HOPT2 Flashcards
(172 cards)
will of all
takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of particular wills: but take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel one another.
general will
only the common interest
adaptive preferences
our wants are shaped by our environment/institutions/ culture/ education (Stockholm syndrome; parable of sour grapes)
autonomy
giving a law to oneself
modern republicanism
political liberty, understood as non-domination or independence from arbitrary. This pushes towars equality among those who are free.
not anti-monarchist
Rousseau’s republicanism
to be governed by impartial laws
prudence for rousseau
self-interest, but not moral. this is about the show of force, it is not freedom. Self-care from prudence makes one immoral.
others think that being prudencial is a sign of virtue
general will
- The social contract is done by the people as a corporate and indivisible body.
-Corporate in the medieval sense is a legal body. (always there)
-The people always remain sovereign.
-Not so in Hobbes (where sovereignty is created and immediately gifted to a person/institution) - The people is composed of individuals who are persons (moral agents)
- The people generate a general will, which is legitimate authority (to be obeyed)
- The legitimate will just is our (legitimate) collective power.
-The general will can use force: “he [who disobeys] will be forced to be free”
institutions can mentain permanent identity (like old ass universities)
general will in practice
- general will is always oriented for the common good
- in the state of nature we have a lot of social conflicts, and the very reason to have a state is to pacify the conflicts (hobbes), we only get to the point on contract if there is a wide agreement on what is good
- without having something in common above basic survival-> no society could exist
- sovereignity= the excersice of general will, cannot be alienated.
- the only proper law is the law you give to yourself. you are part of the sovereign, and subject to the sovereign.
- simmilar to master mo, that source of conflict is disagreement on what is in common interest
- only where each self-interest agrees with the common interest can there be a general will
! general will is violated when common good de facto only serves some private/ partial interests. BUT is also violated when there is nothing in common and above each will. (there is a general will when there is common interest in something: survival of the nation)
how do we know there is a general will?
- Full information
- No communication/discussion: “each citizen should think only his own thoughts”
- General Agreement
- No factions
- There has to be unanimity/ near unanimity
- assumes that if given this space to decide we are naturally good, and when given full information we will make a good choice
- you canot expect this in a corrupt/ faction environment: no party politics, no public debate, no fake news.
shared commitement to the common good that we can agree by when not persuaded by others and we have full information about it
the limits of the general will
- not about particular people= impartial-> policies on particular interests/ group would be illigitimate
- it is only about general features of political society
“every authentic act of the general will, binds or favours all the citizens equally; the Sovereign… draws no distinctions between those of whom it is made up.”
when is the state legitimate?
Hobbes: The state is legitimate as long as the sovereign provides peace, security, and order, and the people submit to absolute authority. There is no right to revolt.
Locke: The state is legitimate if it protects individual rights (life, liberty, property) and operates with the consent of the governed. If the government violates this, the people have the right to revolt.
Rousseau: The state is legitimate when it is based on the general will of the people, promotes equality, and reflects the common good. It requires direct democracy and participation from all citizens. So a legitimate state is only that which free and equal individuals agreed that is just. A state can have just atuhority but no legitimacy, like you consented for something out of impulse, it makes it just auhtotiy but illegitimate.
Kant: The state is legitimate if it operates according to principles that all rational beings could will freely, aligning with his idea of universal moral law from his ethics.
O societate este legitimă doar atunci când este guvernată în conformitate cu voința generală, deoarece în acest caz, cetățenii ascultă de legi pe care ei înșiși le-au creat, menținându-și astfel libertatea.
social contracts
Hobbes: Saw the social contract as a real agreement where people give up rights to a sovereign for security.
Locke: Saw it as a mutual agreement between the people and government to protect natural rights.
Rousseau: Saw it as a true contract among individuals to form a collective “general will.”
Kant: Sees it as an idea of reason—a principle that justifies government rather than an actual contract signed in history.
bro on human nature
Rousseau rejected the classical idea of a fixed, universal human nature. Instead, he argued that what we observe as “human nature” is actually a product of society. In his view, humans in the state of nature were peaceful, independent, and driven by basic needs, but civilization corrupted them, introducing inequality, selfishness, and dependence. For Rousseau, human nature is malleable and shaped by social and historical conditions, rather than being static and predetermined.
what is freedom?
Hobbes: freedom is to do what you want wihtout having any constrains. Freedom is the lack of constraints on wanting satisfaction. (One is more free the fewer constraints he has).
Spinoza: Our sense of freedom rests on an illusion and ignorance-> to be free is to act from reason, so with adequate knowledge. Only if you know what you are doing are you really in self-control; the source/ground of action matters. To be free turns on the right motive/reason/ground (the will is irrelevant). If you understand or know (not what you feel or sense) this is the condition of the true freedom.
Rousseau: If we act from impulse we are slaves, is when we act to a law which we perscribe to ourselves than we are free. Being autonomous on the individual and political level, that is what it means to be free. Political liberty means being governed by impartial laws. If one acts in a his self-interest in society (pricence being immoral), one can never be free. But, in society even after the social contract, one is free only if he follows the laws that one made-> this can only happen if one is part of the sovereign.
State of nature-> social contract-> general will= mechanism with which you do not give up freedom.
Kant: one is free when he acts morally.
Marx: Marx saw freedom as the ability to fully develop one’s human potential, which could only be achieved by abolishing class oppression and creating a communist society where individuals are not constrained by economic necessity or exploitation.
Mill: Mill viewed freedom as the ability of individuals to think and act as they choose, limited only by the need to prevent harm to others.
transition problem
how do we get from any status quo to create a normatively desirable or ideal political future with a population raised under bad institutions (or worse, that is, bad breeding).
In Rousseau: under what conditions can we expect a people capable of exercising the general will to form?
divine legistlator
Legislator is somebody with no interest in society that is being set up and can so solve the transition problem. He stands outside the constitution or people, but acts in their benefit. Must create institutions that aim at: liberty, equality, produce the right social spirit (civic religion)-> this is how you get real constitution. He has to use religious symbols for dumb ppl to buy into social life (noble lie).
- the legistlator has to have a great soul (plato, aristotle)
- not possible in the state on nature, cause we are roughly equal
- so a great soul is only possible after (bad societies) have generated (with force) “natural seeming” hierarchies in human nature
- history prepares the time for a legistlator to arrive and for the general will to happen
- ## vindicatory story, gives meaning to pain and evil, for the reason of creating a creat leader (history rather than god giving vindication)
their interest will affect their decision, needs somebody impartial
Legislatorul are un rol crucial, acela de a ghida poporul în înțelegerea voinței generale și de a formula legi care să o reflecte. Ar trebui să fie o inteligență superioară, detașată de pasiunile umane, capabilă să înțeleagă natura umană și să creeze instituții durabile care să promoveze binele comun.
secular theodicy
secular theodicy is an explanation of historical suffering as a necessary force for progress, without relying on divine intervention, arguing that hardship ultimately leads to a better future.
EX:
Marx: Capitalist exploitation → Revolution → Communism.
Kant: Conflict and wars → Rational moral progress → Just society.
Rousseau: Social inequality → Political awakening → Direct democracy.
! Class conflict by itself does not drive history, but rather the material conditions that drive history forward; these generate social tensions → which generate disorder but also new social conditions
social contract characteristics
- State of nature
- Individualism
- Humans are born free and equal
- Natural rights, some of which are given up in the contract
- Popular consent source of political authority
- No real claim to historical accuracy
Rather ‘idea of reason’: only those political systems to which free and equal individuals could have agreed to is just
problems with them:
(a) justice and legitimacy can come apart; (so too demanding)
(b) social contract never exists (so like institutions who are not based on consest), so all states are illegitimate?
What is Rousseau’s view on property and inequality?
- Close to Locke (labor, etc.), but avoids Locke’s accommodation of imperialism.
- Inhabited land is simply not available for new owners (so protects, natives and aborigens.
- Rousseau is critical of private property, seeing it as a source of inequality and social division. In Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, he argues that the introduction of property led to competition, jealousy, and corruption, moving society away from the equality found in the state of nature. While not advocating for the abolition of property, Rousseau supports redistribution to limit extreme wealth and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few, aiming to ensure the common good over individual accumulation.originals), even if you work on it
- Property rights are only absolute when it comes to necessaries of life (also Adam Smith’s view). Once your subsistances met, the rest of humanity has the same right to the land.
Why is sovereignity inailenable and indivisible?
Suveranitatea este inalienabilă deoarece voința nu se poate transfera, la fel cum nici nu poate fi reprezentată decât de ea însăși; orice încercare de alienare ar însemna renunțarea la libertate. Este indivizibilă deoarece voința este generală sau nu este; divizarea suveranității ar duce la voințe particulare care nu ar mai reprezenta interesul comun.
burke
representative government
- A representative was not a delegate; he owed his constituents his intelligence and his judgment, not his obedience to whatever they might think at any given moment.
- They had no right to mandate him, and he had no obligation to act as they would have mandated.
- He owed them a clear statement of the principles on which he would make up his mind once in Parliament; if they disliked his principles, they should vote accordingly.
- a representative represents those who voted against him
as well as those who voted for him, and represents those who had no vote in the
election at all.
what is burke’s ideal form of governance?
A properly balanced constitutional monarchy in which a strong legislature holds an uncorrupt executive in check
not absolute monarchy!!!
burke on natural law
Burke appealed to the tradition that sees the entire universe governed by divinely ordained natural law, and human beings as intended to be regulated by that law. This does not mean that the lawes are never changing, they are flexible. Yes politics should be in the hands of a landed gentry, but membership of the landed gentry should be open to talented parvenus like himself. liked Adam Smith. Still, even if nature is flexible, it is also the source of limits, and these are felt as much as understood.
! not anything on rights and liberties that he detested
not meritocratic though, just agknowledged talents