Pol 118B Midterm Flashcards

Question

Machiavelli would say that yes, it is a violation of the ruler/covenant if

Answer 1

Ruler is effective (he protects u If sovereign makes life better for u than just the state of nature then you shouldn't rebel If life in pol society isn't better than just on its own then yea sovereign has failed u Instigator currently lives under his rule

Answer 2

Punish the malefactor Malefactor cannot think that his unjust behavior to go unseen or detected Just because it is unreasonable doesnt think u are not gonna do something, there's still a chance u could get power?

Answer 3

intelligent, made huge changes in hist ext

Answer 4

we are equal in abilities , they think they can get away with injustice

Answer 5

yes there are great men aka leaders of history There is no complete best solution - collab with the potential people who could plot against u or not work with them

Answer 6

author who expanded on Hobbes ideas

Answer 7

anarchic and exploitative competition (in class we talked about Ex bandit cares less about physical well being and more about commodious living ) We have different desires than just being safe, Buchanan does not rule out the possibility of cooperation in the state of nature , but views it as very tentative Individuals have a variety in their desires, we may focus more on one thing or another

Answer 8

Buchanan differs from Hobbes- he thinks that contracts will reflect the unequal bargaining positions from the state of nature

Answer 9

Were all devils, this is a problem Parties concerned with bodily security and other goods would not cede all their liberties

Answer 10

1. Minimize pain 2. Get rid of the fear of death through arguments, Live a simple life diet, spend time in philosophical

Answer 11

Eternal Law,Divine law, Natural law, Human law-

Answer 12

First and highest kind of law= eternal law= gods law , not directly accessible to human beings, only indirectly . this would be impossible for us as humans to understand. Idea of God's law is ambiguous, with many interpretations. 1st voluntarism (about will)(Luther, Hobbes)(More Protestant) 1nd rationalism (about reason)(Aquinas, Kant) (more Catholic) Divine law-law from revelation (prophets, scripture, priests ext) They have special communication with God Decalogue (10 commandments

Answer 13

Known by reason ( cosmological ex its to know the source) preserve mankind Not to kill/steal (why do they sound like the divine law) its not about the content, the question is how do u get access to it (above is revelation) through reason is more complicated U need God (how do you know there is God) God has a certain nature, creator U and the universe have similarities, observe and draw inferences We can infer what he wants us to do, that gives us natural law (we look at the trail of crumbs that God has left behind, our desires, nature itself)

Answer 14

Problem is consistency Deism = eternal, natural and human law Divine law= scam, for wealth, power ext U can learn through reason Deism (Franklin, Jefferson, Paines) ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW Eternal, Divine and Human law are good Natural law (reason) not good This is Fideism = Luther Reason draws u away from fa

Answer 15

Divine and Natural reason

Answer 16

Natural law and Divine law= if there is conflict lean on reason

Answer 17

Is something good merely because God wills it, or does God will things precisely because they are good. *merely is important difference between them * God's will is good because by definition the source is good aka God What r the implications of that, God opens up the sky and murder is good So we would then celebrate and find them good

Answer 18

Omnipotence Omniscience Eternal Omnibenevolent

Answer 19

Locke doesn't just argue for Christians denominations to tolerate each other, but also non Christians He's NOT for tolerating atheists tho Some say maybe catholics are not wanted to be tolerated but prof says no Issue seeing the pope as religious authority but also political authority Catholics tolerated if they live under a set of dogmas, not pol authority They have to recognize the king for example as the legit political ruler, not the pope

Answer 20

One, Locke wants to remove the assumption that we can only have peace if we all believe in the same religion Second, 9/11 effects- religious toleration has not been practiced for long Third- locke's arguments needed to understand liberalism Intersects with the social contract arguments he makes in the second treatise

Answer 21

Refutations Actually the founders religiously diverse in many ways . Ranged from deists to orthodox Deists- devotees of natural religion, we don't need priests, bible ext we have reason . just know that there is a god, he is just Hostile to reveal religions, very hostile towards priests, preachers ext They seek domination over the minds of people Second, even if founders were all christian Religion- should not be allowed to determine who can serve in office Congress cant prohibit/endorse certain religions views or organization

Answer 22

Our institutions directly reflect the gospels of Christ You have to serve God and gov separately Christianity has a very violent history not only towards non christians but also christians themselves Locke and the founders Lockes letter had much influence on the founding fathers

Answer 23

1. The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, said our Savior to his disciples, but ye shall not be so. Luke 22:25, 26” (LCT 13)—to distinguish between religious and political authority. - “The church, ‘which judgeth not those that are without,’ 1 Corinthians 5:11, wants it not” (LCT 70)—to argue in favor of maintaining civil rights for non-Christians.

Answer 24

reason so it can work for both christians and pagans

Answer 25

“All the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing.” (LCT 19) * violence and persecution cannot change an individual’s beliefs and so cannot produce salvation. Policies of religious intolerance that purport to advance the interests of unbelievers, heretics, etc., by rescuing their souls are therefore grossly misconceived.

Answer 26

Locke argues that religious toleration is an implication of the contractual division of duties and spheres of influence between secular and religious authorities. Civil authorities preserve and protect the things of this life (person and property); churches attend to the things of the next (the souls of their parishioners). Why? * This division of duties derives from the original social agreement, in which men leave an insecure state of nature by way of a two-stage contract but retain rights to their lives, liberties, and estates, the protection of which motivated their entry into civil society. (LCT 59) * Among the liberties that are retained is liberty of conscience: something as precious as the stewardship of our very own salvation would never be relinquished to civil society or its magistrate; it is an inalienable right (see Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance: to alienate this right would be a violation of our duty to God).

Answer 27

This argument maintains that religious toleration is the most dependable way to limit or even eliminate religious conflict (“complaints and tumults,” “bustles and wars” [LCT 65, 71]) and thus promote “peace and security,” which are obviously good things—and never more obviously so than in the wake of the 16th- and 17th-century wars of religion. * Oppression breeds resistance and civil unrest; moreover, by “entrenching” a policy of religious toleration, the state can discourage sects from competing for political power.

Answer 28

here Locke warns that powers given to the magistrate to suppress idolatrous churches may eventually be turned on orthodox ones;

Answer 29

where Locke suggests that our inevitable uncertainty about religious doctrines makes toleration the best policy (cf. French humanists’ “uncertainty” defense);

Answer 30

where the Millian faith that truth will win out in the end makes persecution superfluous (cf. French humanists’ “universal truth” claim)

Answer 31

four groups from toleration

Answer 32

those religions that undermine civil society or its moral rules: religious freedom is conditional on civic order (e.g., Aztec religious practices: human sacrifice)

Answer 33

he excludes any religions that secretly think themselves to be superior to others in civil privileges. (Jointly, these suggest we have no duty to tolerate those who advocate lawlessness, discrimination, or intolerance; cf. 1st Amendment doctrine.)

Answer 34

he excludes those religions whose observance effectually entails subservience to a foreign prince. (This might be directed at Catholics [e.g., concerns about JFK in 1960], but LCT 24 & 55 suggest otherwise—maybe Catholics, Orthodox Christians, etc., would have to swear an oath of allegiance to secular rulers?)

Answer 35

he excludes atheists. Notice that this last exclusion rests upon a falsifiable claim that atheists cannot be trusted to uphold agreements. Locke thinks that damnation is an essential “sword of Damocles” hanging over citizens that guarantees their good behavior in this life, as temporal punishments are insufficient.

Answer 36

First, Locke contends that magistrates, so long as they use only persuasion, may justly promote their own religious beliefs, a right that they share with all men. (LCT 20, 35) {Q: Is a state subsidy “persuasion” or “coercion” Second, Locke expressly opposes “free-exercise” exemptions to basic laws: “But those things that are prejudicial to the commonweal of a people in their ordinary use, and are therefore forbidden by laws, those things ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. Only the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he does not misuse his authority, to the oppression of any church, under pretense of public good.”

Pol 118B Midterm Flashcards

(60 cards)