Political Philosophy
 
Plato's Republic (Dialogue between Socrates, Glaucon and Adeimantus) and The Laws (Dialogue between and an old, Athenian, an old Cretan and an old Spartan)
 
When Plato's Republic is read as a treatise rather than a dialogue, readers often come to the following summary:
 
"In the city, the rulers must be philosophers who have beheld the Forms, hence who know what is good. They must train the military caste to help control the naturally unruly peasants. The latter will be allowed to use money, own property, and wear decorations in moderation, but the members of the top two classes, who understand the corrupting effect of greed, will live in an austere, absolute communism, sleeping and eating together, owning no property, receiving no salary, and having sexual relations on a prearranged schedule with partners shared by all. This rule will guarantee that the city with not be frenzied and anarchic." Donald Palmer
 
Allan Bloom says that the Republic is the true apology of Socrates in which the relationship of the philosopher to the political community is explained. The philosopher is a gadfly and the community is a horse. Socrates' philosopher king is not the pinnacle of the perfect society but the remedy for the nature of human society in any form. In the Republic, there is an acknowledgement that the gadfly can be subversive to the regime; he can undermine attachment to the regime.
 
The city is actually the individual writ large.
 
 The Individual (the tripartite soul)  Virtues

 

 
The State
 Rational  Wisdom  Rulers -Socrates' City of Beauty
 Spirited  Courage  Soldiers- Adeimantus' Armed Camp
 Appetitive  Moderation  Thrasymachos proposes the City of Workers - Glaucon's City of Pigs
 
Health = Justice
 
Links to Pages on Plato's Republic : The Classics Page summary
A diagram of the cave
 
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice invites students to engage in a dialogue akin to that of The Republic as the first step in the discussion of political philosophy and justice.
 
Imagine you are in the "original position," a time when you are about to establish an organized society . Try to "slip behind a veil of ignorance" that obscures your own interests. What would this society look like in order to be just. Who would hold positions of authority? Who should make the laws? On what basis should one obey this authority?
 
The questions of Political Philosophy:
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Politics
 
Most American's answer the question "What is the role of government?" with the answer "to protect the rights of its citizens."
 
If the question is reworded to ask "Why does the state arise?" do you have any other answers?
 
Many of you are familiar with the recent, Republican, election rhetoric "It Takes a Family" that implicitly criticized Hillar Rodham Clinton's book, It Takes a Village. What is insufficient about a family? Why do we not live as families rather than larger political units?
What is insufficient about a village? Why do we want to belong to a political entity larger than a village?
Can there be justice if all political decisions are made a the level of village?
 
Aristotle identifies three kinds of government:
 
   Ruled by Common Good  Ruled by Self-Interest
 Rule of the One  monarchy  tyranny
 Rule of the Few  aristocracy  oligarchy
 Rule of the Many  democracy  mob rule
 
Aristotle believes that monarchy and aristocracy are the most likely candidates for the just regime.
As Americans, we tend to support democracy as the best form of government. Given the fact that lobbyists and financial supporters have so much influence upon public policy, one might argue that we actually are ruled by an oligarchy. Can you think of reasons to support monarchy or aristocracy instead or democracy?
 
Reading: On the Function of the State
 
A state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only: if life only were the object, slaves and brute animals might form a state, but they cannot, for they have no share in happiness or in a life of free choice. Nor does a state exist for the sake of alliance and security from injustice, nor yet for the sake of exchange and mutual intercourse; for then the Tyrrhenians and the Carthaginians, and all who have commercial treaties with one another, would be the citizens of one state. True, they have agreements about imports, and engagements that they will do no wrong to one another, and written articles of alliance. But there are no magistracies common to the contracting parties who will enforce their engagements; different states have each their own magistracies. Nor does one state take care that the citizens of the other are such as they cought to be, nor see that those who come under the terms of the treaty do not wrong or wickedness at all, but only that they do no injustice to one another. Whereas those who care for good government take into consideration virtue and vice in states. Whence it may be further inferred that virtue must be the care of a state which is trluy so called, and not merely enjoys the name: for without this end the community becomes a mere alliance which differes only in place from alliances of which the members live apart....
It is clear then that a state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the prevention of mutual crime and for the sake of exchange. There are conditions without which a state cannot exit; but all of them together do not constitute a state, which is a community of families and aggregations of families in well-being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life. Such a community can only be established among those who live in the same place and intermarry. Hence arise in cities family connexions, brotherhoods, common sacrifices, amusements which draw men together. But these are created by friendship, for the will to life together is friendship. The end of the state is the good life, and these are the means towards it. And the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect ans self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life. From Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett, ed. H.W.C. Davis, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1905.
 

 

 

 Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1521)

The Prince and The Discourses

 
 
 
A Brief Bio and Apology
 
Peter Gay "The New Realism" -- Francis Bacon "We are much beholden to Machiavelli and other who wrote what men do, and not what they ought to do." He has liberated us from a "duty higher than nature or the world will bear."
 
-Bacon seems to have anticipated the objection to Plato/Socrates and Aristotle's politics voiced by modern students.
- What sort of questions should we ask when discussing what sort of government is best and who should make laws?
 
Biography: He was an official of in the Florentine Chancery during a period of crises in domestic politics and foreign affairs and war. In 1512, a collapse of the republican government returned the exiled Medici (enlightened despots) to power. With the return of the Medici, Machiavelli is dismissed, imprisoned and sent from the city to what he experienced as a dreadful exile. During this period he wrote The Prince -- dedicated to Lorenzo d'Medici -- and The Discourses -- a treatise advocating republicanism. Both address the problem of political leadership. He returned to the city in May of 1527 when the republic had been restored and the Medici had fallen.
Ironically, because of the publication of The Prince, people associated him with the Medici. Machaivelli restricted the readership of The Discourses to a small circle of trusted friends. In June, he died of an ulcer aggravated by the failure of his dreams.
 
What is the truth? What did Machiavelli really believe? The definition of the prince in The Prince is the same definition for the tyrant in The Discourses. Machiavelli wrote, "I never believe what I say or say what I believe."
 
Machiavelli's debt to Aristotle is clear, but in contrast to his teacher, he seems to have held a low estimation of human nature. Politics is not the realm of the sublime.
 
Machiavelli rejected the appeal to divine law and judgement as the basis for civil society: "If the punishment of the wicked is left to God, as the principle of not speaking evil of evil requires, then evil will do as much evil as it they can, for they do not fear punishment which they do not see and in which they do not believe."
 
"Reliance upon a heavenly fatherland leads to less concern about one's political community or this world and leaves one more disposed to endure injuries than to avenge them, consequently the world becomes effeminate. Yearning for a home in the afterlife makes men homeless on earth."
 
The Origin of the State: The founding of actual states, even biblical states, justifies actions which can never be justified after it has been established. Machiavelli points to Moses, Joshua and David and to Romulus who had to kill Remus. We can point to the treatment of the Native American and the Boston Tea Party and the Revolutionary War. After the founding of the state, the common good makes cruel and terrible demands and requires the employment of cruel and terrible men. Machiavelli points to Brutes who regained liberty for Rome by resorting to the deception of playing the fool and friend to Julius Caesar. We can point to the CIA, the DIA, the British Secret Service, or the Musad. Would we really want to live without these organizations? The possibility of crimes against the state leads to preserving the common good in anticipation of dangers. I suspect that Machiavelli would say that the problem with the Iran-Contra Affair is that the participants got caught.
 
"The principle foundations of all states, whether new, old or mixed, are good laws and good arms. And as there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there must be good laws, I will not discuss the laws, but will speak of the arms." Lawfulness is secondary to force.
 
But with reference to good arms, we must ask what Machiavelli meant. Does he simply mean powerful weapons, or is he refering to his notion of civic virtue? Near the end of The Discourses we find chapters entitled "The Faults of the People Spring from the Faults of their Rulers" (Chapter 29), "A Citizen Who Desires to Employ His Authority in a Republic for Some Public Good Must First of all Suppress all Feeling of Envy: And How to Organize the Defence of a City on the Approach of an Enemy" (Chapt 30), and "Great Men and Powerful Republics Preserve an Equal Dignity and Courage in Prosperity and Adversity" (Cahpt 31)
 
Machiavelli produces the political philosophy of modernity. Humanity is the measure: humanity is the maker. He lowered the political mark and liberated people of the consideration of other worldly perfection. Humanity expanded the estimation of her own power as well as enlarging the expectation of her own estate.
 
People are not driven by a teleology of excellence but rather they are coerced by fear of pain. Machiavelli lays the ground work for both Hobbes, who argues that the defect of fear becomes the basis for establishing natural and political right, and Locke, who argues that the defect of pain is the source of natural and political entitlement. Without the writings of Hobbes and Locke and those who responded to them, we would have neither The American Declaration of Independence nor The Bill of Rights.
 
Machiavelli also suggested that "man" begin to overpower and conquer chance. His thought leads to modern science and technology that is not dedicated to humanity and the preservation of the earth, but rather, to what they might become through transformation and conquest.
 
How did Machiavelli become a by-word for despicable politics?
 
During the counter-reformation, Machiavelli's work was put on the index. His writings were so thoroughly secular that the Church leaders who seemingly had adopted his ideas and apply them were able to attack them.
 
Until the Elizabethan period Machiavelli's ideas were available only by way of a French critique. Authors, such as Shakespeare, used these ideas to craft characters, such as Iago, creatures of cunning and treachery whose outward form bore no resemblance to their inward being.
 
A dislike of Renaissance Italy and its supposed decadence, coupled with an anti-papal sentiment, perhaps influenced the epithet for the Devil, "Old Nick."
 
Ironically, Machiavelli has received the harshest criticism from the despots and totalitarian rulers of European history. What Machiavelli seems to have done in describing power politics is to unmask its methods and, thereby, make its practitioners more open to scrutiny. As Max Lerner writes in his "Introduction: to the Modern Library edition of The Prince and the Discourses:
May I venture a guess as to the reason why we still shudder slightly at Machiavelli's name? It is not only the tradition I have described. It is our recognition that the realities that he described are realities; that men, whether in politics, or in business or in private life, do not act according to their professions of virtue; that leaders in every field seek power ruthlessly and hold on to it tenaciously' that the masses who are coerced in a dictatorship have to be wooed and duped in a democracy; that deceit and ruthlessness invariably crop up in every state; and that while the art of being ruled has always been a relatively easy one, the art of ruling ourselves is monstrously difficult. (xliv)

 

 
Discussion:
Machiavelli introduces the language of gritty realism into our political discourse. Do you agree with what he has to say about the nature of politics? Consider the case for affirmative action. Idealist have successfully struck down affirmative action legislation in California because it discriminates against individuals. In the world of machiavellian politics, we know that sometimes we have to make unfair laws in order to realize our goals, goals such as social and economic equality regardless of race or gender.
 
A Plea on Behalf of Machiavelli
 
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
 
If we come back at the question of the origin of the state from the humanist perspective, we must ask the following question. What would the condition of humanity be with no civil society? Compare the way that Defoe answers this question in Robinson Crusoe and the way that Golding answers it in Lord of the Flies.
What leads people to desire peace and order? What motivates them to form societies bound by social contracts, that is laws, responsibilities, and governing authorities?
 
Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679
The Elements of Law (1640) The Citizen (1642) Leviathan (1651)
 
A Biography
 
Passion rather than reason is the most powerful force effecting human actions and the "Laws of Passion" lead to social and political life.
The state of nature is equality ; no one has more property than anyone else or belongs to a social class. Without law, everyone is equally capable of killing one another. Fear of violent death is the most powerful passion.
 
 
 
The state of nature is a state of war in which there is no place for industry, culture etc. Fear of death + desire for comfort + hope of industry = inclination to peace.
 
 
 
The desire for peace leads one to enter into a covenant in which one lays down one's rights in order to guarantee self preservation. Fidelity to this covenant becomes the basis for all justice and injustice. Public interests will be most advanced when they are closely united with private interests. This occurs under the monarch. Democracy increase competition. The power of each demagogue is dependent upon the power to control and dispense patronage. This breeds factions and civil war. Power or sovereignty then resides in one authority that controls legislative, judicial, and police powers.
 
 
 
No one has the right to more power than the sovereign and it is an act of injustice to try to overthrow a monarch. If one does not submit to this contract, one places oneself outside it in the state of war. The only basis for not submitting is if the sovereign fails to provide protection. If a commanded act (a law) is sinful, it is the sovereign's sin and to disobey the sovereign is a sin. The sovereign has not covenanted; therefore. he cannot be charged with breach of the covenant. It is a breach of duty of the sovereign to lay aside his absolute right -- it invites sedition -- or to fail to inform people of the grounds of his rights.
 
Discussion:
Hobbes claims that the first state arose when people entered into a covenant. In our social contract, the government covenants to safe guard our constitutional rights. What do the people covenant? Do we give anything up in this social contract?
On what basis can we break the social contract or overthrow a government?
 

 

 
John Locke 1632-1704
A Brief Biography
Two Treatises on Government
"All government is limited in its powers and exists only by the consent of the governed."
 
Locke disagrees with Hobbes (actually Sir Robert Filmon who advocated the divine right of kings) at a number of key points in the analysis of the origin of the state.
 
Locke: Of the State of Nature
The original state is not a state of war but of good will, mutual assistance and preservation
The original impetus to join into a social contract is not fear but preservation of natural rights.
The Social Contract does not call for the laying down of rights but the rational restriction of the exercise of one's rights so that they are consistent with the preservation of the society.
For example: the right to free association can be limited if that association seeks to commit acts of civil terror
the right of freedom of speech can be limited if one disseminates lies that are slanderous and harm another individual
 
The monarch and/or governments right to govern is a right that is conferred upon the government by free men unanimously constituting a civil society. Locke, therefore, proposes that a constitutionally limited monarchy is ideal.
 
Natural law for Hobbes it is raw power - the set of principles that best preserve survival. For Locke, it is natural rights. A natural right is birthright of a potential rational being for use as one matures. Given that our natural impulse is freedom, we can identify the right to liberty in opinion and speech, that is the right to seek the truth in our own way. Laws -- limitations of rights and guarantees of rights -- are approximations not infallible rules.; hence, no one should wield absolute power.
 
Locke: Of Property
Locke also identifies one questionable right, the natural right of property. Locke states that preservation of property is the primary motivation for entering into the social contract. Initially all material belonged to the common domain, "God gave the world to man in common, but he gave if for the benefit of those who would develop it." Labor is the only original private property, "It is labor indeed that puts the difference of value on everything." "Whosoever a man removes out ot the state that nature both provided and left in it, he hath mixed his labor with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."
 
Discussion: The best of the American system derives for what is best in Locke's theory and some social critics claim the worst is also derived from Locke. How do notions of rights become obstacles for living within the Goshen College Community? Do students often feel that their rights are violated when they are called before J Board? Do GC standards violate your rights as an American citizen?
 
Locke: Of the Dissolution of Government
 
Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778
A Brief Biography
 
The Social Contract
 
George Catlin "The influence of this disordered, half-educated, uncontrolled, undisciplined, is one of the major catastrophes in the history of human thought."
"Rousseau succeeded in misinterpreting Plato for his generation before anyone else."
Alan Bloom in contrast claims he is a man of great insight and that the contradictions in his writing reflect the contradictions in the nature of things.
 
The Human Condition : "Man is born free: and everywhere he is in chains"
The leviathan is so directed toward its own preservation and the preservation of its citizens that it takes into account only the conditions of happiness and forgets happiness itself
 
Arcane State: People lived in families in isolation. At first children were dependent upon parents for preservation. If they remain after their childhood something else bounds them. What is this something else? Love
Sentimentality is the impetus of civil society - love of one's neighbor - love of one's place. When people enter into the social contract, that government is justified only if sovereignty remains with the people. Every law must be passed by the direct votes of all the citizens. Rousseau rejects representative democracy and argues for small states that stand in federation for which laws should be general and few.
 
What is the basis of legislation? The General Will
(Mystical Nationalism) The general will is more than the aggregate of the selfish wills of private individuals. The state is a person with a will of its own, distinct from individuals whose wills it can override. Virtue is an aggregate not something in the heart of an individual. The general will is always right -- never corrupt -- but not always enlightened.
 
Critique Anatole France: If forty million Frenchmen will a foolish thing, it still remains a foolish thing.
 
Discussion: Rather than rejecting the idea of the general will as fiction, attempt to think about what the general will of the United States might be with regard to health. Could legislation be framed to reflect some sort of ideal that stands beyond the selfish interests of individuals when it comes to their own desire for a long life free of pain or for their desire that their own money be spent only on themselves.
 
Summation of section:
 
Can we appeal to a natural law for the foundation of our society, or do we concede that the notion of the social contract is the frame work within which we can discuss what justice is.