Philosophy, State and Society - Essay Example

Running Head: PHILOSOPHY, STATE AND SOCIETY Philosophy, State and Society [The Writer’s Name] [The Name of the Institution]  Philosophy, State and Society 1- Thomas Hobbes Hobbes felt that society resembles a state of nature. In the state of nature, human beings are equal. By being equal, Hobbes says that they are capable of causing the greatest of evils to one another: death (Bobbio, 1993, 39). Also in the state of nature, items are scarce. This scarcity of goods says Hobbes, "generates a permanent state of reciprocal lack of trust, which induces all to prepare for war, and to make war if necessary rather then to seek peace" (Bobbio, 1993, 39). In the Leviathan Hobbes indicates three causes for conflict: "competition which makes human beings fight for gain; diffidence which makes them fight for security, and glory which makes them fight for reputation" (Bobbio, 1993, 40). Hobbes goes on to state that the passion that generates the most conflict is vainglory. Hobbes believes that vainglory is the most visible manifestation of a desire for power and what drives one human against another is a desire for power (Bobbio, 1993, 40). So therefore, the state of nature is a state of war. In order to avoid living in a State of Nature, and therefore avoiding a State of War, Hobbes says, "It is necessary that human beings agree to institute a state that will create the conditions for living a life according to reason" (Bobbio, 1993, 47). The state Hobbes envisions must be a 'compact' among the many and be permanent and second it must not be just a mere association of persons who share a common end (Bobbio, 1993, 47). What Hobbes means is a state that that is founded on people who only share a common end will create a society that only cares for mutual help. This type pf society is unable to ensure compliance of the rules (Bobbio, 1993, 49) Because Hobbes believes that the state of nature is insecure, the aim of the state should be to eliminate the causes of insecurity. The way to do this according to Hobbes is for the citizens of the state to give up all power to one person. This person will then have the power to prevent each individual from harming others. Hobbes calls this agreement the convenient of union and he says this about the formulation of it: "I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man or this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner" (Bobbio, 1993, 48). In Hobbes' Leviathan he gives this definition of the state "One person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenant one with another, have made themselves every one by the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence" (Bobbio, 1993, 49). 2- John Locke One of the most influential philosophers of the Enlightenment and liberal political theory, John Locke’s ideas and political philosophy have been the subject of intense debate, thought and discussion for centuries. The most direct reading of Locke's political philosophy finds the concept of consent playing a central role. Key to Locke’s ideas is the notion of the social contract, which establishes a framework for civil society, the establishment of the state, and the rights of individuals within the state. The establishment of civil society, for Locke, hinges on individual consent as the mechanism by which political societies are created and individuals join those societies. Consent then, is crucial in Locke’s political theory as all of his main arguments stem from the notion – it is however debatable whether the types of consent that he discusses, particularly the idea of tacit consent, align themselves both to reality and to the thesis of his ideas. Nonetheless, it is clear that the idea of consent is a driving force behind John Locke’s political theory, and one which needs to be examined and analysed in understanding his ideas. The state of nature, as it was for Hobbes, is an integral aspect of Locke’s political theory. Like Hobbes he assumes all men were born free and equal but Locke’s natural man is more sociable and able to reason than Hobbes imagined. Like Hobbes, again, he hypothesises a state of nature, but whereas Hobbes employed the state of nature in a purely hypothetical sense, Locke is eager to show that such a state did and can exist. Unlike Hobbes, however, this state of nature is guided by a law of nature which God intended man to understand through their powers of reasoning. It is distinctly different to Hobbes’ notion of the state of nature, which in effect, is a state of war. Individuals must give their consent to the sovereign in order for it to be legitimate – they must actively and knowingly give up these powers – for Locke this is a natural occurrence which almost inevitably takes place as people realise it is to their benefit in their individual pursuit of the good life. He writes that the sovereign should work towards “…the peace, safety, and public good of the people, and to nothing else” (Locke, 1988, 362) For Locke the government has no sovereignty of its own; it exists to serve the people. The people give their consent and in turn, expect the government to represent them. 3- Jean Jacques Rousseau The work of Rousseau has influenced a generation and beyond and it is argued that the main ideals of the French and American revolutions arose from his works, for example The Discourse on Equality. The main concept of Rousseau's thought is that of 'liberty', and his belief that modern society forced humans to give up their independence, making everyday life corrupt and unfree. One of the central problems Rousseau confronted is best summed up in the first line of arguably his most important work, The Social Contract wherein he affirms that man is born free but everywhere in chains. This quote is an expression of Rousseau's belief that humans are corrupted by modern day society. Rousseau says that the state is unjust and corrupt and is dominated by the rich and the powerful. While the poor only know oppression and unhappiness, these aristocrats use it selfishly to further their own interests. The modern state deprives human beings of their natural freedom and promotes self-centred individualism that undermines equality and concern for the common good. According to Rousseau the modern state and the accumulation of human knowledge, improved human understanding but corrupted the human species morally. In his works A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755) and A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (1751), Rousseau questioned advances in knowledge and rejected the glorification of reason that was central to the outlook of the philosophers. The philosophers, he believed, had given people better reasoning but had destroyed them morally. The price paid for cultural and intellectual progress was the moral decline of the individual, a condition that could no longer be endured.3 Rousseau drew up sharp, contrasting characteristics between the 'civilized and societal man' and the 'natural and savage man', natural man being the individual prior to the creation of civil society. Rousseau believed that the natural man was superior to civilized man in several ways. He was stronger, healthier and had greater consideration for a suffering human being. Where as civilised man, separated from nature and living an artificial existence, had become effeminate, feeble and anxious. Not content with satisfying his needs, he had become envious and greedy, obsessively pursuing luxury and sinking into corruption. Most importantly, modern man had lost much of his natural compassion for fellow beings. 4- John Stuart Mill J.S. Mill's liberalism was an important and essential advance beyond the liberalism of Hobbes through his emphasis on the liberty of thought and discussion which dealt with the freedom to articulate one's opinions, the freedom to participate in intellectual, political, religious and general debates and arguments, and the freedom of the press, yet he remained essentially similar to Hobbes when he engaged the notion of the liberty of action by having attempted to distinguish the area in which an individual is free to act upon his will, opinions and thoughts. To Mill, one could never be certain about the reality or fabrication of a certain opinion or viewpoint. Any assumption of complete certainty of the truth or falsity of an opinion was an allusion to the infallibility of man. In addition, those who assumed this, and consequently stifled an opinion, excluded all others from hearing that opinion, thereby having imposed their own version of certainty. One obvious benefit from allowing an opinion to be expressed would be if that opinion turned out to be true. Less obvious would be the benefits that could be obtained should the opinion be false. Firstly, Mill believed even erroneous opinions contained a portion of truth in them. Since the dominant opinion rarely contained the whole truth, Mill believed that such a collision of hostile opinions would bring forth the rest, or at least more of the truth. An atmosphere of intellectual freedom, according to Mill, also benefited the general mental well-being of mankind. It served to nurture probing intellectuals to venture unimpeded into bold, ingenious lines of thought, and enabled normal humans to develop to full potential their mental capabilities, including judgments. The benefits that Mill attributed to a society that allowed freedom of action within a certain sphere are similar. These are derived from Mill's assumption of the intrinsic good of individuality. Most importantly, if individuality was stifled by an atmosphere of conformity, the exercise of choice by an individual was also stifled. It was this exercise of choice, the liberty to choose, that Mill was primarily concerned with. 5- Karl Marx Karl Marx's contribution to politics has been plentiful. His theories and insights into capitalism have reminded many that despite democratic principles, and ideals, societies can yet still produce, and promote great economic inequality among different classes. This fact is most evident among today's Western society where democracy has become a word intertwined with freedom, and equal opportunity, but where the politically, and economically powerful have used it to justify greater economic imbalance, and have put a stranglehold on ensuring that the system remains the same. But though Marx's theories have been able to deductively elucidate, and highlight this repetitive cycle of economic inequality in modern democratic theory, he has yet to provide an adequate/applicable account on how to solve this problem within a modern framework. Marx's concept of historical materialism is arguably one of his most accepted, and applied theories today. The foundation of society would be the economy in which the cultural, political, and social aspects would be built upon. And as seen within most capitalist democracies today, their cultures, and social institutions rest upon capitalist ideals. Those who own and control the economy in Western democracies, ultimately control those other aspects within their society. Class struggles, and conflict, are another concept of Marx's which is highly evident within Western-style democracies. Where democracies evolve to societies insistent upon capitalism, and privatization of property, the interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie will differ substantially. They interact through the means of production and become mutually dependent upon one another to the point where this dependency dominates their relationship. But, it will be this dominance, which will generate a kind of social continuity between the classes which will be responsible for an economy that will function on the exploitation of the majority. Marx then insists upon how the differing interests will amount to conflict, which in turn, will lead to social change. He claims that the proletariat will feel alienated, and that the worker will realize that he/she is employed on the basis of their ability to fit into the division of labour rather than their creative skills. Though it is not disputed that the worker will feel alienated, rarely in today's modern democratic society, does a revolt occur where a shift in power ensues like Marx describes. Capitalism would then evolve into globalization. 6- John Rawls Rawls suggests that there are many things in this world which are considered to be just and also unjust, laws, companies, political judgments, decisions, and imputations. We as humans also believe that people’s thoughts and the person itself is unjust. Justice it self as you can see has a broad focus, but Rawls is only focusing on social justice, institutions and the social systems. Rawls key focus on the subject of justice is the structure of society, or more exactly, the way major social institutions distribute the rights and the duties and divide within the social cooperation. There are limitations on justice. The people must regulate a well ordered society. Everyone needs to do his or her part in society and act justly. Rawls distinguished the concept of justice as a meaning of proper balance between competing claims from a conception of justice as a set of related principles for identifying the relevant considerations which determine this balance. Rawls opens this next segment with stating that people in a society don't know there place, nor do they know where they stand in a social class. People also don't know there knowledge, or their strengths. These principles are covered behind a veil of ignorance. This veil ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance of the contingency of social circumstances. Justice as fairness conveys the idea that principles of justice are agreed to an initial situation that is fair. A feature of justice would include the parties in the initial situation as rational and mutually disinterested. A society that Rawls envisioned would make a fairer world. The world we would create with its set of rules would be applied to us indiscriminately. In such a world, you might be black or white, female or male, gay or lesbian, Jew or gentile. Rawls devised the concept of the "veil of ignorance" in which the members of society made their decisions about how much freedom, equality, opportunity, wealth, powers, and income each person should have in society without knowing themselves where they would fall into society. This would create an unbiased way of how justice was allocated. Justice should guarantee fairness to everyone in the society. Every member in society would be given an equal chance at success because people would think more about themselves and would give more power to the disadvantaged people and less power to the rich. Rawls gives the analogy of two people who are deciding how to divide a cake fairly. They agree that one of them will cut the cake while the other will choose between one of the two pieces. Once we realize that we may get the smaller of the two pieces, we will cut the cake fairly. Like this example this would make everyone try to become equal with no one being to rich and no one being to poor. References Locke, John: 1988: Two Treatises of Government, II, 38 (V, 360); 45 (V, 364). Cambridge University Press Norberto, Bobbio. , 1993: Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition. Trans. Daniela Gobetti. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Read More