– Political philosophy looks at the relationship between the individual and the state. Its chief concerns are the nature of political power, and the ways in which it is justified.
INTRODUCTION
The field of political philosophy examines how society, the state, the government, the judiciary, and the individual relate to one another. It seeks to understand the nature of political power – particularly the arguments that are used by states to justify their authority.
Like all branches of philosophy, political philosophy analyses arguments, particularly those that claim to be based on fact. For instance, it asks: what powers should the state have over its citizens, and what rights should its citizens retain? One answer might begin with a premise about human nature – that the powers of the state should be extensive, because, without it, humans would descend into civil war. Likewise, if human nature is assumed to be more co-operative, a different, less pessimistic argument can be built. These were the differences between the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
The key questions of political philosophy include: who should exercise political power – an individual (monarchy), an elite group (aristocracy), or the masses (democracy)? What is the basis of political obligation? What are property rights? And should existing political structures be conserved, allowing for gradual change, or should they be swept away in the name of justice? At the present time, democratic decisions have global repercussions, raising the question of whether democracy should be defended, and if not, what the alternatives might be. Present-day concerns include the inequalities of power- and wealth-distribution both within and between societies, many of which are based on class, race, or gender. Philosophers ask whether we can ever be objective in answering these questions, or whether our answers merely express our particular political leanings.
Some of these questions have a long history and were discussed even in Plato’s time; others are much more recent. Indeed, some questions once thought to have been settled have returned. For example, not so long-ago fascism was considered dead, permanently discredited by the horrors of the mid-20th century. However, depending on how we define the term, it may be back. How should we react? Other questions go even deeper. Today, some politicians claim that “objective truth” is a myth. They argue that there are no objective facts, only different ways of looking at the world, all of which are equally valid. They may argue, for example, that positions taken on the nature of climate change are all equally plausible. According to this idea, the truth is “tribal”, or local to specific communities.
Perhaps all questions of political philosophy reflect a concern with the events of the age. However, they all have a common root: they oblige us to examine the nature of objective truth, and to determine in what sense it differs from mere opinion.
WHO SHOULD RULE?
In the modern world, democracy – rule by the people – is widely considered to be the ideal form of government. However, in the past philosophers have sometimes championed rule by a monarch or an elite aristocratic group.
Finding legitimacy
Various defences have been made for rule by a minority group or a single individual. Ancient Greek and Roman rulers claimed to be descended from gods, or even named themselves deities. Plato made a more practical case for aristocracy (rule by the best) in the Republic. Disgusted by his mentor Socrates’ forced suicide after being convicted of impiety by a citizen jury, Plato argued that in a democracy, an uneducated electorate could be swayed into making bad decisions by populists. Therefore, only a group of wise, impartial philosophers could be trusted to rule sensibly.
Medieval philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, who asserted that government should reflect the heavenly order, put forward original theological justifications for monarchy (rule by an individual). This train of thought persisted into the 17th century, when Thomas Hobbes defended monarchy based on “natural law”, by which a monarch protects society from falling into chaos.
Forms of rule
Although they may seem unpalatable today, vigorous cases have been made for both monarchy and aristocracy. These arguments tend to favour stability and security over the protection of individual freedoms.
🔎 MONARCHY
Rule by a monarch has been variously justified due to its stability, divine origin, or basis in scripture.
Absolute rule – Hobbes argued for a monarchy in which all authority is invested in the “Leviathan” (the king). Such an individual cannot disagree with himself, whereas sharing power could lead to division and civil war.
Divine right – Some kings, such as Louis XIV of France, based their sovereignty on what the Bible says about Adam – and what it fails to say about the rule of the people.
God’s order – Aquinas believed that monarchy reflects God’s singular rule. It is checked by the aristocracy, which is drawn from the people, so it can still enjoy the representative benefits of a republic.
✔ PRINCIPLES FOR RULERS
Aristotle’s Politics (c.335 BCE) gives advice to all rulers.
. For the good of all Rulers must govern for the good of everyone, not according to their own interests. If not, monarchy falls into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and democracy into mob rule.
. By virtue Those who are most virtuous have the strongest claim to authority.
. Rule of law Whether monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, rulers must govern according to the law.
ARISTOCRACY
In the Republic (c.380 BCE), Plato calls for rule by an elite caste of philosopher kings and queens.
Rule by the best
Plato believed that aristocratic rule by a select group of philosophers was the only way to prevent a descent through four stages of government, ending in tyranny.
[1] Timocracy: those with private property and military honour dominate society.
[2] Oligarchy: the ruling class acts in its own interest, exploiting the poorest in society.
[3] Democracy: citizens abuse their freedom and pursue individual, conflicting wills.
[4] Tyranny: an absolute ruler suppresses the populace with a despotic state.
Philosopher kings/queens
Plato argued that the only fit rulers are philosophers because they were:
. Incorruptible by power, wealth, or prestige.
. Immune to poor arguments and deceits that fool the uneducated.
. Burdened by no greater care than the philosophical desire for the truth.
. Committed to careful deliberation.
JUSTIFYING ABSOLUTE RULE
Some philosophers have argued that political authority protects humans from a “state of nature” – a hypothetical scenario that contrasts unfavourably with civil society and government.
Perceptual conflict
In Leviathan (1651) Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) argued that, stripped of the veneer of civilisation, men were rational but driven by their natural self-interest and “appetites and aversions” to compete and conflict. Writing during the bloodshed and upheaval of the English Civil War, this might be a forgivable conclusion, but the state of nature Hobbes describes is terrifying: life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.
Hobbes argues for the necessity of a sovereign (an absolute ruler ominously titled “Leviathan”) who can bring order and peace, ending the state of perpetual war. Men, and women, named explicitly by Hobbes – agree a social contract to establish this authority figure, who alone has the power to prevent a return to a state of nature. Hobbes goes on to identify key features of the agreement to set up the civil state, and the reason to obey the government – the terrifying state of nature is the only alternative. Citizens must surrender virtually all their rights – to resist is destructive of the essence of government. The contract is permanent and cannot be revoked – citizens are subjects in perpetuity.
At a time when others argued for a divine right of kings, Hobbe’s justification for monarchy was unusual in that it was logical and reasoned, and controversial in assuming that there are rights in the state of nature.
Leviathan brings order
Hobbe’s argued that mankind’s existence in the state of nature is so brutal that peace is only possible under an absolute sovereign, whose protection enables society to flourish.
[1] Hobbe’s state of nature is a wild, uncivilised, and featureless land with no concept of time, law, society, industry, agriculture, property, or culture, and where no-one trusts anyone else.
[2] Violence, bloodshed, and perpetual struggle – a “war of all against all” – occur, since there is no law or authority figure to stop people seizing what they want by force.
[3] To end the violence, men and women surrender rights – namely the right to act as judge in their own cases – creating a “social contract” with a single authority figure. This “Leviathan” is outside the contract and is instituted in perpetuity over future subjects.
[4] Individuals surrender autonomy to the Leviathan, who keeps the peace, enforces the social contract, and prevents society from returning to a state of nature.
[5] To guarantee peace the Leviathan rules with absolute power – wielding the twin weapons of military and religious authority – and cannot be overthrown.
🔎 ARGUMENTS FOR ABSOLUTISM
. Parliamentary systems are inferior Due to their inherent instability, Hobbes settles on monarchy as the most stable form of state – a monarch cannot disagree with itself.
. Monarch needs absolute power to deter civil war The risk of a return to the state of nature is too great to allow citizens their rights.
. The social contract is irrevocable Citizens submit to absolute rule because peace under the Leviathan is preferable to anarchy and bloodshed in the state of nature.
GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE
Writing in the 17th century, John Locke developed a version of the “state of nature” and “social contract” to argue for a government that guarantees what he saw as God-given human rights.
Natural liberty
In contrast to Thomas Hobbes’s “state of nature”, that of John Locke (1632 – 1704) is one based on equality established by God, in which no-one has more power than another, and men are free. But while “it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of licence”. Its populace is rational and disinclined to harm others or to steal their possessions. Unlike Hobbes’s state of nature, Locke’s is a peaceful place in which people respect each other, and where respect for property claims is a key principle. It is emphatically not a state of civil war.
People in the state of nature each retain the “executive power of the law of nature” – the right to act as judges in their own cases – so Locke argues that it is helpful to appoint a civil government to deal with some issues, such as competing property rights. Any such government must respect rights: “No-one can be put out of his estate and subjected to the political power of another without his consent.”
Built on consent
In Locke’s theory, the government is founded with the consent of free, equal, propertied, rights-holding citizens, and must behave in accordance with their wishes. Its primary function is to preserve property.
[1] Men and women exist in a “state of nature”, and have God-given capacities for reason, cooperation, and holding property.
[2] Disputes about property may arise, although people are disinclined to harm or steal from one another in the state of nature.
[3] Men and women agree a social contract to form a government, which can adjudicate on the competing property claims of its citizens, guaranteeing their God-given rights. In doing so, they leave the state of nature.
[4] It is a limited, civil government, built on citizens’ consent and their inalienable rights to property and freedom of speech, religion, and rebellion.
[5] Citizens’ consent can be withdrawn – people have the right to overthrow the government if it is unjust and return to a state of nature, albeit temporarily.
Limited government
Locke argues for a limited government, asserting that citizens are obliged to obey the government because it is formed with and acts upon their consent. The only right people must surrender is the power to decide their own legal cases. Above all, the government’s chief end is the preservation of property. Crucially, the social contract that forms the government is revocable. Locke is no revolutionary, but he states that: “When law ends, tyranny begins, and when that is the case whosoever in authority may be opposed.”
Locke’s ideas underscored the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (against King James II of England) and were highly influential to Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence 100 years later.
“Revolt is the right of the people.” – John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1689)
🔎 BOUNDARIES OF STATE POWER
. All are subject to the rule of law In a civil society, “no man… can be exempted from its laws” – even monarchs, lawmakers, and political leaders.
. No absolute power or divine right of kings Monarchs are not invested with their sovereignty by God, and their power is defined, not unlimited.
. No coercion into “state” religion Individuals should have liberty regarding religion, which should not be “propagated by force of arms”.
. Majority rule The state must have the consent of a majority of the people, who retain the right to rebellion.
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asked what kind of government could preserve the benefits of society – such as property and law – while still allowing everyone to remain as free as before.
Humanity in chains
Like Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau (1712–78) based his theories on the idea of a “state of nature” and “social contract”. His state of nature is a place in which people are primarily happy and cooperative and can enjoy freedom. But under government, society becomes more unequal, the rich dominate the poor, and violence and insecurity become endemic. As Rousseau wrote: “Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains.”
Rousseau’s solution was controversial and obscure. He proposed that “each of us must put himself under the supreme direction of the General Will, in which every member is an indivisible part of the whole.” Rousseau gives no definition of this idea, but explains that it is not representative democracy, since law that has not been ratified by everyone is by definition void.
Forced to be free
Rousseau states that under the General Will everyone “will be forced to be free” and that “the citizen consents to all the laws, even to those that are passed against his will. The constant will of all the members of state is the General Will”. To avoid the danger of one particular group coming to dominate, Rousseau suggests that there should be no permanent political factions. This does not necessarily make Rosseau a totalitarian. On The Social Contract’s title page, he is described as a citizen of Geneva, a Swiss city-state that held all public votes in an open-air assembly, with no factions permitted. Resolutions emerged from public discussion and all citizens were therefore attached to the ultimate decision. As Rousseau acknowledges, this can only occur in small republics, so his concept of the General Will may perhaps be more appropriate for local councils than nation states.
“[In] the General Will… members are an indivisible part of the whole.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762
🔎 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Rational versus affective
Rousseau opposed the Enlightenment drive towards rationalism that dominated his age, believing that reason can corrupt man’s natural tendencies to freedom and happiness. Instead, he argued that feelings – the “affective” – should take priority. Pride in and love for community will lead to participation in the General Will.
From all and for all
Central to Rousseau’s notion of the General Will is that citizens are part of something bigger than themselves – a collective decision-making process – and closely bound to the community of which they are part.
[1] The General Will is created jointly by – and applies to – everyone. It comes from all and applies to all.
[2] It is expressed in the form of laws that are not intrusive, but instead protect individual freedoms.
[3] It benefits all people, since it aims at the common good, and protects everyone’s freedom and equality.
Popular sovereignty
There is no need for a sovereign or representatives in government – the people enact direct democracy themselves.
General Will
Voting as an assembly of citizens – free of political parties, social groupings, or factions – people exercise popular sovereignty.
Education
Citizens should be educated from an early age to nurture their natural good tendencies, further inclining them towards the General Will.
🔎 DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS
Direct democracy
In a direct democracy, every citizen votes on policy. It was first seen in ancient Athens in the c. 5th century BCE, when citizens voted on policy issues in a public square. For Rousseau, freedom means obedience to a law that we have had a direct hand in making.
Representative democracy
The most common modern democratic system, representative democracy involves citizens electing politicians to act as their representatives. Rousseau condemned this as a betrayal of power that the citizen alone should exercise.
HOW ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS JUSTIFIED?
In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke examined how property is acquired in a “state of nature”, and how rights to it are justified, protected, and passed on.
Property begins in a state of nature
Thomas Hobbes argued that property requires an agreement between people, which can only occur under the protection of a government. Locke disagreed, arguing that property is acquired in a “state of nature”. He believed the world was given by God to people in common, and that every person has property in themselves – literally possessing their own body – in their labour, and in what they produce. When a person works the land and has “mixed his labour with it… he thereby makes it his property”.
There is no limit to how much property can be acquired as long as each person “leaves enough and as good for others to follow him”, not taking more land than is necessary to provide for their own needs, producing more than can be consumed, or wasting the common stock. To avoid wastage, people may trade surplus perishables – such as plums – for goods that will keep – nuts, for instance – without violating the justice of the way property is first acquired. Perhaps controversially, Locke sees no injustice in trading produce for money. As the value of money is not based on labour or property, it allows for the accumulation of wealth and inequality. Also, Locke’s view that property claims are made by labouring the land implies that unclaimed land can be seized simply by working it, which could be seen as justification for colonialism.
Inheritance brings consent
Locke argued that by inheriting property, people tacitly consent to a government that they had no part in creating because they need that government to protect their property rights. In doing this they renew the “social contract” and confer legitimacy on the state. Locke’s argument may have been an attempt to deter regular elections, which risked upsetting property allocation.
Renewing the social contract
[1] People “mix” their labour with the land, thereby staking a property claim.
[2] People agree a social contract, creating a government that protects their property claims.
[3] Individuals take from the “common stock” what they need to survive but may also trade surplus goods.
[4] Money and excess goods are exchanged, even if it leads to imbalances in wealth.
[5] Property is passed on by inheritance, renewing the social contract and legitimising the government.
Flaws in Locke’s theory
Locke’s justification of property runs into problems on several counts. He is unclear on how much labour is required to claim a property, and what constitutes labour itself. For instance, if an astronaut grows carrots on Mars, has labour been mixed with the whole planet, or just a part of it? Is it sufficient to fence off a property, or does this simply lay claim to the strip of land on which the fence stands? If someone owns tomato juice and pours it into the sea, do they own the sea?
🔎 UTILITARIANS AND PROPERTY
Utilitarian philosophers justify property and wealth not through how they are acquired and exchanged, but by whether their distribution produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. For instance, a utilitarian might argue for a progressive income tax, since the financial pain to higher-rate taxpayers is outweighed by the benefits that the majority of people receive from public services that the government can fund with tax revenue.
CONSENT AND OBLIGATION
In a democracy, government rests on the consent of the governed, but the source of this consent and the obligation it confers upon the citizens of a state have implications for the nature of government.
Why should we obey?
Thomas Hobbes thought that our obligation to obey the government derives from our desire to prevent a return to a “state of nature”, which was so unpleasant that no abuse of power by the state could be worse. John Locke offered the alternative view that we are bound to obey the state by consenting to its creation through a “social contract”. However, most people are born into a society with a pre-existing contract and so have no chance to object to it. Locke argued that consent can be given tacitly as well as explicitly – using government services, inheriting property, or travelling freely on the highway may amount to giving tacit consent.
This is a much-debated idea. A passive act such as inheriting property does not appear to signal approval for the government or generate an obligation to obey it. However, Locke avoids the question of re-opening the social contract for every new generation.
Explicit consent
The issue of consent was revisited in Nozick’s 1974 work Anarchy, State, and Utopia. As part of an argument in favour of a libertarian society, he introduced a thought experiment in which local residents find a broadcast system and decide to start a public entertainment service. Each person runs the station for a day. Nozick questions whether, after enjoying listening to the music and stories for months, residents are obliged to participate.
Nozick’s answer is unequivocal: “surely not”. He argues that giving a benefit to someone who has had no say in its creation cannot create an obligation. Nozick thus rejects Locke’s argument that inheriting property, travelling on a highway, or receiving any other unsolicited benefit can generate obligation. Tacit consent of a government does not create the obligation to obey it – only explicit consent can do so. For the libertarian Nozick, tacit consent therefore provides no justification for any more than the most minimal of governments.
“One cannot just… give people benefits and expect an obligation in return.” – Robert Nozick
Participation and obligation
In Robert Nozick’s hypothetical scenario, your neighbourhood benefits from a community-run broadcast service. You are given no choice in the matter but are expected to host the station for a day. Are you obliged to comply?
PUBLIC BROADCAST CENTRE
[1] A community broadcast service is hosted by a different person in your neighbourhood every day, playing a variety of programmes.
[2] A list of names is posted to cover 365 days of the year. Your name appears on the list.
[3] A succession of hosts play music, tell stories, and give news items over a period of 138 days. You listen freely and benefit from the time given voluntarily by neighbours.
[4] When it comes to your turn, does the fact you have enjoyed listening to the service – thereby tacitly consenting to it – oblige you to follow suit?
✔ ELECTORAL CONSENT
To the modern eye, there is a neat solution to Locke’s reluctance to re-open the social contract for each generation: through the ballot box. In modern democracies, elections confer citizens’ consent upon the government and generate the individual’s obligation to obey. However, it might be argued that at elections citizens only choose the make-up of a government, rather than give consent to its form.
By voting regularly in elections, citizens consent to being governed and reaffirm the social contract.
WHAT RIGHTS SHOULD PEOPLE ENJOY?
Most democracies guarantee their citizens a wide range of freedoms. One simple principle for deciding which rights states permit was put forward by the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill.
Accommodating views
Mill (1806–73) rejected the idea of democratically determined systems of rights, fearing a tyranny of the majority that represses those with minority views. Instead, he argued for extensive rights, determined by the “Principle of Harm”, which asserts that limits should only be applied to freedoms that might harm others or cause a restriction in their rights and freedoms. This liberal idea permits freedom of expression and religion and includes the right to consensual sex with a partner, among other things.
Mill was writing at a time when religious persecution was a recent memory, and homosexuality was illegal. But his principle clearly defends any right or view – no matter how minority it is – so long as no-one affected is harmed.
Principle of Harm
In Mill’s “marketplace of ideas” people are welcome to express any view that does not cause harm. If a true view is suppressed, people lose the chance to exchange an erroneous viewpoint for truth. If a false view is suppressed, individuals are denied the opportunity to challenge or reaffirm an opinion they had considered true. However, it is possible that some freedoms that do not appear harmful may inadvertently cause or enable the hurting of others.
The right to offend
For Mill, the act of causing offence does not constitute “harm”; he expected points of view to be robust. However, this raises the question of hate-speech and acts of racial provocation, and whether we should have the right to be gratuitously offensive to vulnerable groups. Even if we do not share in the offence, we can often see that the harm is genuine.
How far to tolerate the views of the intolerant – such as authoritarian extremists who would have no compunction in bringing all rights to an end – is a classic liberal dilemma. Some draw a line between views advocated as doctrine and views expressed in order to incite action that could cause measurable harm. But this neat distinction may fail to prevent harm in practical situations.
Marketplace of ideas
. Damaging Ideas – The only rights and beliefs that should be excluded from the marketplace of ideas are those that may cause harm to others.
. Excess Liberty – The marketplace of ideas is itself a contested notion. The right to express a false view – such as shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre – could have unintended consequences.
. Freedom of Speech – What happens if fascists use freedom of speech for their own ends, such as curbing freedoms?
. Freedom of Choice – If brown shoes sell the most, is freedom of choice harming producers of black shoe polish?
. Freedom of Religion – Should religious tolerance include all beliefs, even those that persecute other faiths?
“All ideas need to be heard, because each idea contains one aspect of the truth.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
🔎 SELF-REGARDING ACTIONS
The Principle of Harm applies to views and actions that affect other people, but Mill does not reveal his view of self-regarding actions, which affect only oneself. In principle, actions that only affect the individual can cause no harm to others and appear to be protected by the Principle of Harm. However, even private acts have the potential to do public harm. For instance, since it does no harm to regularly drink alcohol to excess in private at home, it could be claimed that this right is protected by the Harm Principle. However, if the majority of the population exercised this right, there could be a significant negative effect on society. Again, the question of harm arises, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when this harm, or the potential for harm, is reached.
KINDS OF LIBERTY
In the 20th century philosophers and politicians, redefined the traditional notion of liberty, stressing that freedom has both positive and negative meanings.
Defining freedom
Modern thinking about liberty has moved beyond Mill’s definition of liberty as simply a lack of constraint on individuals. In the 20th century, politicians such as Franklin D. Roosevelt in the US and William Beveridge in Britain, as well as the Russian-British philosopher Isaiah Berlin, identified various problems with this idea. In his essay Two Concepts of Freedom, Berlin argued that, if pursued to its logical conclusion, liberty as a lack of constrain (that is, freedom to act, speak, and to join associations without coercion from authorities) can easily become illiberal. As he wrote: “Men are largely interdependent, and no man’s activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others”. In other words, one man’s liberty can also be another man’s impoverishment – or, as Berlin puts it: “Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow”. Freedom of expression, for example, can lead to hate speech, and so to the demonisation of minorities.
Berlin’s point is that “freedom” is a complex subject, and that in political discussion it frequently leads to confusion. To help matters, he distinguishes between “positive freedom” (freedom to live one’s life) and “negative freedom” (freedom from constraint). He argued that a liberal society is one in which both aspects of liberty should be satisfied, which inevitably leads to compromise.
The limits of liberty
Philosophers have since argued that although negative freedom may be a necessary condition for liberty, it is not sufficient to guarantee it. The reason for this is that freedom of expression, for example, is worthless to people who are half-naked, illiterate, or starving. As the US Senator Henry Cabot Lodge once wrote: “A hungry man is more interested in sandwiches than freedoms”. Philosophers have thus balanced freedom from constraint with other kinds of freedom – such as freedom from squalor, want, and disease. Such freedoms are effectively entitlements (to food, shelter, and so on), which require that others in society provide them.
A government may enforce this by raising taxes, which some may see as an infringement of liberty. Immanuel Kant described such intervention as “the greatest despotism imaginable”, which may sound exaggerated to modern ears. However, such measures could justifiably be called authoritarian, and will always be argued by some to be illiberal.
✔ NEED TO KNOW
. Positive freedom is freedom to live one’s life without social and economic insecurity – specifically freedom from coercion by the state and other individuals.
. Negative freedom is freedom from constraints – particularly freedom from abject poverty.
. Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed his “four freedoms” only months before the Japanese Navy Air Service bombed Pearl Harbour – an event that highlighted the need for a right to be free from fear.
Four freedoms
In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed “four freedoms” that everyone in the world should enjoy. These included two positive liberties – freedom of speech and freedom of worship – and two negative liberties – freedom from poverty and freedom from fear (specifically fear of military aggression). Each type of liberty is insufficient in itself and needs to be balanced by the other.
Positive liberty – Positive freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of worship, ensure that individuals can speak and practise religion without being obstructed by the state or other individuals.
Negative liberty – Negative freedoms, such as freedom from fear and freedom from want, provide the context in which a meaningful life can be lived. Freedom of worship, for example, is of little value to someone who is starving.
SHOULD RIGHTS BE LIMITED?
Some philosophers argue that the rights of individuals, or even those of minority groups, should be limited when they come into conflict with the security and stability of society as a whole.
Extensive rights
People in Western democracies enjoy more rights than ever before. Many countries now guarantee full suffrage, protection against discrimination, freedom of speech, reproductive rights, the right to form groups such as trade unions, legal processes that ensure that the accused are treated fairly, and legal protections for the vulnerable. But are there grounds for limiting these rights? Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Those who would give up liberty to purchase a little safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,” but some philosophers argue that to counter global threats, such as terrorism, people should sacrifice some of their rights in the interests of the wider community.
Justifiable limits
Thomas Hobbes argued that to enjoy the benefits of the state citizens must surrender their rights. He believed that limiting the rights of individuals was the only way to impose order, and that a failure to do so would lead to civil war in what he called a “state of nature”.
A classic philosophical example of individual rights threatening public security is when someone exercises their right to free speech by shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. It could be argued that the potentially dangerous consequences for members of the public justify limiting this right to free speech.
Degrees of freedom
In practice, most people would reject the extremes of strictly limited rights (authoritarianism) and few or no limits to rights (libertarianism or anarchism). In real-world politics, curbs to freedoms can only be justified in the interests of the majority, but the specifics of those interests can be controversial. For example, many countries have restricted the right to freedom of speech by introducing laws against hate speech, but what gives offence to some may be regarded as harmless by others.
The need for national security, particularly when many countries face a genuine threat of terrorism, might also override the rights of expression, privacy, and protest. Mass migration has made most developed countries increasingly multicultural, meaning that the right to free expression of religious and cultural practice also needs to be handled carefully. Liberal culturalists recommend an inclusive, permissive approach, whereas nostalgic communitarians argue that minorities should conform to the dominant cultural norms of the society they live in.
Striking a balance between limited rights and limitless rights
When deciding whether – and where – to place limits on people’s rights, governments must balance individual freedoms against collective responsibilities within a framework of what society deems acceptable.
[1] Shackling individual rights – Authoritarian governments are primarily concerned with protecting the state and preserving order. They tend to place heavy limits on the rights of citizens in order to maintain the regime and to protect themselves against criticism or challenge.
[2] Acting in the national interest – Many states justify the limiting of individual rights in the national interest. These states may, for example, seek to override privacy rights by extending powers of surveillance, or ignore human rights by using torture in interrogations.
[3] Protecting minority rights – Social changes have created increasingly diverse societies. A communitarian view suggests that rights should be kept broadly in line with the values and norms of the majority, while a liberal culturalist position aims to protect minority rights.
[4] Dismantling limits on rights – Libertarians argue that people are rational enough to be self-governing and believe that state powers should be as limited as much as possible. Anarchists believe that there should be no limits to human rights, and that no-one has dominion over another.
“Freedom of speech is a central pillar of a free government.” – Benjamin Franklin, On Freedom of Speech and the Press (1737)
✔ NEED TO KNOW
. Liberal culturalists advocate protecting the identities and needs of minority groups.
. Communitarians emphasise the role of the community in defining and shaping moral concepts.
. Libertarians argue for a smaller state and greater personal liberty.
. Anarchists believe that people should live free of government.
HOW SHOULD WE MANAGE CHANGE?
Political philosophy explores how to improve society and how change should be introduced. Edmund Burke and Karl Marx offered contrasting arguments for both steady reform from above, and radical revolution from below.
To conserve or overthrow
Although it might be assumed that a conservative approach to the question of change would be to resist it entirely, this is not exactly how most conservatives think. As Burke wrote in his classic defence of conservatism Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), “a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.” Burke believed respect for institutions and traditions – “prejudices”, as he called it – holds society together. Change is introduced by the elite, and occurs slowly, steadily, and in the best interests of society as a whole.
Proponents of radical change argue instead that institutions serve elites who are unlikely to permit change that might erode their position. The only way to achieve change is through wholesale revolution.
MEASURED CHANGE FROM ABOVE
Burke (1729–97) commended inherited governance – for instance, the British system of the crown, peerage, and inherited privileges – because it combines the principle of conservation with the possibility of improvement and change. In his view, the stability of a society is guaranteed by respect for institutions, which are justified by their longevity and their contribution to society in the past. A people “will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors”. Subversion of the state is no way to bring about reform; any change must be gradual and carry forward the tried and tested features that are known to work. In Burke’s words, “Such a mode of reforming might take many years… Circumspection and caution are part of wisdom.”
Conservative views of change
. Society can be understood as a contract between the living, their ancestors, and those not yet born.
. The glue of society are the sentiments or affections for its established constitution, processes, or institutions.
. Reform of the state should occur incrementally and slowly, not upsetting its existing structure and traditions.
. The privileged elite are the agents of change, overseeing improvements, such as state-sponsored education and democratic reform, which benefit society as a whole.
REVOLUTION FROM BELOW
Karl Marx (1818–83) called for a more radical form of change. In his many works, he claimed that history is marked by repeating cycles of class conflict. He argued that in capitalist societies, the state is simply an executive committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie, the predominant controlling (middle) class. In his view, this social group will not allow gradual change to challenge its position of power. Marx saw socialist revolution as an inevitable event – the product of increasing exploitation of the proletariat (working) class, who are pressed into ever-more degrading and unfulfilling work. He regraded these working-class revolutionaries as vanguards of a new society, ushering in an era of new social relations between people.
Revolutionary views of change
. Human history is best characterised as a continuing process of class struggle, driven by inequality between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
. Change to this cycle will be effected through a socialist uprising of workers, who will overthrow the old order and establish a new form of society.
. The workers are at the forefront of the new social order, claiming what is rightfully theirs and collectively bringing about a more egalitarian, communist system.
IDEOLOGIES IN PRACTICE
Conservative shortcomings
Burke’s model allows a considered pace of change but relies on the elite to recognise and bring about necessary reforms. However, where those changes might impact on the interests of the elite, change often stalls as a result.
Left-wing thinkers argue that rather than being a source of benevolent change, the state remains a mechanism for serving the interests of the elite – and that the working classes still labour in unpleasant employment, with few workers’ rights, more than a century after Marx first championed their cause. In reality, it is hard to see how Burke’s defence of the status quo and its mechanisms for reproducing itself can allow change, and Burke offers few practical examples of how it might do so.
Revolutionary flaws
Marx’s model of revolutionary change involves the wholesale dismantling of society. This carries the risk foreseen by Burke: that we cannot anticipate or control what happens after the moorings of society have been cut.
Although it predated Marxism by a century, the popular uprising of the French Revolution ended with Napoleon Bonaparte’s militaristic rule. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was directly inspired by Marxist thought and was followed by the brutal repression of Stalin’s communism. Neither outcome was what most of the revolutionaries had hoped for. The end result in both cases supports the charge that revolutionary change is too often followed by a vacuum filled by tyrannical regimes.
TO WORK IS HUMAN NATURE
The philosopher Karl Marx believed that people are inclined to work cooperatively and creatively, but that this natural tendency is exploited by the capitalist system.
Understanding humanity
Marx’s view of human nature and the role of the state was markedly different from his predecessors. Thomas Hobbes, for instance, considered human nature to be competitive, selfish, and aggressive, in need of a strong government that could prevent civil war. John Locke, meanwhile, had a more generous view. Like Marx, he saw men and women as naturally cooperative, but he argued for a government to safeguard certain natural rights.
For Marx, human nature – which he termed “species character” – is to work – to collectively, socially, and creatively produce an outcome or item that belongs to the worker. This product is an externalisation of the worker’s character, so the act of creating it through work is inherently satisfying. Governments, however, deny people this “natural condition” – the liberty and ability to express their human nature.
Capitalist exploitation
Marx believed that the entire capitalist economic system – of which the political superstructure is merely the most visible part – oppresses workers in order to maximise profit. For Marx, the nature of most people’s work in the capitalist system is not fulfilling.
Because of the division of labour, to increase efficiency, workers are more specialised and distanced from the finished product. As the development of capitalism accelerates, the workers become progressively more alienated from their activity, its output, and the people around them, degrading the social aspect of work. Workers no longer freely cooperate to produce something satisfying but must instead compete for employment.
Labour as commodity
Under capitalism, workers possess only their labour – which effectively becomes a commodity – not the product itself. What they make is no longer theirs but belongs to capitalists. The harder they work, the more profit is made for their employers, who demand higher productivity, requiring yet more labour from the workers.
Marx’s labour theory
Marx believed that the capitalist method of production alienates workers from the process and product of their work and from their fellows, with whom they no longer freely cooperate, but must compete with for employment.
Labourers and capitalists
In Marx’s view, the workers receive little reward or fulfilment for their labours, while their capitalist bosses grow wealthy.
State control
Under capitalism, the state uses powers of force and coercion such as the police to ensure that workers accept their position submissively.
Enslaved by products
Workers become victims of “commodity fetishism” – the more they put into their labour, the more they feel enthralled by the products they create.
“The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.” – Karl Marx
🔎 OVERTHROWING REPRESSION
To keep the capitalist system in place requires a political superstructure – the state – with the power to ensure that workers submissively accept their position. The state has the ability to subdue workers by manipulating the media, public bodies, or prominent spokespersons to create a “false consciousness”, such as the belief that capitalism is good, or that it cannot be replaced by anything better. Should the persuasive abilities of the state falter, it has other powers of imprisonment, coercion, and force.
Marx advocates the overthrow of the capitalist system and the states that support it so that work can once again be a freely undertaken, social, and expressive activity. The state will lose its class character, and no longer be an instrument of class domination. Ultimately, it will wither away to serving a solely administrative function. Marx joins many anarchists in thinking that in an ideal world, the state should be minimal or abolished altogether.
MAKING MORE OBJECTIVE POLITICAL DECISIONS
Most people approach political questions – such as who to vote for, or what policies to support – from their own subjective viewpoint. However, some philosophers have proposed more objective ways of answering political questions.
Claiming objectivity
People often judge political ideas by what they stand to gain from them: they ask “is it good for me?” rather than “is this party or policy good for everyone?”. The disadvantaged may want to transform the political system, but privileged groups – those with decisive political power – are less likely to welcome change.
Karl Marx thought his philosophy was objective, since he thought communism was in the interests of the vast majority of people and felt that even those who stood to lose would understand once they saw that the new order was an “association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”. With its central tenet “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”, utilitarianism also claims objectivity, arguing that individuals whose interests are not served by a policy can take comfort in the fact that it should still please the majority.
John Rawls (1921–2002) proposes an alternative form of objectivity. He asks us to imagine ourselves in an “Original Position” – a hypothetical situation before society has been created, when the distribution of wealth and property has yet to be made. Behind this “veil of ignorance”, we cannot know our eventual place in the social or economic hierarchy. Nor do we know what our “natural assets” – our abilities and strengths in relation to others – will be, nor our gender or ethnicity. Rawls asks: if we were behind this “veil”, what principles of justice would we choose for our society, and what wealth distribution we would favour? He suggests that we would decide on two principles: the Liberty Principle and the Difference Principle.
Maximise the minimum
Rawls believes that we would “maximise the minimum”, ensuring that the least well-off in society are not badly disadvantaged – precisely because, on lifting the “veil”, we might find ourselves in this group. Rawls argues that this would result in a fairer distribution of wealth and resources. Rawls’s argument makes a case for distributive justice. His thought experiment is an appeal to something beyond our subjective positions on justice. It is an attempt to arrive at a set of ideals that most people would subscribe to and give personal political decision-making a sound philosophical basis.
“Justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.” – John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)
Sharing liberty and wealth
In Rawls’ Original Position, the veil of ignorance prevents people from knowing their relative wealth, social standing, or natural assets. Rawls believes that in this position individuals act in the interest of all in society, choosing principles of justice that ensure that liberty and wealth are distributed fairly.
[1] I want to be free
[2] I should maximise my chances of a good life
[3] I don’t know where I stand in the social hierarchy
[4] I must do all I can to stay off the bottom of the economic order
[5] I don’t know where I might end up in an unequal society, so I should make society as equal as possible
🔎 RAWL’S PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
Rawls suggests that in an imagined Original Position we would most probably use two principles to create just social and economic conditions: the Liberty Principle and the Difference Principle.
Liberty Principle
The Liberty Principle would advocate equal rights to an extensive system of basic liberties.
. Freedom of conscience to hold beliefs and views as we choose.
. Freedom of association to gather with others in public or private.
. Freedom of expression to convey opinions freely without fear of censure.
. Personal property – the right to own private property.
. Democracy – the freedom to exercise the right to vote.
Difference Principle
The Difference Principle would allow social or economic inequalities only on the basis of certain conditions.
. Inequality should benefit the poorest, so that any imbalance in wealth and opportunity positively affects those who have less.
. Anyone can increase their wealth, regardless of social standing, because wealth is attached to positions of power that are open to all.
PERSPECTIVISM AND POLITICS
Some philosophers have argued that perspectivism – the view that objective truth does not exist – can help us reach a consensus. For others, perspectivism risks making us ignore expert opinions.
Subjective truths
Friedrich Nietzsche was the first to develop a version of perspective philosophy, arguing that there is no objective truth, only subjective interpretations that are all equally valid. This view was revived in the latter part of the 20th century when several philosophers, including Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924–98), reached similar conclusions to Nietzsche. In The Post-Modern Condition, Lyotard discredited what he calls Grand Narratives – attempts at any broad sweeping narrative that claims to offer a single true account of history or civilisation. He said that these Grand Narratives all claim to have at their centre a Truth (with a capital T), which we should reject, and instead view the world in terms of little narratives, each based around a particular context, and all equally valid.
In Contingency, Irony, Solidarity, Richard Rorty (1931 – 2007) argued that we should “look after freedom, and truth will look after itself”. He believed that a broad consensus of subjective truth is preferable to a sole, predefined objective truth. For Rorty, reaching this consensus enables us to have a greater, better-educated involvement in making political choices.
Objective truth is dead
Nietzsche’s perspectivism was a reaction against religion and Enlightenment ideals such as emancipation and progress. For Nietzsche, these ideals demanded the same moral standards from everyone without considering their individual perspectives. Lyotard also rejected Enlightenment ideals, science, and religion, seeing these as old-fashioned, oppressive Grand Narratives. Richard Rorty dismissed the idea of absolute objective truths, arguing that instead we should listen to each other and embrace the idea that truths can be expressed in different ways.
✔ THE DANGERS OF PERSECTIVISM
Many commentators believe that Rorty’s view of individuals respecting each other’s opinions and reaching a consensus of subjective truth is overly optimistic, and that perspectivism actually has dangerous implications for politics. In the absence of objective truth, individuals lose the ability to make good historical and electoral judgements. If there are no objective reference points, individuals may choose the message that suits them and believe their own interpretation of events, becoming further entrenched in their own point of view. This makes them less likely to listen to expert opinions or expose themselves to views that challenge their own. They may therefore make poor electoral choices based on insufficient information or populist appeals to simplistic solutions.
Perspectivism may also undermine political philosophy itself – without objective truth, there can be no ideal standards to aspire to. Furthermore, perspectivism is philosophically self-defeating. It claims that all points of view are equally valid, but perspectivism itself is just a point of view. It cannot assert itself as being more valid than other views.
OBJECTIVE TRUTH
1880s… Nietzsche: There is no such thing as objective truth. There are only subjective, individual perspectives.
“There are no facts, only interpretations.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
1979… Lyotard: We should aim to see the world by means of little narratives, not in terms of broad, all-encompassing truths.
1989… Rorty: Arriving at broadly held positions through democratic discussion is more important than truth as an end in itself.
A JUST WAR?
For centuries, political philosophers have debated the idea of whether war can ever be justified on a moral or religious basis, and if there is a moral way to fight or behave during warfare.
War and morality
Can war ever be justified? How can it be justified? How should it be conducted? Just war theory addresses these three fundamental questions about war. It mainly originated in the thinking of Christian theologians such as St Augustine (in The City of God) and Thomas Aquinas (in Summa Theologica), who asked if war and bloodshed could ever be squared with morality and Christian faith.
Aquinas argued that an act of war should be a last resort, after all peaceful means of resolving a dispute between nations have been exhausted. An act of war should also have a justifiable cause. Finally, a just war should be winnable because it would be wrong to cause suffering and death with no chance of success.
In addition to these criteria for judging whether and how war can be justified (jus ad bellum), Aquinas provided a set of principles for how war should be conducted (jus in bello). The harm caused by war should not outweigh any potential gains from it; there should be a distinction between combatants and civilians; and the losers of the war should not be humiliated.
These principles offer a set of criteria by which a political power or a combatant can judge a war that they might declare or take part in, or a critic or historian can make retrospective judgements about whether it was right to go to war.
Modern views on war
Just war theory has faced challenges over the last century from the opposing philosophies of pacifism and realism. Pacifists reject war wherever possible, the most extreme pacifist view being that war is never justified. Realists argue that morality has no place in the judgements of conflicts and that war should instead be judged according to the national interest.
“We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace.” – St Augustine
Pacifism and realism
Some versions of both pacifism and realism are more extreme than others. The most extreme pacifists believe that war is always morally wrong; the most extreme realists believe that we can never make moral judgements about war. However, moderate pacifists argue that wars of self-defence are justified. Moderate realists broadly accept just war theory.
Pacifism ↔ Realism
Total non-violence –The most committed pacifists believe that all wars are violent and therefore can never be justified.
Limited engagement – Many pacifists argue that reaction to aggression must be limited and non-violent, if possible.
Self-defence – Some pacifists argue that wars of self-defence are necessary and acceptable.
Abandon principles according to necessity – Some realists accept the principles of just war theory, but would abandon these principles under certain conditions.
Intensifying conflict – If conflicts intensify, many realists argue that even civilians become expendable in the cause of winning the war and ultimately saving more lives.
War cannot be judged by morality – For some realists, abstract principles of morality should not stop people from going to war if war is the most practical option.
✔ APPLYING JUST WAR PRINCIPLES
. Geneva Conventions These set out the international rules for the conduct of war, including rights for prisoners of war and the protection of civilians.
. UN Charter This says that member states may only go to war as a means of self-defence, or to maintain international security when all other options for resolving conflict have been exhausted.
. War Crimes These are dealt with by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and are judged according to just war principles.
WOMEN AND PATRIARCHY
All feminists believe that women should have the same rights as men, but many still debate the best way to achieve this when men hold most of the power.
The patriarchy problem
Patriarchy is a social system in which men are more powerful than women, and women struggle to gain the same employment and political rights as men. It is prevalent both in the workplace and the home, with women still expected to be largely responsible for domestic chores and childcare. The feminist movement aims to dismantle patriarchy and bring about equality between men and women. But feminists do not all agree on what the most effective way of dismantling patriarchy might be.
What can feminists do?
One of the first feminist tracts was A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) by Mary Wollstonecraft. In it, she argues that society is patriarchal because women have been taught to accept their submission to men, and that re-educating women is therefore one way to create a fairer and more equal society. The philosopher and liberal politician John Stuart Mill supported equal rights for women, but argued that men, as well as women, needed to be educated to question patriarchy.
However, education on its own has not been enough to dismantle patriarchy, which is still very much in evidence today. Some feminists propose more controversial methods of combatting patriarchy, such as positive discrimination in the workplace. Even more controversially, the sociologist Catherine Hakim suggests that in order to survive within a patriarchal system, women should use their erotic appeal to gain advantage over men.
Treatments
There are advantages and disadvantages to many of the proposed ways to dismantle patriarchy. Education is still important, but it has failed to completely solve the problem. Positive discrimination is a means of correcting the legacy of workplace discrimination against women. However, it is still discrimination, and appointing a woman over a better-qualified male candidate could stigmatise her or leave her feeling patronised. Many people would argue that self-criticism is vital for anyone who wants to combat patriarchy. If women are self-critical, they are more likely to question the ways in which they have been conditioned to submit to men. If men are self-critical, they will be able to discern their privilege and be more emphatic towards women.
Antidotes
. Self Re-Education: Girls and women should be taught not to accept their submission to men.
. Public Education: Educating women alone is not enough. Men must be taught to accept women as their equals.
. Positive Discrimination: There should be preferential hiring, higher pay, and generous admissions policies for women.
“Strengthen the female mind, and there will be an end to blind obedience.” – Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)
Aspects of patriarchy: Glass ceiling – Gender pay gap – Patriarchal accounts of history – Male-dominated religion – Institutional sexism – Sexual harassment – Objectification of women
🔎 FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY
Before the rise of the women’s movement in the 1960s and ‘70s, philosophy itself was patriarchal, with the vast majority of philosophical arguments put forward by men. Feminist philosophy addresses this problem by asking three main questions:
. The role of gender What role has gender played in the formation of traditional philosophical problems and concepts?
. Bias How does traditional philosophy reflect and reinforce bias against women?
. Equality What is the best way to defend philosophical concepts and theories that presume women’s equality?
This concludes the narrative for the page ‘Political Philosophy’. Amendments to the above entries may be made in the future.
Arts, reviews & current affairs 