Exam Texual Citations Flashcards
(24 cards)
“How could you have believed me so credulous as to imagine that I had come into the world only to adore your every caprice? That while permitting yourself everything, you had the right to frustrate all my desires. No! I may have lived in slavery, but I have always been free: I have reformed your laws by those of nature, and my spirit has never lost its independence.”
Author: Montesquieu
Text: The Persian Letters
What he is saying:
• Roxana is confronting Usbek’s belief that she exists to merely obey him and cater to his whims
◦ She refuses to be treated as an object for his desires
• Accuses him of double standards: how come he can live in luxury while he denies her the same freedom
• “I have always been free”
◦ She is saying that her spirit remains free despite the laws, and in fact she reforms the laws and replaces it with laws on nature which makes her free and autonomous
Broader themes:
• Autonomy vs patriarchy: women in a patriarchal society may be physically convinced but still maintain a sense of inner freedom
• Deception and power dynamics:
◦ The theme of deception - Roxana uses deception as a means of maintaining power over Usbek
• A critique of the tyrannical Persian government:
◦ The Persian state controls its citizens through violence and surveillance, manipulation, and false virtue - created virtue of a woman’s subservience to a man, citizens subservience to the dictator
◦ The consequence of oppression: oppression limits individuals freedom - there is no real virt
“I see well what is happening, O Troglodytes. Your virtue is beginning to weigh upon you. In your present situation without a chief, you must be virtuous despite yourself. Otherwise, you could not carry on: you would relapse into the misfortunes of the first Troglodytes who were your ancestors. But this yoke appears too difficult to you: you would prefer to be in submission to a prince and to be governed by his laws, for they would be less rigorous than your moeurs. You know that from then on you could satisfy your ambition, acquire riches, and languish amidst the pleasures of a coward. Provided only that you avoid major crimes, you would no longer need virtue.”
Author: Montesquieu
Text: The Persian Letters
What he is saying in the passage:
• acknowledges the dilemma of the Troglodytes
◦ Virtue (the moral integrity and sense of duty to the common good) is becoming burdensome on them
◦ In a society where people are not ruled by a central authority, they must rely on their own virtue to maintain order and function
• The Troglodytes lacked a ruler or a formal political system
◦ Montesquieu said they must exercise virtue just to survive and maintain order
◦ Because without virtue, they will fall into chaos
• He observes that they would rather be subjugated to a prince and governed by laws that are easier to follow than the moral standards (moeurs) they must uphold
◦ Under a prince’s rule, they could enjoy their ambitions, wealth, and the comforts of life without moral constraints
The myth of the troglodytes:
• they were a people without a ruler, they lived virtuous lives driven by natural inclination rather than external laws or authority
• But as they grew in numbers, the man who was chosen to be king recognizes that the virtues are difficult to be upheld without a structure
• They want a prince so they can submit to him and satisfy their ambitions
• The king fears that the troglodytes are becoming self-serving and are betraying their nature
• The fear is that freedom allows the troglodytes to maintain their virtues, but it would be replaced by the constraints of monarchy where virtue would be externally imposed rather than internally
Broader implications:
• the consequences of living under moral obligations versus under the laws of a central ruler or prince
• There is a moral cost of political convenience
• Reflects Montesquieu’s concern with going against human nature which tends towards virtue
• The use of the myth of the troglodytes: the difference between democracy/republic, and monarchy
How it relates to main argument?
• the troglodytes are free because virtue is self imposed - this is the only way true freedom can be in the republic - it must be chosen internally, and reflected in the government - laws should fit the morals of the people
The Troglodytes initially reject laws and governance, leading to chaos, suffering, and the near extinction of their community. The survivors come together to form a society based on cooperation and shared morals. Over time, this society flourishes, demonstrating the transformative power of justice and collective responsibility. The story suggests that justice is not abstract, but a practical necessity for societal survival and prosperity; justice arises from the lived recognition that mutual respect, fairness, and adherence to shared norms are essential for a stable and harmonious community, and that justice must be internalized by individuals, not imposed solely by external authority. The Troglodytes succeed when they voluntarily adopt just principles, illustrating that justice is most effective when it is embraced as a moral commitment rather than a coerced obligation.
“When virtue no longer exists, ambition enters those hearts capable of it, and avarice becomes universal. The objects of desire are changed. What once was loved is loved no more: citizens who formerly considered themselves as free because of their laws now wish to be free from them.”
Author: Montesquieu
Text: the Spirit of the Laws
What he is saying in the passage
• virtue: moral integrity or civic virtue - the values and qualities that hold together society.
◦ The commitment to the common good
• Ambition: without virtue, individuals are left to pursue personal interests, often at the expense of the common good
• Avarice: greed and an excessive desire for wealth and material gain
◦ Suggesting that when virtue fades, greed becomes widespread overtaking a society that once valued more than just material gain
• People now wish to be free from their laws -
◦ since they dont value their liberty anymore - liberty in a sense that the laws provide them liberty - they now seek to free themselves from the restrictions imposed by those laws because they dont serve their selfish goals
Context:
• this is within the chapter of the “principle of democracy”
• It looks at the role of virtue in democracy:
◦ In a democracy, virtue is necessary
◦ It refers to the individual’s commitment to the rule of law, the common good and a sense of responsibility
• Historical examples of the dangers of losing virtue in a republic:
◦ The English tried to establish a democracy in the 17th century which led to political chaos because of the lack of virtue among the ruling factions
◦ In Rome and Athens - virtue eroded over time.
‣ In these cases. Political corruption followed
‣ Eg athen’s defeat at Chaeronea is linked to a loss of the civic virtues
Significance:
• his key insights into the functioning of government is that virtue is indispensible to the health of a democracy
• It also shows the fragility of democracies: especially when people lose their sense of collective responsibility - so the onus is on the individuals who make up the democratic body, not just the checks and balances
“After everything that has been said here, it might appear that human nature would never cease rebelling against despotic government. But despite the love men have for liberty, despite their hatred of violence, most of the world’s people are subject to despotic rule. That is easily understood. To construct a moderate government requires that powers be combined, regulated, moderated, and set in motion. Ballast must be placed in one power to make it capable of resisting another. This can be done only by a masterpiece of legislation which rarely occurs by chance, and which prudence is seldom given the opportunity to attain. By contrast, [the simplicity] of despotic government is striking and obvious; it is uniform throughout, and since only the passions are required for its establishment, anyone is capable of that.”
Author: Montesquieu
Text: The Spirit of the Laws
What is he saying in the passage:
• human desire for liberty and a natural aversion to violence and oppression -
◦ based on this, it would seem logical that despotism would be universally rejected
• Disconnect between human ideals (liberty) and reality (despotism)
◦ The paradox is that even though people value liberty, despotism is still the dominant form of government in much of the world
• This is because despotism is easy, a moderate government is difficult - there are a lot of components and complexities in maintaining a moderate government
• Ballast - a counterweight or the idea of checks and balances
◦ Basically, in a moderate government, each branch or source of power needs mechanisms to resist domination by the others
‣ Eg in modern systems, the judiciary checks the executive
• CHANCE: moderate governments are rare because their creation depends on both skill and opportunity
◦ Favourable circumstances like prudence are not always present
• Despotic governments on the other hand are very simple and easy to establish
◦ It requires no checks and balances,
◦ It relies solely on the ruler’s unchecked “passions” and a willingness to dominate
How does it fit into the broader text:
• Montesquieu is concerned with the principles, structures, and maintenance of different forms of government
◦ Republic is based on virtue
◦ Monarchy is based on honour
◦ Despotism is based on fear
• This passage fits in with his illustration of despotism - why does despotism exist when liberty is a cherished human value?
◦ Because legislation depends on the context of what civil society needs to function - each regime and government structure will be constructed based on the people making it
◦ So if there is a lack of prudence, and prudence is very rare, then the governance structure will lack prudence and wisdom needed for a moderate government
Challenges to the central claim
• This suggests a grim reality that lies in tension with his ideal illustration of a moderate government, which hints at the difficulty of achieving “freedom”
◦ His basic claim is that human nature influences ideals of government - he has an optimistic outlook on human nature, and that while humans are fearful of one another, they are more oriented to seeking peace with each other rather than livin gin a state of war
◦ Thus he has a hopeful outlook on human potential, that government can arise based on the unique needs and characteristics of different societies.
“In proportion as ideas and sentiments succeed one another and as the mind and heart are trained, the human race continues to be tamed, relationships spread, and bonds are tightened. People grew accustomed to gather in front of their huts or around a large tree: song and dance, true children of love and leisure, became the amusement or rather the occupation of idle men and women who had flocked together. Each one began to look at the others and to want to be looked at himself, and public esteem had a value. The one who sang or danced the best, the handsomest, the strongest, the most adroit, or the most eloquent became the most highly regarded. And this was the first step toward inequality and, at the same time, toward vice.”
Author: Rousseau
Text: The Basic Political Writings
What is he saying:
• the taming of humans: as people begin to engage in complex interactions, as society evolves, they become more tamed or SOCIALIZED
• Desire for recognition: people start to compare themselves to others
◦ As humans engage with each other, they develop a desire to be admired and seen
◦ Competing for recognition and status
• The beginning of inequality and vice
◦ Desire for recognition starts this
◦ People become more self interests - fosters negative traits
Context:
• Rousseau’s illustration of the evolution from early egalitarian live to the rise of inequality through the development of property, labour, social organization
• 1. Early Family Life: Early human life brought families together, creating bonds like conjugal and parental love.
◦ This unity led to gendered divisions of labor, with women becoming more sedentary and men working outside
• 2. Formation of Communities: Over time, people formed groups and developed shared customs, leading to early forms of social organization.
◦ This proximity fostered new relationships, including love and jealousy, which introduced conflict.
• 3. Social Preferences: As society progressed, preferences for personal qualities like strength, beauty, and talent led to inequality.
◦ This created feelings of vanity, envy, and contempt, escalating into rivalry and vice.
• 4. Morality and Revenge: As society progressed, people became more sensitive to disrespect and harm, leading to acts of vengeance.
◦ This marked the beginning of a shift away from the natural state of compassion and toward a more punitive society.
• 5. Consequences of Property: The accumulation of property created further inequality.
◦ Those who did not acquire wealth became poor, while others expanded their holdings at their expense, leading to societal divisions.
Broader implications:
• the loss of freedom due to the rise of inequality precludes the need for the social contract:
◦ Individuals must enter into the social contract
◦ The social contract is about bringing back the dependence on others - returning to how we were before the inequality
“Savage man breathes only tranquility and liberty; he wants simply to live and rest easy; and not even the unperturbed tranquility of the Stoic approaches his profound indifference for any other objects. On the other hand, the citizen is always active and in a sweat, always agitated, and unceasingly tormenting himself in order to seek still more laborious occupations. He works until he dies; he even runs to his death in order to be in a position to live, or renounces life in order to acquire immortality. He pays court to the great whom he hates and to the rich whom he scorns. He stops at nothing to obtain the honour of serving them. He proudly crows about his own baseness and their protection; and proud of his slavery, he speaks with disdain about those who do not have the honor of taking part in it.”
Author: Rousseau
Text: Basic Political Writings
What is he saying:
• savage man= natural man
◦ Man living in a pre-social, natural state
◦ Life is simple and unburdened - he is indifferent to external desires and goals
• Citizen = social man
◦ The life of a citizen is driven by desires fostered by society
◦ he works until death there is pride in subjugation - views his participation in social hierarchies as a mark of honour
Context:
• Basically he is critiquing the development of inequality through the rise of society and the state
◦ Inequality is inherent in society
‣ It arises naturally from differences in wealth, status, material gain
◦ WEALTH as the final form on inequality
◦ Corruption - political power is centralized because of the pursuit of wealth
◦ The state moves towards despotism
◦ Political inequality and natural right
‣ Inequality is a distortion of natural right - its not based on physical inequalities like wisdom or age, it is based on wealth
◦ Corruption of virtue and morality:
‣ The human condition is characterized by superficiality
Implications and broader argument:
• the rise of inequality has altered the modern state, humans can never return to the state before society where humans experienced genuine freedom
• We are ALIENATED FROM OUR TRUE SELVES
◦ In modern society people are no longer free in the fullest sense - we are shackled to society’s conception of freedom through wealth and material gain
◦ How do we achieve freedom then?
‣ Independence - we must become our own masters - this fits in with his idea of the social contract where everyone exercises their freedom through the general will
“Reason is what turns man in upon himself. Reason is what separates him from all that troubles him and afflicts him. Philosophy is what isolates him and moves him to say in secret, at the sight of a suffering man, “Perish if you will; I am safe and sound.”
Author: Rousseau
Text: Basic Political Writings
What is he saying:
• reason: ability to think logically, make decisions on principles rather than instinct or emotion
◦ It causes people to be self reflective
◦ Leads to individualism and self-centeredness
• Reason allows people to distance themselves from the troubles and afflictions of life
◦ Allows people to rationalize the troubles
• Philosophy as an extension of reason
◦ While reason TURNS US INWARD, philosophy REINFORCES INDIVIDUALISM
◦ A cold, rationalization of suffering - allows the individual to prioritize personal security and comfort
• HE IS CRITICAL OF THIS: reason and individualism undermines social bonds and moral concern for others
Context:
• Reason and alienation: reason when it becomes dominant drives a wedge between people to one another - people become indifferent to the suffering of others - Rousseau critiques this
Broader implications:
• This is why he proscribes the general will - the social contract is built on the idea that everyone joins for the common good, not for their own individual benefit. - they must transcend self interest
◦ What is the solution that appeals to both self interest and adheres to universal principles of justice?
‣ A form of association that allows man to obey himself and remains free while he is united with all - the idea that by taking part in the formation of society and laws, he is obeying himself
“This passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces quite a remarkable change in man, for it substitutes justice for instinct in his behaviour and gives his actions a moral quality they previously lacked. Only then, when the voice of duty replaces physical impulses and right replaces appetite, does man, who had hitherto taken only himself into account, find himself forced to act upon other principles and consult his reason before listening to his inclinations.
Author: Rousseau
Text: The Basic Political Writings
What is he saying:
• state of nature: humans are driven by basic needs and desires
◦ No concept of justice or moral duty
• Civil state: humans replace natural instincts with moral guidelines such as justice and duty
◦ Voice of duty = inner moral sense of responsibility
• Right replaces APPETITE
◦ Instead of acting on immediate instinctual wants - individuals act according to what is morally or legally right
• Consulting reason before inclinations
◦ Reason is a guiding principle
Context:
• he is writing on the civil state - basically talking about the positive and negative concepts of liberty and ownership
• 1. Transition from the State of Nature to the Civil State:
◦ Change in human behaviour from instinct with justice, reason and duty
• 2. Loss of Natural Liberty vs. Gaining Civil Liberty:
◦ When they lose their natural liberty - the freedom to do anything they desire
◦ They gain civil liberty the right to act within the bounds of laws which is limited by the general will
◦ The concept of proprietary ownership = positive legal title meaning ownership granted by society and the law
• 3. development of human faculties: sacrifice of natural freedoms outweighed by benefits of society
◦ Humans’ intellectual and moral faculties are exercised and developed in the civil state. Individuals become more intelligent and morally aware, broadening their understanding and emotional depth.
◦ Ennobling of feelings: The civil state elevates the soul of individuals, making them more capable of rational and moral judgment.
• 4. Moral liberty and true freedom:
◦ State of nature = state of slavery - one is a slave to his desires
◦ True liberty: obeying laws which one has rationally accepted and taken part in creating
‣ Individual is a master of himself
Significance: the civil state is true freedom
“He who dares to undertake the establishment of a people should feel that he is, so to speak, in a position to change human nature, to transform each individual (who by himself is a perfect and solitary whole) into a part of a larger whole from which this individual receives, in a sense, his life and his being; to alter man’s constitution in order to strengthen it; to substitute a partial and moral existence for the physical and independent existence we have all received from nature. In a word, he must deny man his own forces in order to give him forces that are alien to him and that he cannot make use of without the help of others.”
Author: Rousseau
Text: Basic Political Writings
What is he saying:
• The founder of a people: someone who seeks to create a new society or political community = THEY ARE SEEKING TO TRANSFORM EACH INDIVIDUAL from their state of nature
◦ Goal of social contract is to transform individuals into members of a larger community
◦ They derive their identity and existence not from their independent state but from the collective society
• It requires an ALTERING OF THE NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS
◦ Transition from physical impulse to living a moral existence
• the founder must impose Alina forces: moral and social obligations that are not inherent to individuals
◦ They are dependent on the collective: they cant just act on these forces alone,
Context:
• he writes on the Legislator - they possess a huge responsibility
◦ Must be of superior intelligence to be able to understand human nature without being influenced by it
◦ Should be independent og human passions while still working for the good of the people
‣ BUT does not have command over laws or seek sovereignty
• Legislator vs Prince:
◦ The prince (the ruler) follows the model established by the legislator.
◦ The legislator is like the engineer who invents the machine, while the prince is the workman who builds and operates it
• Legislator’s goal is to change human nature
• Strengths in numbers: the more people the stronger the social contract will be? - collective force is greater than the sum of individual forced
• The need for the peoples consent:
◦ ROME: tyranny emerges when lawmakers also have sovereign power - laws MUST emerge from the general will
Implications:
• concept of freedom: true freeedom is the ability to obeys laws that one has had a role in creating
• Legitimacy of authority
◦ Only arises through general will, not arbitrary or despotic power - shown through his example of rome
“… to be driven by appetite alone is slavery, and obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is liberty.”
Author: Rousseau
Text: The Basic Political Writings
What he is saying:
• where individuals are ruled by their desires = slavery
• True freedom: obedience to the law one has prescribed to themselves
Context:
• he is writing on the civil state - basically talking about the positive and negative concepts of liberty and ownership
• 1. Transition from the State of Nature to the Civil State:
◦ Change in human behaviour from instinct with justice, reason and duty
• 2. Loss of Natural Liberty vs. Gaining Civil Liberty:
◦ When they lose their natural liberty - the freedom to do anything they desire
◦ They gain civil liberty the right to act within the bounds of laws which is limited by the general will
◦ The concept of proprietary ownership = positive legal title meaning ownership granted by society and the law
• 3. development of human faculties: sacrifice of natural freedoms outweighed by benefits of society
◦ Humans’ intellectual and moral faculties are exercised and developed in the civil state. Individuals become more intelligent and morally aware, broadening their understanding and emotional depth.
◦ Ennobling of feelings: The civil state elevates the soul of individuals, making them more capable of rational and moral judgment.
• 4. Moral liberty and true freedom:
◦ State of nature = state of slavery - one is a slave to his desires
◦ True liberty: obeying laws which one has rationally accepted and taken part in creating
‣ Individual is a master of himself
Significance: the civil state is true freedom
• how does the individual remain free as before?
• Under the social contract, obedience to one’s self takes a slightly different form, because the people have created the voice of the sovereign speaking through the mechanism of the general will-
◦ the general will is the voice of the whole coming together- each individual is part of the whole and thus represented through and in the general will in which all have an equal voice- p. 164
◦ The general will can only be voiced in terms of broader public purpose - so the types of themes that the general will is addressing is not particular or individual matters
◦ Also, by speaking through general will what’s going to determine the answer is “is it for the common good”
‣ Eg should we include a certain reading in the syllabus?
• We wouldn’t think about our own interests, we would think if it benefits us in terms of the common good
◦ It’s a form of direct democracy - but Rousseau has particular conditions about this
• There is no legislative body that becomes the voice of sovereignty
◦ There can be administrative insitutions put in place, but the people remain the decision makers
◦ By requiring unanimity, it solves the challenge of legitimacy
agriculture supports governments, because it promotes commerce, comfort and abundance, gives birth to the arts and industry, and keeps all occupied. It is the mechanism of all states, and if each member of society works, the result is public tranquility; troubles disappear along with idleness, which is the mother of vice and each enjoys in peace the fruits of his labours…It is a fact that to ensure freedom, without which man cannot be happy, it is necessary for all to occupy themselves usefully in order to contribute to the public good and general tranquility.”
Author: Toussaint L’Ouverture
Text: The Haitian Revolution
What is he saying:
• agriculture: sustains the economy and well being of citizens
◦ He explains that agriculture is the “mechanism of all states,” suggesting that it is the backbone of any functional society
◦ People being engaged in work = gets rid of idleness
• Idleness: root of vice = when people are not engaged in meaningful work, they are more likely to engage in immoral or disruptive behavior.
◦ Productive work, particularly agricultural work, is a way to prevent such negative outcomes by keeping people occupied and contributing to the greater good.
• Freedom through useful work: freedom is not just the absence of opression - its the ability to contribute to society in a way that benefits everyone
Context:
• its from his proclamation on labour
• He’s saying that the former slaves need to engage in plantation labour to make an economically viable environment for slavery to not be reimposed
• This is the basic idea: AND if we think about virtue developed through meaningful activity in labour - liberty is associated with the idea that we can develop our own individualities through the exercise of meaningful activities that are good for human beings - the idea of positive liberty
◦ Through this process of developing individual freedoms - there is a higher form of equality because there is a community of morally virtuous human being involved in a certain activity in which their spirits are elevated and it is a true recognition of the humanity of individuals
◦ We live in a community where there is a relational sense of appreciation of the other, when all of us are engaged in activities that develop ourselves in a good way
Broad argument: the need for civic unity abd effort to overcome the challenges of autonomy and to avoid excess dependence on the French
• criticism - paternalistic authoritariansim
. “It is I who have undertaken [this struggle] and I wish to fight until it [liberty] exists […] among us. Equality cannot exist without liberty. And for liberty to exist, we must have unity.”
Author: Toussaint L’Ouverture
Text: The Haitian Revolution:
Context:
The announcement of his revolutionary vision: liberty and equality are inseparable, and to achieve them will require a unified struggle to destroy plantation slavery
Significance:
Toussaint
◦ Equality being denied by practice of slavery - so freedom as a necessary condition for equality
‣ Removal of the laws and institutions structuring and enforcing a slave labour
◦ The notion of brotherhood - a flourishing life will provide equal forms of equality and fellowship
◦ Positing freedom as a necessary condition for equality
• Does it matter which one comes first?
◦ What is the implication of freedom being the basis of equality
• Liberty as liberation from slavery as a means to win first and foremost legal equality - minimalist way to understand it
• What about freedom in a more expansive sense?
◦ Eg after civil war in the US slavery was abolished - but did Black people exercise freedom in the fullest sense?
◦ It was because of the economic and legal challenges that made it difficult for them to enjoy freedoms in the more expansive sense
◦ The equality = equal recognition, sense of reciprocity = shared understanding of their shared equal status
‣ Brotherhood
‣ Not just the equality of black people but brotherhood as a social unit - all races live together as equals
• More complex idea of equality since it presupposed freedom
◦ A choir of different voices - people developing themselves in the way they see best fit, but in a way that works in harmony with each other - a sense of solidarity
• so it does make a difference which one comes first
• from Pro assignment:
◦ This passage demonstrates L’Ouverture’s key belief on which he builds the rest of his arguments. He asserts that unity is the precondition liberty, and liberty is the precondition for equality. This means that revolution is not only the best way to achieve liberty, but it is the only way for liberty to exist, therefore there must be a revolt among all his “brothers” in order to effect change. L’Ouverture also touches on the necessity for this fight for liberty and equality, and that is “to bring happiness to all” which indicates that equality is needed for happiness and quality of life which he elaborates on further in the next passage (L’Ouverture 2008, 41). Additionally, the scale and importance of this project should not be taken lightly, it is indeed a revolution or a “vengeance” against this oppressive system that must be forcibly changed in order to achieve liberty. This is what essentially differentiates L’Ouverture’s argument from Burke’s; he believed in achieving liberty, not through civil tactics but through strength in numbers and by force.
• Equality in the legal sense before anything
“It is a fact that to ensure freedom, without which man cannot be happy, it is necessary for all to occupy themselves usefully in order to contribute to the public good and general tranquillity…”
Author: Toussaint L’Ouverture
Text: The Haitian Revolution:
What is he saying:
• agriculture: sustains the economy and well being of citizens
◦ He explains that agriculture is the “mechanism of all states,” suggesting that it is the backbone of any functional society
◦ People being engaged in work = gets rid of idleness
• Idleness: root of vice = when people are not engaged in meaningful work, they are more likely to engage in immoral or disruptive behavior.
◦ Productive work, particularly agricultural work, is a way to prevent such negative outcomes by keeping people occupied and contributing to the greater good.
• Freedom through useful work: freedom is not just the absence of opression - its the ability to contribute to society in a way that benefits everyone
Context:
• its from his proclamation on labour
• He’s saying that the former slaves need to engage in plantation labour to make an economically viable environment for slavery to not be reimposed
• This is the basic idea: AND if we think about virtue developed through meaningful activity in labour - liberty is associated with the idea that we can develop our own individualities through the exercise of meaningful activities that are good for human beings - the idea of positive liberty
◦ Through this process of developing individual freedoms - there is a higher form of equality because there is a community of morally virtuous human being involved in a certain activity in which their spirits are elevated and it is a true recognition of the humanity of individuals
◦ We live in a community where there is a relational sense of appreciation of the other, when all of us are engaged in activities that develop ourselves in a good way
Broad argument: the need for civic unity abd effort to overcome the challenges of autonomy and to avoid excess dependence on the French
• criticism - paternalistic authoritariansim
“A man full of warm speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it; but a good patriot, and a true politician, always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country,” Burke
Author: Burke
Text: Revolutionary writings
What is he saying:
• a man with good intentions may wish for a society different from the one currently in place,
• but a good patriot (someone who loves their country) and a true politician (someone who works within political realities)
◦ Is not driven by abstract ideas or utopian dreams - they aim to work with the current state of affairs
◦ Seek the best outcome from existing conditions
Context:
• he is basically critiquing radical reforms and defending prudence in political change
• 1. Unjust disruption of established practices:
◦ Burke argues that it is unjust for a government to suddenly and arbitrarily destroy established ways of life and punish those who have long adhered to these practices.
• 2. Policy vs. destruction:
◦ Burke stresses that the policy of abolishing such established institutions should be justified not just by its political benefits but also by its potential harms.
• 3. Pragmatic reform over idealistic destruction:
◦ He critiques idealistic reformers who view their country as a blank slate they can reshape according to their desires.
◦ While a benevolent person may wish for a better society, Burke believes that a true patriot and politician works with the existing institutions and materials at hand.
◦ The aim should be to preserve what is valuable and improve what can be reformed, rather than seeking to impose a complete overhaul.
• 4. The folly of absolute destruction:
◦ Burke criticizes those who, driven by ideological fervor, seek to completely destroy traditions, customs, or institutions in the name of reform
Big picture argument: Liberty cannot be achieved through destruction
• why is liberty endangered in France despite a revolution done in the name of liberty?
• the French have confused liberty with license, and by abandoning established norms and institutions and practices they have unleashed a spirit of abandon thus destroying the conventions and practices on which true liberty depends
• linked to the inexperience of the new political class in France, their apparent self- serving motivations and the desire to tear down all cultural models of veneration and honour
◦ Liberty is not to start from scratch or undermine past conventions, one could say according to Burke, the mistake of the French is they confuse liberty with licence
• Liberty cannot be considered as a political ideal separate from the context in which it is implemented
◦ in particular one must see how the spirit of liberty works in combination with government, public force and armies, as well as civil institutions of morality, property, religion and social customs and manners
◦ So we cant defend liberty in general, we have to see how it functions
‣ As something passed down to us and depends on the things we have established
• Liberty is in part the absence of tyranny, though only part of good government, and involves acknowledging different types of associations and the complex social make-up of the social order
◦ Freedom cant just be the absence of evil but needs the presence of good
‣ These capacities to be good requires basic structures, norms of trust, norms of morality, and material support
‣ Freedom depends on individual development - so we need schools
• In the case of England political liberty maintained through a balance of power between the Commons and the Crown-
◦ Burke also supported the growth of political parties to serve to goal of political moderation
“…society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should be frequently thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue.”
Author: Burke
Text: Revolutionary writings
What is he saying:
• society must not control just individual desires - also the collective behaviour of people
◦ Control MUST COME FROM EXTERNAL AUTHORITY
◦ Not influenced by the same desires and emotions it seeks to retrain
◦ Governing power must be separate from the people it governs
Context:
• he’s basically warning against hasty reform
• 1. Natural Rights vs. Practical Government:
◦ Burke begins by arguing that government isn’t based on natural rights, which exist independently and perfectly in theory. However, these natural rights, in their abstract form, become a problem in practice because they demand everything and cannot address the complexities of society’s needs.
• 2. Rights Include Restraints:
◦ Burke suggests that both the liberties and restrictions on individuals should be considered part of their rights. These rights can vary with time and circumstances, and cannot be defined by abstract rules. Therefore, discussing rights in purely theoretical terms is foolish.
• 3. Government is practical not abstract
Implications:
Burke’s skepticism of democracy - it can work in certain circumstances, but he warns that it can easily devolve into oligarchy
• He warns against revolutionary efforts to dismantle the monarchy
• His criticism is rooted NOT in ideology but rather in PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT FORMS
• So the monarchy works because it is not influenced by the same desires of the people it seeks to restrain
The true lawgiver ought to have a heart full of sensibility. He ought to love and respect his kind, and to fear himself.”
Author: Burke
Text: Revolutionary writings
What is he saying:
• the lawgiver, must be deeply committed to the well being of society
Context:
• the revolutionary leaders are driven by rashness - he questions their motives - are they driven by commitment to the well being of society or by personal gain?
• The leader should fear himself - should recognize his own power
Broader argument:
• governance rooted in tradition and gradual reform - revolution is rash and can devolve into tyranny and despotism
Society is indeed a contract…but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence, because it is/ not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature.”
Author: Burke
Text: Revolutionary writings
What is he saying:
• hes saying we think of the government not as a contract in commercial sense, but it has to be looked on as a partnership between the living and the dead - the vision is not to be achieved in one lifetime - it is gradual and throughout nature
• Critical of the social contract: we dont create insitutions ourselves - they are passed down through time - to use the metaphor of contract leads us to misunderstand our expectations of political life
• Nature moves in slow ways - it is organic - the idea that we are “never wholly new”
Broader argument:
• the state is a social institutions that supports moral and civil order enduring individual desires and temporary interests
“The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man, (for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates, not only to the living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other. Every generation is equal in rights to the generations which precede it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary.”
Author: Thomas Paine
Text: Rights of Man
What is he saying:
• fundamental idea of equal rights:
◦ They are given by God or a higher power
◦ Inherent and universal rights
• It applies to all generations
◦ Every generation has the same rights as the ones that came before
◦ The rights of one generation are not diminished or less valid because of past generations
Context:
• Criticism of Burke’s Use of M. Lally Tollendal’s Account:
◦ Paine begins by mocking Burke’s claim about the people of Paris allegedly calling for the hanging of bishops, as relayed by M. Lally Tollendal.
◦ Paine argues that this claim is baseless and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
◦ He points out that the bishops and their supposed fate were never part of Burke’s narrative, showing that Burke is fabricating a sensational image that has no real connection to the actual events.
Paine’s aim in both criticisms is to undermine Burke’s portrayal of the revolutionaries as irrational, violent, and extreme. By mocking Burke’s use of exaggerated accounts and emphasizing the timeless nature of equality, Paine seeks to reframe the revolution as a rational and just cause rooted in principles of universal human rights
• Equality of All Men Across Time:
◦ Paine asserts that the principle of equal rights is not a modern invention but is ancient and universal.
• Religious and Historical Support for Equality:
◦ Paine supports his argument by referencing the creation story in the Bible, where humanity is made in the image of God, implying that all humans are equal.
◦ He also argues that all known religions promote the unity and equality of mankind, indicating that this principle is not a modern notion but one with deep historical roots.
• Critique of Burke’s View on Social Hierarchy:
◦ Paine criticizes Burke for endorsing a hierarchical view of society, where people owe varying degrees of reverence and duty to different authorities—kings, parliaments, priests, and the nobility.
◦ Paine rejects this approach, claiming that it alienates man from his true, divine origin and creates artificial barriers between people and their Creator.
◦ Instead, he advocates for a simple, twofold duty: to God and to one’s fellow man, and emphasizes equality among all.
• Rejection of Precedents and Emphasis on Divine Authority:
◦ Paine criticizes those who rely on historical precedents to justify government systems, claiming that such precedents often contradict one another.
◦ He insists that true authority on matters of human rights should trace back to the divine origin of humanity, rather than to arbitrary historical practices or the claims of any particular government.
Significance: Objects to Burke’s notion of governance rooted in tradition, custom and accumulated wisdom- the only real principle of political legitimacy should be the consent of the living
◦ People in the present are more important
Broader claim: French Revolution and republicanism:
• French Revolution embodies liberty equality and fraternity -
• By asserting that every generation is born with the same rights,
◦ Paine defends the French Revolution’s rejection of the old regime, which was based on inequality and hierarchical power.
◦ Paine argues that the French Revolution is a rightful and necessary assertion of the natural rights that all people are entitled to.
“The natural rights which he retains, are all those in which the power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind: consequently, religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it; But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the arm of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society and draws on the capital as a matter of right.
Author: Thomas Paine
Text: Rights of Man
What is he saying:
• natural rights are RETAINED because the individual has both the right and the power to act on it
◦ Intellectual rights: those that belong to the individual and can be exercised freely without external interference. Intellectual rights include freedom of thought, speech, and religion.
‣ Paine highlights religion as one such intellectual right because it pertains to individual belief and practice, which can be freely exercised by a person without needing the support of society or government.
• Natural rights that are not retained = requires external support
◦ The right to judge ones own cause - ineffective without the power to enforce it
‣ Therefore they deposit the right into the collective body of society
◦ Society does not “grant” rights to individuals, because they are inherent by nature - instead, individuals, by virtue of being part of a society have a right to access society’s collective resources and powers
‣ This means that each person is a “proprietor” of society’s power and resources and has a right to draw upon them, not as a gift from society, but as a matter of natural right.
‣ Society is simply a structure that helps individuals exercise their natural rights more effectively.
Context: society is not a giver of rights but a facilitator
• Paine argues that when individuals enter into society, they do not surrender their rights but rather exchange certain rights for civil rights that can be better secured by the collective power of society.
◦ This exchange is necessary because some rights cannot be exercised fully by the individual alone due to lack of power or resources.
• EVERY CIVIL RIGHT IS ROOTED IN A NATURAL RIGHT
Broader argument:
• so civil rights generally grounded in some more fundamental form of natural right, but some natural rights are modified or exchanged
• the limits of the use of civil power involve not invading those natural rights retained by the individual
• governments either formed by individuals acting in concert, or by conquest- the latter is not legitimate
◦ Lockean scenario is the first one
◦ Conquest is the imposition of government through force - sometimes bc of religious right
◦ Burka’s defence of history should actually go back to when England is rooted in illegitimate politics - this is what Paine points out
• he seeks to show that the English government was rooted in conquest, and thus any form of historical account and accumulation of experience cannot reverse or overcome the basic point that English institutions were rooted in illegitimate politics
◦ So he writes against aristocracy and the legitimacy of the English model for France
◦ England and France are rooted in conquest and aristocracy is not a good model - it concentrates wealth in one place
• individual rights have greater weight in political argument than any appeal to accumulated wisdom of experience embedded in institutions and tradition
• the declaration of rights is the enshrining of a commitment to basic rights
“……It is properly, from the elevated mind of France, that the folly of titles has fallen. It has outgrown the baby-cloaths of Count and Duke and breeched itself in manhood. France has not levelled; it has exalted. ..”
Author: Thomas Paine
Text: Rights of Man
What is he saying:
• praising franc for rejecting aristocratic titles that traditionally separated people into privileged classes
• He says it symbolizes a society maturing into one that treats people as equals, with inherent rights and dignity
◦ Rather than as subjects defined by noble titles
• Contrasts this with the idea of “leveling”
◦ Which would have been merely erasing inequalities in a destructive sense rather than exalting all individuals by recognizing their rights and worth
Context:
• titles are empty and degrading - they do not carry any inherent meaning
◦ Titles, such as “Count,” “Duke,” or “Earl,” “reduce man into the diminutive of man in things which are great,” suggesting that these titles degrade individuals, limiting them to a status that has little to do with their actual abilities, achievements, or character.
◦ The metaphor of titles as “baby-cloaths” (clothes worn by infants) reinforces the idea that such distinctions are childish and unnecessary.
• Rejection of aristocratic hierarchies
◦ The metaphor of “breeching” (the transition from childhood to adulthood) again emphasizes that France’s society has “grown up,” casting aside the foolishness of titles and instead focusing on human dignity and merit.
◦ He notes the historical decline of titles as well
• The Role of Titles in Aristocracy and Inequality:
◦ Paine connects the “aristocracy” to the law of primogeniture, the practice where inheritance passes only to the eldest son, leaving other children dispossessed. This system reinforces inequality by ensuring that the wealth and power of aristocratic families remain concentrated in one line, while others are marginalized and impoverished.
◦ The “law of primogeniture” is described as being unnatural and harmful to society because it goes against the natural order of family and community. Paine argues that it “disowns” all children except the eldest, creating a system of inequality and social injustice that society should reject.
Bigger argument:
• In this broader context, Paine’s passage on titles reflects his larger critique of aristocracy and hereditary privilege. He sees titles as symbols of a feudal, outdated, and unjust system that should be dismantled in favor of a society based on equality, merit, and individual character. By situating the passage in the context of the French Revolution, Paine praises France for rejecting these titles and social distinctions, claiming that they do not reflect true human value but rather serve to maintain an artificial and harmful hierarchy. For Paine, the abolition of titles is part of the broader transformation towards a society where individuals are valued for their contributions and moral character, not their inherited social standing.
“…all power inebriates weak man; and its abuse proves that the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and happiness will reign in society…After attacking the sacred majesty of Kings, I shall scarcely excite surprise by adding my firm persuasion that every profession, in which great subordination of rank constitutes its power, is highly injurious to morality”
uthor: Mary Wollstonecraft
Text: A Vindication of the Rights of Women
What she is saying:
• Power corrupts whose who are morally weak
◦ Abuse of power is evidence that societies built on equality - rather than hierarchies are more likely to foster virtue and happiness
◦ INEQUALITY CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR POWER TO BE CONCENTRATED AND ABUSED- disrupts social harmony
• Critique of Monarchy:
◦ Having already critiqued the idea of kingship and the divine right of kings (the belief that monarchs rule by God’s will), Wollstonecraft connects this criticism to broader social hierarchies.
• Wider Application:
◦ She argues that any profession or system that relies on rigid hierarchies, where power depends on “subordination of rank” (people being ranked above or below one another), harms morality.
• Moral Critique:
◦ Such systems encourage domination and servility rather than mutual respect, which undermines ethical behavior.
context:
• she is critiquing kingship and hereditary power:
◦ Moral degredation is inherent in these systems
• All professions are rooted in “great subordination of rank”
◦ Eg Problem
‣ Military discipline relies on “subordination and rigour,” requiring despotism to function.
‣ Moral Consequences: This structure stifles individual reasoning and fosters blind obedience, creating a chain of tyranny. Soldiers become instruments of authority rather than moral agents.
◦ Eg Problem:
‣ Naval officers are similarly corrupted, though their vices differ in form, tending toward idleness and humor rather than superficial polish.
‣ Moral Consequences: Both soldiers and sailors, regardless of their specific behavior, lack intellectual engagement and moral reflection, spreading vice and folly in their communities.
• BASICALLY:
◦ The Specific Critique: Kingship as a prime example of corrupted power.
◦ The General Critique: All hierarchical systems (military, naval, etc.) perpetuate immorality through subordination and uncritical obedience.
◦ Wollstonecraft’s emphasis on reason, equality, and individual moral agency serves as the foundation of her argument. She contends that virtue and happiness flourish only in systems where power is distributed equitably and individuals are free to exercise their reason without being crushed by oppressive hierarchies.
Broader argument:
• a good society is focused on the prominence or reason and virtue:
◦ Reason and virtue distinguishes humans from animal life
◦ Shared capacity for reason means we have a potential for gender equality
◦ The means for achieving things like equal opportunity requires first liberty
• A shared capacity for reason means for her that we have a potential for gender equality- equality is not a metaphysical given, it appears for Wollstonecraft, but something in the future to be achieved as equal opportunities and status- the means to that equality requires an initial granting of freedom
“…women are, in fact, so much degraded by mistaken notions of female excellence, that I do not mean to add a paradox when I assert that this artificial weakness produces a propensity to tyrannize, and gives birth to cunning, the natural opponent of/ strength, which leads them to play off those contemptible infantine airs that undermine esteem even whilst they excite desire.”
Author: Mary Wollstonecraft
Text: A Vindication of the Rights of Women
What she is saying:
• critiques societal expectations of women
• female excellence: Eg beauty, delicacy, submissiveness
• These mistaken notions diminish women’s true potential reducing them to inferior status
• Artificial Weakness:
◦ Women are conditioned to appear weak and dependent, which is not a natural trait but a socially imposed one.
• Propensity to Tyrannize:
◦ Ironically, this imposed weakness enables women to manipulate and exert power in indirect ways. Since they are denied open avenues for agency or influence, they resort to covert forms of control.
• Cunning as a Response:
◦ Deprived of strength or direct authority, women develop cunning as a survival mechanism. This is not innate but a learned behavior shaped by societal constraints.
• Opposition to Strength:
◦ Cunning becomes a strategy to counterbalance the physical and societal dominance of men, creating a dynamic of manipulation rather than mutual respect.
• Infantine Airs:
◦ Wollstonecraft criticizes behaviours like coquettishness, affectation, and flirtation, which women adopt to gain attention and influence.
• Undermining Esteem:
◦ While such behaviours may attract men and stir desire, they erode genuine respect and equality in relationships.
• Cycle of Oppression:
◦ These actions perpetuate women’s subordinate status by reinforcing stereotypes of fragility and dependence.
Context: intro
• Purpose of the text: to make women more respectable members of society
• A broader critique on the prevailing education of women:
◦ Which prioritizes accomplishments and beauty over strength of mind and body
• Call for reform: calls on men to adopt chastity and modesty -
◦ Challenges gender stereotypes
…we shall not see women affectionate till more equality be established in society, till ranks are confounded and women freed, neither shall we see that dignified domestic happiness, the simple grandeur of which cannot be relished by ignorant or vitiated minds; nor will the important task of education ever be properly begun till the person of a woman is no longer preferred to her mind.”
Author: Mary Wollstonecraft
Text: A Vindication of the Rights of Women
What she is saying:
• Affection as a result of equality:
◦ Wollstonecraft argues that genuine affection is stifled by societal inequalities.
◦ Women cannot truly express or experience authentic affection if they are confined to subordinate roles that prioritize dependence and superficiality over autonomy and intellect.
• Equality as a prerequisite:
◦ She links the emotional and relational fulfillment of women to broader societal equality,
◦ suggesting that affection arises naturally when women are treated as intellectual and moral equals, not as ornaments or dependents.
• Confounding ranks:
◦ Wollstonecraft envisions a society where rigid social hierarchies (“ranks”) are dismantled.
◦ These hierarchies not only oppress women but also perpetuate artificial distinctions that stifle meaningful relationships.
• Freedom for women:
◦ Freedom here implies intellectual, moral, and social emancipation, rather than the mere absence of physical restraints.
• Dignified domestic happiness: She promotes an ideal of domestic life grounded in mutual respect and intellectual partnership, contrasting it with the shallow, decorative roles women are often expected to play in households.
• priority of education
Significance and context:
• The conclusion:
◦ True dignifies effection between individuals can only arise in a society where women are free and ranks are abolished - authentic happiness is rooted in mutual respect, equality and intellectual connection
• Drawing on Enlightenment ideals, Wollstonecraft argues that:
◦ Virtue thrives only under liberty, and this applies equally to men and women.
◦ Women must be guided by reason, not societal authority or the shallow pursuit of beauty.
◦ True virtue in private life is inseparable from public virtue, both of which are undermined by societal inequalities and the prioritization of wealth or appearance over moral and intellectual qualities.
• BIG CRITIQUE: she really has a vision of rational command and economic independence, bit she’s asking women a lot to take on - is it practical in the modern world?
“That women at present are by ignorance rendered foolish or vicious, is, I think, not to be disputed; and, that the most salutary effects tending to improve mankind might be expected from a revolution in female manners, appears, at least, with a face of probability, to rise out of the observation.”
Author: Wollstonecraft
Text: The Vindication of the rights of women
What is she syaing:
• Problem Identified: Women’s Ignorance
◦ Wollstonecraft begins by asserting that women are currently trapped in a state of ignorance, which leads them to become either:
‣ Foolish: Lacking reason, frivolous, or overly focused on superficial aspects of life.
‣ Vicious: Morally corrupt or selfish, prioritizing trivial pleasures over meaningful contributions to society.
◦ Key Point: This condition is not inherent to women’s nature but is a result of societal structures that deny them proper education and intellectual development.
• Proposed Solution: Revolution in Female Manners
◦ Wollstonecraft calls for a revolution in female manners:
◦ Manners here refers to the behaviors, attitudes, and social norms governing women’s lives.
‣ A revolution would mean a radical transformation of these norms to prioritize reason, virtue, and intellectual growth over beauty or subservience.
• Optimistic Outcome: Societal Improvement
◦ She argues that such a revolution could produce salutary effects:
◦ “Salutary” means health-giving or beneficial; the change would not only improve the lives of women but also have a positive ripple effect on society as a whole.
◦ Women, if rational and virtuous, would become better mothers, wives, and citizens, contributing meaningfully to the moral and intellectual progress of humanity.
• Wollstonecraft acknowledges that this claim is based on observation and reasoning, rather than incontrovertible proof:
◦ She frames her argument with cautious optimism, noting that the improvement of humanity as a result of women’s empowerment “appears…with a face of probability.”
◦ Key Point: While she stops short of claiming absolute certainty, she strongly believes that reforming women’s roles and education is likely to have transformative effects.
Critique:
• she hinges a lot on the rationalism approach - can this really overcome all the obstacles in todays age?
