Political Philosophy - Essay Example

Introduction What is the rationalization of political ity? Why should man abide by government rules? Some have emphasized the need for order and protection as the answer to these questions. Nonetheless, many other answers have been offered towards the justification of government including Robert Wolff’s anarchist answer, Hobbes absolutist answer, and John Locke’s democratic answer. According to the anarchist answer, the state does not have the mandate to impose all its wishes upon an individual. In essence, autonomy is a primary moral need; therefore, the state has no right to go against it in any way. Robert Wolff’s “In Defense of anarchism” concurs with the idea that the state has no moral authority over any individual. On the other hand, the Absolutist answer describes that the state of nature, without political security is barbarous, dangerous, as well as, impoverished, that is rational to give major freedom to the government or state in order to gain security or peace. Hobbes agrees with this statement in his “Leviathan”. In the Democratic Answer, John Locke concurs with Hobbes when he states that individuals can contract with the government in order to give up on some freedom in exchange of security. Nonetheless, he disagrees with him on the degree of which people should surrender to the state. According to Locke, it is illogical to give up natural rights to representation, property, life and other goods, than slavery to the government. Political philosophy seeks to question the legitimacy of taxation, state’s authority, and the best form of government. Does man have the moral obligation to follow the rules stipulated by the government? Political anarchism refers to the philosophy that unjustified the state since it inappropriately violates human autonomy. Human freedom is a critical moral value that no amount of utility, efficiency or stability may overrule. Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the French philosopher rejected all forms of government saying they hinder the free practice of human reason that is essential for the realization of perfection. 2. Robert Paul Wolff: In Defense of Anarchism Wolf, in his description of anarchism, states that all forms of government infringe man’s ultimate duty to be autonomous. 2.1 The Meaning of Political Authority Politics refers to the exercise of state’s power; therefore, political philosophy is the philosophy of the state (Pojman, 482). What is the state? Wolff defines the state as a group of individuals that possesses and practices the supreme authority over a specific population or within a certain territory. Therefore, the state may include every individual who falls under its jurisdiction. Two terms emerge from this definition, authority and power. Authority refers to the right to command while power means the ability to command compliance. A government has the right to tax its subjects because it has authority over them. Claiming authority means claiming the right to be obeyed (Pojman, 482-3). The expression authority, nonetheless, is ambiguous since it has both a normative and descriptive sense. Arguably, the state is the highest authority; however, its right to authority appears to be less than absolute. The individual who issues the command acts as the occasion for one to become aware of their duty, which is different from the idea that the government has a right to command. Men in de facto states believe in the existence of justifiable authority. However, they may all be wrong since such states may never be in existence. 2.2 The Idea of Autonomy Moral philosophy assumes that men ought to choose how they shall act, in some sense (Pojman, 483). Being responsible is all about trying to determine what one should do, which requires criticizing principles, predicting outcomes, gaining knowledge, and reflecting on motives among many other things. Every person with both reason and free will is obliged to take responsibility for every action, although he may not be actively continuing to reflect, investigate, and deliberate on how he shall act. A responsible man does not recognize himself bound by moral duties; therefore, he is not anarchic or capricious. According to Wolff, a responsible man is autonomous because he is self-legislating. Moral autonomy, as defined by Kant, combines responsibility with freedom, it means submission to laws that one has made for oneself (Pojman, 484). Such a man is free in a political sense. This means that there is a conflict between the state and man; the trademark of the state is the right to rule while man is the refusal to be ruled. Philosophical anarchism appears to be the only rational politic for a person who is enlightened. An anarchist believes that moral autonomy overrides the state authority. Hence, the state becomes unjustified. 3. Thomas Hobbes: The Absolutist Answer According to Hobbes, people are all egoists since they act in their individual self-interest, to gain satisfaction and stay away from harm. However, this is not possible because of fear from other people. In such a state of anarchy, the prudent individual, in the interest of everyone else, makes a contract to uphold a minimal morality of keeping all the covenants made, respecting human life and abiding by the societal laws. Hobbes proposes a Leviathan or a strong sovereign to inflict penalties on anyone who disobeys the laws. Nature has made all men equal in the sense of body and mind. It proposes that every man has an equal ability; therefore, equality of hope in achieving every end. Two men can become enemies if they desire the same thing that they cannot both enjoy and decide to subdue or destroy one another. This diffidence of one another means that man cannot be secure in any way. Generally, according to Hobbes, there are three main causes of quarrel in the nature of man: competition, diffidence and glory (Pojman, 488). Competition causes men to assault others for gain and engage in diffidence for safety. The third cause of quarrel comes as a result of reputation. This means that without a common power to keep all men in awe, they will be in such a condition, better known as war. According to Hobbes, where there is war, there is no peace and time for industry since the fruit thereof is not certain. Why do people lock their doors when they sleep? It appears that nothing can be unjust in this war of every man against fellow man. The ideas of justice and injustice, right and wrong have no place. There is no law where there is no common form of power. There is no injustice where there is no law. They are qualities that relate to all the men, not in solitude, but in society. The passions that lead men to pursue peace include fear of death, hope by their hard work to gain them, and the desire of such. 3.1 Natural Laws The right to nature refers to the liberty that every man has to employ his power, according to his will, to preserve his own nature. Hobbes states that, liberty refers to the lack of outer impediments, impediments which take away part of the power to engage in what he wants to do (Pojman 489). The law of nature, by definition, refers to a precept by which a person is hindered to what can destruct his life or take away the means of preserving life. 4. John Locke: The Democratic Answer Locke is not cynical as Hobbes when it comes to human nature or the state of the same. Locke sees the state of nature as one where life is an inferior state due to lack of common laws and adequate cooperation; however, natural rights still get to be enjoyed. Government is put in place via a social contract where people agree to the system of the central authority, which represents the will of the many. The natural rights to liberty, life, property and the will of the majority limit the government. The government will lose its authority or legitimacy once it fails to represent the will of the majority. A revolution is necessary in such a case. According to John Locke, nature renders all men as equal, free, and independent (Pojman, 497). When several men consent to make on government or community, they are making one body politic, where the majority can act and include the rest. Thus, every man who consents to one body politic subjects himself under an obligation to the whole civilization to put forward to the will of the many, which is the government. However, submitting to the laws of a country, living in peace, and enjoying the protection and privileges under them does not make a person a member of that specific society; it is only a homage and local protection to all that come within that territory and not being in a state of war. It has been said that a human is liberated to own possession and person and subject to nobody, why should he part with such an empire and freedom. The answer is simple. Though, he has the right to freedom in the state of nature he cannot enjoy any of the fruits (Pojman, 501). Therefore, he is willing to quit such a condition and join a society. This means that, the main purpose of joining a society or government is preserving their property. 5. Personal Evaluation While the definition of anarchism appears to be fine, I do not find it realistic. There has to be authority, which will protect all those who fall under its jurisdiction. It is hard to make an agreement between territories or groups without state or government. What happens when the other man infringes this right or their part of the bargain? Man has been known to be deceitful for a long time. We have to pay taxes so that the government functions properly. I find some weaknesses in Wolff’s argument when he states that obedience to the state is immoral and unjustified (Pojman, 484). While moral autonomy can be taken as a higher obligation than obeying the government, I believe that there are some restraints that should be put on man lest things go out of hand. A thug who robs you at gun point has to pay, but who will make him pay? It should be the government. Therefore, a government is still important even for the anarchist. Hobbes’ view of human nature can be accurate in some sense but not fully. I do not agree with the part that he states all men are equal (Pojman, 487). I do not think that nature has made man equal; in fact it has made man unequal. There is a lot of difference between an individual born in a rich family and another one born in a poor state. The rich can afford the high class schools, but the poor might not even go to school. How has nature made them the same? Nonetheless, I concur with the idea that every person is a self-interested egoist in one way or another. A person will want what is the best for him or her. No one would put the interest of another individual before theirs; it is as simple as that. My views concur with those of John Locke when he says that men enter the society to preserve their property (Pojman, 501). It is also why they choose to authorize a legislative that they will abide by the laws that guard the properties of all the society members. It is also idealistic that violence will erupt should the legislators put in place start to destroy the assets of the individuals that make up the society. Things will continue to be in order as long as the legislators do not enslave the members of a society under arbitrary power (Pojman, 501). The question that arises is who shall become a judge whether the legislative is following the people will. I agree with Locke when he says it is the people. There is no commonwealth or community that can go contrary to the original agreement made by members of a society. Nonetheless, it does not appear to be realistic when Locke justifies his idea of obeying the state as some type of the social contract. According to Locke, the social contract is implicit, and at the same time binding because people can leave the country of the common wealth when they do not like it (Pojman, 498). This statement may be true, but what happens to those people who wish to leave the country, but are not able because of poverty, or any other reason? This idea suits only those who can afford to relocate to another country, which usually costs a sizeable amount of money. This idea is not applicable in this 21st century. Works cited Dreyer, Frederick. Burke's Politics: A Study in Whig Orthodoxy. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 1979. Pojman, Louis. Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Ward, Lee. John Locke and Modern Life. London: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Wolff, Robert Paul. In Defense of Anarchism. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan Or The Matter, Form, and Power of a Common-wealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil. London: Andrew Crooke, 1651. Read More