SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: WHAT IS A JUST SOCIETY? STATES AND SOCIETIES.

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL

PHILOSOPHY: WHAT

IS A JUST SOCIETY? STATES AND SOCIETIES

•HUMANS ARE SOCIAL CREATURES: WE LIKE TO DO THINGS IN GROUPS.

•VARYING SIZES, INCLUDING FAMILIES, SCHOOLS, SPORTS TEAMS, WORK SHIFTS, CHURCH GROUPS, SOCIAL NETWORKS, NEIGHBOURHOODS, TOWNS, AND CITIES

•AT THE LARGEST MACRO LEVELS, WE ORGANIZE OURSELVES INTO NATIONS, STATES, AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES, SUCH AS THE UNITED NATIONS OR THE COMMONWEALTH.

SOCIAL GROUPS•THESE GROUPS HAVE A

VARIETY OF FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING NURTURING US, PROTECTING US, OR HELPING US IN OUR QUEST FOR THE "GOOD LIFE“

•“SOCIETY” IS A TERM THAT REFERS TO THESE GROUPS, HOW THEY OPERATE, AND OUR PLACE WITHIN THEM

WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH…•THE AREA OF PHILOSOPHY THAT EXAMINES THEORIES OF HOW AND WHY SOCIETIES OPERATE IS SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY. AN ADJUNCT OF SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY IS…

• POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, WHICH FOCUSES ON STATES, POLITICAL SYSTEMS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS.

WHAT IS A SOCIETY? •SOCIETY: A SET OF INDIVIDUALS

AND/OR INSTITUTIONS IN RELATIONS GOVERNED BY PRACTICAL INTERDEPENDENCE, CONVENTION, AND PERHAPS LAW.

WHAT IS A STATE?

•STATE: THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF A BODY OF PEOPLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER WITHIN ITS TERRITORY BY COERCION.

•SOCIETIES, THEN, ARE GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS WORKING TOGETHER, IN SOME FORM.

•THE STATE IS A LEGALISTIC EXPRESSION OF THIS ORGANIZATION, WITH THE ABILITY TO COERCE (FORCE) THE COMPLIANCE OF INDIVIDUALS TO THIS ORGANIZATION TO MAINTAIN ORDER.

HOW DID STATES COME TO BE?•AT ONE TIME OUR ANCESTORS LIVED IN SMALL BANDS.

•THESE BANDS HAD RULES AND LAWS GOVERNING RELATIONS BETWEEN MEMBERS, BASED ON THEIR NEEDS.

•THOMAS HOBBES – “STATE OF NATURE” LEVIATHAN

•AS SOCIETIES EVOLVED AND GREW LARGER AND MORE COMPLEX, THE NEED FOR RULES TO MORE EFFICIENTLY ORGANIZE LARGER SOCIAL UNITS ALSO EVOLVED, LEADING TO SUCH FORMS OF GOVERNMENT AS:

•MONARCHY (RULE BY A KING OR QUEEN)

•OLIGARCHY (RULE BY A SMALL GROUP)

•EMPIRE (RULE OF ONE GROUP OVER OTHERS)

•THEOCRACY (RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT)

• DEMOCRACY (THE PEOPLE RULE THEMSELVES)

•IN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, ONE OF THE MAIN QUESTIONS IS HOW SOCIETY SHOULD BE ORGANIZED.

•WHAT IS THE IDEAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY?

WHAT IS THE BEST SOCIETY? •UTOPIA (GREEK MEANING, NOT

ANY PLACE): THE TERM IS NOW USED TO DESCRIBE ANY VISION OF AN IDEAL SOCIETY. - ROBERT OWEN, CHARLES FOURIER

•THERE HAVE BEEN INNUMERABLE UTOPIAS PROPOSED, INCLUDING MANY VISIONS FOR FUTURE SOCIETIES.

•HOWEVER, PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO CONSTRUCT SOCIETIES AND STATES THAT REFLECT THEIR VISION OF THE IDEAL.

•THE EXAMPLES THAT FOLLOW ARE A FEW OF THE MORE FAMOUS UTOPIAN SOCIAL VISIONS.

•THE OPPOSITE OF UTOPIA IS DYSTOPIA, THE MOST UNDESIRABLE SOCIETY. OF COURSE, ONE PHILOSOPHER'S UTOPIA MAY WELL BE ANOTHER'S DYSTOPIA.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

PLATO'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: THE REPUBLIC

• IN THE REPUBLIC, THE CHARACTER SOCRATES DISCUSSES VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF JUST SOCIETIES.

• THROUGH THIS CHARACTER, PLATO PROPOSED AN IDEAL STATE DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE SOCIAL HARMONY AND REDUCE CONFLICT.

• PLATO WAS LEERY OF DEMOCRACY HAVING SEEN THAT IF NOT EXERCISED RESPONSIBLY IT COULD LEAD TO CORRUPTION AND TYRANNY, AS IT HAD IN HIS CITY OF ATHENS IN THE 5TH CENTURY.

•ATHENS HAD A SYSTEM OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY (EVERY CITIZEN WAS ENTITLED TO ATTEND THE LEGISLATURE AND VOTE ON EVERY MEASURE PROPOSED)

• THE ASSEMBLY WAS ENORMOUS AND COULD NOT EVEN CONDUCT BUSINESS WITHOUT A MINIMUM OF 6000 CITIZENS PRESENT!

•ANYONE SKILLED IN ORATORY, THE ART OF MAKING CLEVER SPEECHES, COULD SWAY THE CROWD, IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO TODAY'S POLITICIANS WHO LOOK GOOD ON TV.

Athenian Democracy

•ONE OF THE CRITICISMS OF THIS FORM OF DEMOCRACY IS THAT IT WAS TOO DEMOCRATIC

•DID NOT PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THE MASSES

•REPRESENTED A "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY"

PROBLEM WITH ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY…

•PLATO PROPOSED…

• SOCIETY WOULD BE STRICTLY ORGANIZED; EACH CITIZEN WOULD BELONG TO ONE OF THREE SOCIAL CLASSES:

•GUARDIANS, WHO RULED THE STATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL;

•SOLDIERS, WHO WOULD DEFEND THE STATE AND ENFORCE THE RULES; AND

•WORKERS, WHO WOULD SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF THE OTHERS AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF SOCIETY.

•IN PLATO'S REPUBLIC, THERE WOULD BE NO PRIVATE PROPERTY - ALL GOODS WOULD BE OWNED IN COMMON.

•THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE CORRUPTING EFFECTS OF MATERIAL POSSESSIONS AND THE DESIRE TO HAVE MORE, AND WOULD ELIMINATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RICH AND POOR, SINCE EVERYONE WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY EQUAL.

•BECAUSE RULING IS A COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT TASK, ONLY THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST CHILDREN WOULD BE EDUCATED TO BECOME GUARDIANS.

•THEIR EDUCATION WOULD LEAD THEM TO BECOME PHILOSOPHER-KINGS, DEDICATED TO ENSURING JUSTICE FOR ALL.

CRITICISM OF THE REPUBLIC•PLATO'S UTOPIAN REPUBLIC

HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR ITS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC BASIS

•OFTEN CITED AS AN INSPIRATION FOR TOTALITARIAN FORMS OF GOVERNMENT SUCH AS FASCISM AND COMMUNISM

•THE REPUBLIC ITSELF RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT HOW TO CURTAIL THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE GUARDIANS

ARISTOTLE’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

ARISTOTLE: THE POLITICS

•ARISTOTLE DIFFERS FROM PLATO IN HIS APPROACH TO POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

•VIEWS FLOW FROM HIS ETHICS WHICH ARE PRESENTED AT THE END OF NICOMACHEAN ETHICS

•ARISTOTLE ARGUES THAT THE BEST LIFE FOR EACH PERSON TO LIVE SHOULD BE BASED ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL STRENGTHS

•THE BEST POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR EACH STATE WILL BE BASED ON THE NEEDS OF THE STATE.

•DOES NOT PROPOSE ONE UTOPIAN SYSTEM, AS DOES PLATO, BUT A RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES

•NOT NEGATIVE ON DEMOCRACY AS PLATO, BUT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT ITS EXCESSES, PARTICULARLY WITH AN UNINFORMED OR UNINVOLVED POPULACE.

•ARISTOTLE ARGUED THAT WHILE INDIVIDUALS MIGHT BE UNWISE, AS A GROUP, THEY POSSESSED A SORT OF WISDOM.

•THE RANGE OF OPINIONS WOULD LEAD TO A "GOLDEN MEAN" OF WISDOM, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM, AS A GROUP, TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS.

•THERE COULD BE "TOO MUCH DEMOCRACY"

•FAVOURED A SYSTEM MIXING OLIGARCHY AND DEMOCRACY

•EACH WORKING TO BALANCE OUT THE OTHER AND KEEP THINGS WORKING SMOOTHLY TO BENEFIT ALL

GOLDEN MEAN THEORY

SOCIALISM AND NIHILISM •ONE OF THE MAJOR

ISSUES IN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY RELATES TO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.

•THE WANTING AND HAVING OF MATERIAL POSSESSIONS CAN LEAD TO INEQUALITY IN SOCIETY AND POLITICS.

•FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS USUALLY THE CASE THAT THE WEALTHIER CITIZENS HAVE MORE OF A SAY IN GOVERNING SOCIETY AND LIVE EASIER LIVES THAN THE POOR. OFTEN, THE POOR RESENT THIS AND ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES LIKE PEASANT UPRISINGS OR POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS TO TOPPLE THE EXISTING SOCIO-POLITICAL ORDER.

•THE UTOPIAS OF PLATO AND MORE ADDRESSED THIS CONCERN BY IMAGINING THE BANNING OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP,

•REPLACING IT WITH COMMUNAL OR COMMON OWNERSHIP. IN ITS MOST BASIC FORM, THIS IS KNOWN AS COMMUNISM.

•MANY FORMS OF COMMUNISM (CASTROISM)

•COMMUNISM INVOLVES LIVING COMMUNALLY, A GROUP OF PEOPLE (A COMMUNITY) SHARING ALL RESOURCES (IN COMMON)

•THE EMPHASIS IN COMMUNISM IS ON THE MATERIAL EQUALITY OF ALL-NO ONE IS RICHER OR POORER THAN ANYONE ELSE, AND ALL WORK AND PROFIT IS SHARED EQUALLY

•THE COMMUNIST IDEAL HAS STRONG ROOTS IN CHRISTIANITY - COMMUNALISTIC SOCIETIES INCLUDE CHRISTIAN MONKS AND NUNS, AND MENNONITE COLONIES

•OTHER EXAMPLES OF COMMUNIST SOLUTIONS ARE THE KIBBUTZ OF ISRAEL, AND HIPPIE COMMUNES

ANARCHISM•A MORE RADICAL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY UNEQUAL OWNERSHIP WAS ANARCHISM - ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT.

• TENDS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH NIHILISM, THE BELIEF IN NOTHING. NIHILISTS FEEL ANY AND ALL VALUES ARE MEANINGLESS AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED.

•ONLY BY HOLDING NOTHING VALUABLE, NEITHER MATERIAL POSSESSIONS NOR MORAL VALUES, CAN WE BE FREE TO CREATE OURSELVES AS WE WISH TO BE.

• FRENCHMAN PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON (1809-1865) ARGUED THAT "PROPERTY IS THEFT", BECAUSE YOUR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF SOMETHING (A CAR, A HOUSE, AN IPOD) STEALS ITS USE AWAY FROM THE REST OF SOCIETY.

•RUSSIAN MIKHAIL BAKUNIN (1814-1876) HAD A SIMPLE MESSAGE TO ADDRESS INEQUALITY: "DESTROY EVERYTHING". FIXING THE PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY USING SOCIALIST METHODS WOULD NOT WORK; ALL HAD TO BE SWEPT AWAY. TO ANARCHISTS, SOCIETY ITSELF IS CORRUPTING.

• HANDOUT ON COMMUNISM AND FASCISM

CONTEMPORARY UTOPIANISM • THE POLITICALLY TUMULTUOUS 20TH CENTURY LED

MANY TO ABANDON THINKING ABOUT THEORIES OF THE IDEAL SOCIETY.

• THERE HAD BEEN PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF UTOPIAN THEORIES PUT INTO ACTION AND THE RESULT WAS A CENTURY OF ANXIETY AND A HORRIFIC GLOBAL CRISIS BROUGHT ON BY TWO CATASTROPHIC WORLD WARS AND THE COLD WAR.

•HOWEVER, IN THE 1970S, ONE PHILOSOPHER REVITALIZED THE DEBATE ABOUT UTOPIANISM AND CAME TO DOMINATE CONTEMPORARY THINKING ABOUT THE "BEST SOCIETY".

•JOHN RAWLS (1921-2002)

•AN AMERICAN PHILOSOPHER, WAS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL POLITICAL THEORIST OF THE LATER 20TH CENTURY

•HIS 1971 BOOK, A THEORY OF JUSTICE, REDIRECTED DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IDEAL SOCIETY.

•HE USED THE IDEA OF SOCIETY AS AN AGREEMENT AMONG ITS MEMBERS IN A RADICALLY DIFFERENT FORM THAN IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUT FORTH.

• FOR RAWLS, AS FOR PLATO, THE IDEAL SOCIETY WOULD BE A JUST SOCIETY, FAIR TO ALL ITS MEMBERS. IN TRYING TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR THE IDEAL SOCIETY, RAWLS BEGAN WITH A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT CALLED THE ORIGINAL POSITION.

• IN THE ORIGINAL POSITION, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY THEY WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT POSITION IN SOCIETY THEY WOULD OCCUPY.

• THIS LACK OF KNOWING WHERE THEY WOULD BE IN SOCIETY IS KNOWN AS THE "VEIL OF IGNORANCE".

• THE DESIGNERS COULD END UP ANYWHERE IN THE NEW SOCIETY. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY COULD END UP IN THE RULING CLASS, OR THEY COULD END AS SOMEONE SEVERELY ILL, IN A HOSPITAL. THEY COULD HAVE A "NICE" JOB OR A "DIRTY" JOB. THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO KNOW.

• RAWLS ARGUED THAT PEOPLE WOULD DESIGN THE IDEAL SOCIETY BASED ON A DECISION-MAKING PRINCIPLE CALLED MAXIMIN (OR MINIMAX), WHICH INVOLVES MAXIMIZING THE MINIMUM BENEFIT YOU WOULD RECEIVE.

• THUS, IF THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE KEPT YOU FROM KNOWING WHAT YOU WOULD GET FROM THIS NEW SOCIETY, YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IN THE SOCIETY WAS TOO BADLY OFF, BECAUSE YOU COULD JUST BE THAT PERSON.

• USING MAXIMIN WOULD LEAD TO WHAT RAWLS CALLED THE LIBERTY PRINCIPLE, WHICH WOULD BE THAT THE IDEAL SOCIETY WOULD MAXIMIZE THE RIGHTS OF ALL ITS CITIZENS.

• IT WOULD LEAD AS WELL TO THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT, SO MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THE IDEAL SOCIETY WOULD ALLOW EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND MATERIAL WEALTH-NO ONE WOULD BE TERRIBLY ADVANTAGED OR DISADVANTAGED.

• RAWLS ARGUED THAT THE ORIGINAL POSITION, BASED ON THE MAXIMIN THEORY, WOULD RESULT IN A SOCIETY BASED ON THE NOTION OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS.

• HOWEVER, THE ORIGINAL POSITION IS JUST A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, AND THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE MERELY A HANDY DEVICE TO HELP US ENVISION WHAT THE HYPOTHETICAL JUST SOCIETY WOULD BE. TO PUT INTO PRACTICE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS SOCIETY THAT THE ORIGINAL POSITION HELPED REVEAL, RAWLS ARGUED THAT THE STATE MUST INTERVENE TO HELP THE DISADVANTAGED.

• THIS DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE WOULD SMOOTH OUT THE INEQUALITIES THAT OUR ACTUAL SOCIETY HAS AND LEAD TO GREATER FAIRNESS, IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE ORIGINAL POSITION REVEALED IS THE IDEAL SOCIETY.