are still in the state of Nature. And so is
every absolute prince in respect of those who are under his dominion.>[7]
The assignment of rights made by individuals is
revocable. If the legislative power is arbitrarily modified or subjected to an
absolute power that prevents it from acting freely, or if the holder of the
executive power is unable to enforce the laws, or if the executive or legislative
act contrary to the mandate entrusted, then the rebellion of the subjects is
justified.
Jean
- Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau
(1712-1778) was a swiss writer which ideas influenced in the French revolution.
His most famous work is Of the Social Contract, or
Principles of Political Right. He
is considered as a republican
political theorist.
According to Rousseau the men are born free and equal by
nature. In the ancient communities the family is the first model of political
society. A social pact is that in which each of us shares his person and all
his power under the supreme direction of the general will. The author
distinguishes three types of liberties: natural liberty, which is lost after
the contract, civil liberty that is limited by the general will and moral
freedom, which is the only one that turns man into master of himself. The
social pact makes men equal by convention and law.
<What man loses by the social contract is his natural
liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in
getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he
possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we
must clearly 15 distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the
strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general
will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the
first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title.
We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil
state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself>[8]
The Social
Contract is based on the establishment of a form of association whereby, each
man by joining all, he obeys himself and is as free as before. It is a new form
of social contract that returns to man his natural state, while continuing to
belong to the community. It is not a contract between individuals like Hobbes
set, nor individuals with a ruler like in the case of Locke, but is an
individual contract with the community.
This covenant
creates "the general will" which is not arbitrary. This "general
will" is characterized by sovereign,
since there is no other power above it;
inalienable, can not be delegated; indivisible, there is no separation of powers, unlike Locke. <Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.>[9]
inalienable, can not be delegated; indivisible, there is no separation of powers, unlike Locke. <Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.>[9]
Rousseau make
compatible the popular sovereignty, it means, the existence of laws in the
society with the individual freedom. Because in contracting with the community,
each individual hires, as it were, with himself and obeying the general will
obeys only himself.
<The
problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the
whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each,
while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as
free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social
Contract provides the solution.>[10]
C) Plato
Plato (427-347 BC) was a Greek philosopher, follower of
Socrates and he was also the master of Aristotle. Plato was the founder of the Academy. All his works are written in
the form of dialogue, on the most diverse subjects such as political
philosophy, ethics, psychology, philosophical anthropology, epistemology,
gnoseology, metaphysics, cosmogony, cosmology, among others topics. Also
attempted to capture in a real state its original political theory, reason why
he traveled twice to Syracuse, Sicilia, with intentions to put into practice
his project there, but he failed in both occasions and he managed to escape due
to the persecutions that suffered from his opponents. His most famous work is Republic, which is a dialogue between
Socrates and other characters. The main topic of Republic is the discourse
about Justice. This notion leads
Plato to approach the organization of the Ideal City-State.
Plato’s
Republic
As
we have seen above Justice is the notion in which the Greek philosopher base
his approach of the State. This concept means, in this context, that rulers
give the people governed everything they need. The righteous will be wise and a
good ruler who will know how to put the common needs above his-self own needs.
So, unjust governor will act selfishly in order to get only his own benefit,
like getting greater wealth and privileges.
At the end of the first book of Republic Socrates says that Justice is the virtue through which we
can access others and likewise says that this is very profitable since those
who work justly will be equally treated fairly. A fair society works better
and, therefore, society improves. <“-For surely, Thrasymachus, it's injustice that produces factions,
hatreds, and quarrels among themselves, and justice that produces unanimity and
friendship. Isn't it so? -Let it be so, so as not to differ with you.">[11]
According to
Plato, human beings find no possible to subsist by themselves. That is the
reason why the state appears. At the beginning the state will be small and it
will cover only basic needs. Every citizen in this State will be handle a
single task for which he has more predisposition. This is the best way because,
otherwise, if a citizen works in more than one task he will not do his best. As
the state grows the appearance of both a ruler and an army becomes
indispensable.
<"I'll
tell you," I said. "There is, we say, justice of one man; and there
is, surely, justice of a whole city too?"
"Certainly," he said.
"Is a city bigger^^ than one man?"
"Yes, it is bigger;" he said.
"So
then, perhaps there would be more justice in the bigger and it would be easier
to observe closely. If you want, first we'll investigate what justice is like
in the cities. Then, we'll also go on to consider it in a individuals,
considering the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler?"
"What
you say seems fine to me," he said[12]>
After the primary needs of the inhabitants are satisfied, appear
the secondary ones and with them the poets, the musicians, the actors, and so
on. So, the state expand its borders to accommodate that large number of people
who are now part of its citizens. And this is where take place the menace of
war. Plato set that, at this point, is necessary the called guardians of the
state. They are warriors who must concentrate on their soul at the same time.
They must show to the enemies no fear and tranquility with the citizens of
their State. This will be achieved through the education of the body (through
gymnastics) and the soul (through music).
In Plato’s
State there will be three social classes. The rulers, guardians and farmers,
craftsmen, and so on. It will be decided who should occupy each position
according to the metal of what made his soul, gold for the rulers, silver for
the Guardians and bronze for the others. However it is noteworthy that nothing
matters the material that the soul of parents is made because his children can
have the soul of any other metal. So each citizen will occupy the place to
which he belongs independently of his parents, and that’s how the state balance
is preserved.
The State
contains four qualities through which it became perfect, namely, wisdom,
courage, moderation and self-righteousness. Wisdom because the state is
prudent, this virtue belongs to rulers and guardians. The state is courageous,
because it has its defense army. Moderation because the inhabitants of the
state suppress their desires and lead a straight life and according to
education. The justice consists on make each member of society assume their
task and not invade the fields that do not correspond them by nature. Thus
stability is achieved and non-corruption of said state.
There will be
two kind of war. Internal and against foreign people. The internal war should
finish in reconciliation. In the external war Greek are able to capture enemies
as slaves.
This state could only be build whenever its ruler is a
philosopher, which consider his-self lover of the wisdom and knowledge. He
always wants to learn more. Plato makes a distinction between philosophers from
opinion-lovers. These participate in forums seeking spectacle and not
knowledge. Authentic philosophy is about truth and If governments were
philosophers instead of corrupt politicians, the State would improve.
<“Unless, I said,
“the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely
and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide36 in
the same place, while the many natures now making their way to either apart
from the other are by necessity excluded, there is no rest from ills for the
cities, my dear Glaucon, nor I think for human kind, nor will the regime we
have now described in speech ever come forth from nature, insofar as possible,
and see the light of the sun.”>[13]
In the seventh
book of Republic, Plato illustrates
with the myth of the cave, namely: A man who has always lived chained and
unable to turn his head once, seeing -as he lived in the depths of the cave-
only shadows (world of superstitions - eikasia).
This man is stripped of his bonds and forced to walk. Then he will pass through
another room where he finds a bonfire and several people walking with objects
on themselves, which were the shadows he could see from where he was previously
(level of opinions and beliefs - pistis).
After this room must take a long path (level of geometric objects - dianoia) to the light. Once he reaches
the surface, its eyes cannot see, because he is blinded by so much clarity. The
light represents the idea of Good and
through which the man can observe and know all the truths and forgetting the
opinions (Ideal world - noesis). If this liberated human being wanted to go
back in and tell his comrades what he has lived, they would persecute and,
maybe, kill him by taking him for a fool. These are the reasons which Plato set
to consider the philosopher as the best man that is able to rule an State.
However, the
state is not free from imperfection because it is subjected to the government
of humans and can also degenerate. The state degenerates and passes from the
aristocracy (best form of government) to the thymocracy (military power), to
the oligarchy (minority power), then to democracy (people’s power) and finally
to tyranny (one man leading), the worst of governments. Finally, we must know
that who practices justice will have a life full of true pleasures and, moreover,
the gods will compensate the souls of the righteous and punish those of the
unjust.
D)
Critical
analysis
As we have seen the Plato’s Republic
and the Contractual Theories -although each of the authors has his own
characteristics- share many common features. They thought about how the State
arises, they thought about the features of the State, and –after a development
of their thoughts- they all defend a particular political system.
In first place, I think it is
important to highlight that Hobbes set the notion of Justice as a matter of
people living in society:
<To this war of every man against every man, this also
is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong,
justice and injustice, have there no place.>[14]
In my
opinion is important to focus on the issue that Justice is a problem concerning
to the level of civil society. It is an important social value which people
from every kind of society should discourse about in order to achieve a common
welfare. We should discuss about what is right and wrong, about the limits of
the power of the State, and about the best way of living.
In
Aristotle’s Politics the writer from
Stagira established that <[…]the state is a creation of nature. And that man
is by nature a political animal.>[15] Likewise he set that <[…] the power of speech is
intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the
just and the unjust. And it is characteristic of man that he alone has any
sense of good and evil, of just and unjust[…]>[16]
And I think this Aristotelian definitions are very important to understand who
we are among others features that human being have.
I agree
with the critic that Locke made of Hobbes about his absolutism. In the absolute
monarchy the power is not impartial and it is not divided. Besides, It doesn’t
seem that the State of Hobbes overcomes the State of Nature. According to Locke
in the State the power should be divided to avoid authoritarianism. Hobbes
defends absolutism, which I find
against human rights and common welfare. Articles of peace should be necessary
to live in community but, in my opinion, as Locke maintains, the covenant
should be revocable if the governor do not respect the general needs. In the
case of Locke we find a representative
government political system. On the other hand, Rousseau established that
the social pact makes that men live in equality by law, which is conventional
and belongs to the man living in society as we have seen above. The liberty of
each of the citizens is limited by the general will. In this case the people do
not make a contract with an authoritarian person like in the case of Hobbes,
nor rulers like in the case of Locke, but with the community. It means that
individual persons have a direct relationship with the group. This Rousseau
approach is known as direct democracy.
In the case
of the Plato’s Republic we find a
different way of boarding these topics. What the author did was a design of an
Ideal State. For that the Greek philosopher discourses about the features of
the State but also the features of the individuals that live in; In this ideal approach
both kinds of features are correlative. That is the reason why Plato makes an
analysis of the parts of the State. Individuals should learn particular skills;
intellectual ones, or skills for the body (work) and for the soul (character). In
regard to the Justice I find that Socrates makes a moral valuation of this
notion. When, in the dialogue he says that Justice
is the virtue through which we can access to the others, and that a fair
society works better, he is actually talking not only about the results of a
better society, but about the behaviour of the citizens. And, moreover, in the
dialogue the characters talk about the task that should be carried out by
citizens depending on their skills. So, in the platonic State individuals
should do what they do better, not what they want or like. This is the reason
why I find questionable the notion of Justice. Nowadays It couldn’t be
admissible, but I understand that what Plato did was an ideal design of a
political system. That’s the reason why, in his opinion, the best form of
government is the Aristocracy, in which the governor is a philosopher. Finally,
just as contractual theorist did, Plato also discoursed about the necessity of
the State. He finds that human beings are not able to subsist by themselves. We
can conclude that, if we don’t live in society, with conventional laws –which
might be revised in my opinion if general will find it necessary- and with
articles of peace, we will not be able to live together and achieve common
welfare.
E) Bibliography
·
ARISTOTLE,
Politics, Batoche books, Kitchener,
1999.
·
HOBBES, TH; Leviathan, London, printed for Andrew
Crooke, at the Green Dragon in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1651.
·
LOCKE,
J.; Two treatises of government, London:
Printed for Thomas Tegg; W. Sharpe and Son; G. Offor; G. and J. Robinson; J.
Evans and Co.: Also R. Griffin and Co. Glasgow; and J. Gumming, Dublin., 1823.
In:
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/government.pdf
·
PLATO; Republic, Basic books, A division of
Harper Collins Publishers. In: http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Plato-Republic.pdf
·
ROUSSEAU, J; The Social Contract or Principles of
Political right, Translated by G. D. H. Cole, public domain Foederis æquas
Dicamus leges. Virgil, Æneid xi, 1762.
In: https://www.ucc.ie/archive/hdsp/Rousseau_contrat-social.pdf
[1]
HOBBES, TH; Leviathan, London,
printed for Andrew Crooke, at the Green Dragon in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1651. p 78. In: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf,
p. 78.
[2] Íbd, p. 79.
[4]
LOCKE, J.; Two treatises of government, London:
Printed for Thomas Tegg; W. Sharpe and Son; G. Offor; G. and J. Robinson; J.
Evans and Co.: Also R. Griffin and Co. Glasgow; and J. Gumming, Dublin., 1823,
p. 105. In: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/government.pdf,
p. 105.
[6] Íbd, p. 142.
[8] ROUSSEAU, J; The Social Contract or Principles of
Political right, p. 15. In:
https://www.ucc.ie/archive/hdsp/Rousseau_contrat-social.pdf
[9] Íbd, p. 11.
[11]PLATO;
Republic, p. 30. In:
http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Plato-Republic.pdf
[13] Íbd, p. 153.
[14] Íbd, p. 79.
[15] ARISTOTLE, Politics, Batoche
Books, Kitchener, 1999. p, 5.
In: https://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/aristotle/Politics.pdf
[16] Ídem.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario