SUMMARY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Anarchism

Q. Is there a conceptual contradiction in Anarchism as a political movement? Discuss with particular reference to the relationship between anarchism and authority.  2015

Q. How valid is the anarchist’s claim that the existence of government implies the subjection of the non-invasive individual to an external will? Answer with reference to the ideas of a philosopher you have studied.  2014

Outline: What is anarchism? Philosophers associated with anarchism and their position. Anarchism and authority. Any contradiction?  Government and the subjection to external will. Argument for Anarchism. General criticisms of Anarchism.

What is Anarchism?

From the etymology, anarchy refers to a situation of no rule. Anarchism is a political theory that advocates the resistance of all forms of control and authority; it rejects the need for government in society and promotes its elimination. It is a term used to refer to a socio-political doctrine that promotes the abolishing of the state and social means of exercise, a society without government. Anarchists detest all forms authority precisely because it destroys personal freedom, and thus detrimental to all social and economic equality. They believe that man and society would grow and develop in a situation where human freedom is promoted. For them, government is the source of most of society’s problems. They do not reject society, only the government. They reject the government because it is a symbol and instrument of authority. They however propose a closely-knit fabric of voluntary organization, where order is maintained by co-operative voluntary relationships.

            Several philosophers are associated with anarchism; they include Robert Wolff, William Godwin, Joseph Pierre Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, etc. Our emphasis shall be on the first because he is the philosopher we have studied.

Robert Wolff and Anarchism      The controversy between Autonomy and Authority

            In his book, In Defence of Anarchism, Robert Wolff examined the concept of anarchism basing it on Kant’s moral philosophy. He examined whether the state has the right-authority to command its citizens and whether the citizens have obligation to obey the commands of a state. He argues that there is no state where the citizens have such obligations. He notes that man, being a rational being, has the freedom to choose from alternatives. This freedom however comes with responsibility. Man thus has the sole responsibility for acting and from refraining from acting. Nobody takes decisions for him, he is free, he is autonomous. This similar to Kant’s position, which states that it the true nature of man to be autonomous, that is, not to be subject to any authority and to be free from any external control in one’s decision making. Even when it seems that an autonomous man is obeying somebody else’s command, what is really happening is that this man merely listens to the person’s advice and can choose to accept the advice or not. Ultimately, the final decision to act or not to act rests with the autonomous man. Simply put, the autonomous man can do what someone tells him to do, but not because they tell him to do it. More so, Wolff would seem to be arguing that since moral autonomy prohibits man from obeying any law not made by him, nobody has any obligation to the state; this would mean that no state authority is legitimate. Wolff examined three models of a dem0ocratic organization in a bid to see if in any such models authority can be considered legitimate. The Unanimous direct democracy model is impossible because just one dissenter renders the system illegitimate. The Representative democratic model is faulty because it does not involve all the people in decision making. Also, the Majoritarian democracy is inadequate because majority does not imply everyone; some people still do not partake in making the laws. He also dismisses the social contact position because it is nothing but a rule of the majority or the powerful. This would eventually lead Wolff to proffer an anarchist society, a society on a co-operative basis and on a small scale. It will be a decentralized society without any centralized authority.

Any contradiction?

Flight from authority is itself flight to authority. Anarchism would propose a situation where there is no state authority. It would also opt for co-operative like but small society. Some persons are required to maintain this co-operative on behalf of the others;. This would amount to placing some sort of authority in the hands of the few individuals. Eventually, the anarchist’s position would lead ti what he sets out to counteract.

 Government and the subjection to external will

This question can be approached by examining what and how the anarchists conceive power, authority and autonomy.

Argument for Anarchism

v  Mankind is born free. But if mankind is born free then slavery is murder. If slavery is murder, so property is theft.  If property is theft, Government is tyranny, and id Government is tyranny, then Anarchy is liberty.

1.It is philosophically justified 2. It is the natural form of human society 3. It is psychologically healthy 4.

Arguments against Anarchism

1.      The authority of a state does not go contrary to the freedom of the citizens. In fact, an authority is properly so called because it promotes the freedom of the people.  

2.      Some argue that a law is a law to the extent that it has moral obligations, thus not obeying a law is morally wrong.

3.      The assertion of a conflict between authority and autonomy is exaggerated. This sis an individual can choose to either obey or not, he is not compelled whatsoever.

4.      Flight from authority is but flight to authority

Sovereignty and Civil Disobedience

“We know through painful experiences that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed” Evaluate the concept of civil disobedience as a tool for social change in the light of this quote. 2015

Outline: Introduction, What is sovereignty? Characteristics of sovereignty. Theories of sovereignty. Types of sovereignty. What is civil disobedience? Characteristics of civil disobedience. Justification for civil disobedience. Sovereignty and civil disobedience in Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

Introduction: A state is properly so called to the extent that he has the ability to make and enforce laws. Every member of the state is, to the extent that he remains a member of the state, expected to obey the laws of the state. Is this always the case? Are there occasions where the laws of the state are not and should not be obeyed?

What is sovereignty?  The term was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1948 essay to describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the American government to prosecute a war in Mexico and to enforce the fugitive slave law. Sovereignty refers to supreme power or authority. It is seen as the authority of a state to govern itself. More specifically, it refers to the legal power of the state, i.e., the original power that the state has over all persons and institutions. Put simply, it is the power that makes a state to make and enforce laws within a particular geographical region.

Characteristics of sovereignty: 1. It is universal Argument for Anarchism- applicable to all within the state, 2. It is inalienable- cannot be transferred, 3. It is permanent- Because the state is permanent, sovereignty is permanent, vice versa. 4. It is absolute 5. It is inducible.

Theories of sovereignty: Monistic and pluralistic The monistic theory states that the power to make and enforce laws resides only in a person or in a body of person. John Austin is the promoter of this theory. He defines law as the command of a superior to an inferior. Criticisms: There could be exceptions in the society; it could amount to tyranny, etc. The pluralistic theory states that the power `to make laws and to demand obedience is found in various institutions that we belong to. Harold Laski is prominent here. Criticisms: They affirm and deny state sovereignty, Could lead to confusion, etc.

Types of sovereignty: Titular (by title, e.g., Queen of England) and actual (by action, e.g., Prime Minister of England).-  De jure (The legitimate sovereign) and De facto( The actual leader)

What is civil disobedience?

John Rawls defines civil disobedience as a politically motivated public non-violent and conscientious breach of the law that is done with the aim of changing the law or government policies.

Characteristics of civil disobedience: 1. Conscientiousness- based on conscience. 2. Political motivation, aimed at justice. 3. Targeted at changing laws. 4. It is public. 5. Non-violent. 6. Expectation of sanction for acceptance and punishment for breaking the law.

Justification for civil disobedience: 1. When you have utilized other means or avenues, and there is no progress 2. Such acts should be targeted at justice 3. The person performing the act must be willing to have the act universalized 5. Protests are justified only if they will be effective

The kpim

Sovereignty and civil disobedience in Hobbes  

Give a brief presentation of Hobbes’ social contact……..

From the above we see that the sovereignty lies in the leviathan. The leviathan has the power to make laws; these laws must compulsorily be obeyed by all members of the society. Disobedience of whatever shape is not permitted. Civil disobedience is not possible precisely because the members of the state have agreed at the time of reaching the contract that they will at all times obey the laws the leviathan dictates. Disobeying the law is met by strict punishment from the leviathan.

Implications: Tyranny, decline in growth and development, not suitable for modern society with diverse institutions and regions, the reign of evil laws, e=reign of fear and suspicion, could lead to instances of coups upon coups, Etc.

Sovereignty and civil disobedience in Locke

Also, give a brief rendition of Locke’s social contract

The power to make and enforce laws, aka sovereignty, lies in the hands of the elected representative. The people elect their leaders to make laws for them. The elected leaders are however subject to these laws. In a situation where the leaders make laws or enact policies that the citizens see as unjust, such laws can be civilly disobeyed. Thus, civil disobedience is permitted for Locke. The citizens even possess the power to change their leaders if they are not living up to expectation.    In fact, civil disobedience is needed to enable the elected continue to lead the people aright.

Implication: Contributes to the proper working of society, Ensures that the justice is upheld at all times, could however give room to incessant and violent protests all in the name of civil disobedience, etc.

Sovereignty and civil disobedience in Rousseau

State the social contract of Rousseau

Civil disobedience is not permissible here, this is precisely because every member of the society submits to the general will, and thus sovereignty lies in the general will. The general will, because it is always right, makes laws that are right and good. .And so, since the laws made by the general will is always right and good, there us never a case of civil disobedience.

Implications” It is impossible to find unjust laws.

Social Justice

Q. According to Nozick, taxation for anything other than protection is unjust because it ignores how goods are acquired. Do you agree with his view? Give reasons for your answer.  2015

Q. “Individuals have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do. “ Nozick. Examine Nozick’s theory of justice in the light of this quotation.  2014

Q. Write brief notes on the following criteria of distributive justice: 1. Need 2. Equality 3. Merit  2014

Outline: What is justice? Types of justice. Criteria for distributive justice. Rawls on social justice. Nozick on social justice. Similarities and Differences between Rawls and Nozick.

What is justice? Various definitions are accrued to justice. While Hobbes would see it as conformity with the law, J S Mill sees it as people getting what they deserve. Rawls define it simply as fairness.

Types of justice: Cumulative-Obtainable in contract, agreement. Retributive-Action equals to reaction. Restorative- Victims must be satisfied, repair damage done to victim. Social- Justice governing society’s welfare, the promotion of common good. They are of two kinds, distributive and procedural. Distributive justice is concerned the distribution of societal resources. But how do we achieve this? Various criteria are given.

Criteria of distributive justice

1.      According to Need: The basic needs of all must be met. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Proponents include Karl Marx..

Criticisms: 1. It encourages laziness 2. Obtainable only in a communist/socialist state, 3. Assumes that we have needs to meet 4. Difficulty in equating injustice with suffering.

2.      According to Merit: Distribution of the resources is based on contributed. Only those who have contributed should receive,

Criticisms: We sometimes receive society’s goods even when we have not contributed 2. Sometimes, we find people who should merit some benefits, yet they are not opportune to do so.

3.      According to Equality As humans, we are all equal, thus society’s resources should be distributed equally to all/

Criticisms::We do not all have an equal amount of needs, we do not feel the same level of pain.

Rawls on social justice

Rawls account of justice is presented by his treatment of two principles guiding society’s relations. The two principles are the equality and the difference principle. The equality principle states that everyone is equally enabled to the same rights as citizens. And these rights should be upheld at all times. The difference principle states that all society’s goods are to be distributed equally except where such equal distribution would result in some disadvantage to others. Thus inequalities in distribution are acceptable only if they promote the les disadvantaged members of the society. If those who were worse off before the distribution still remain worse off after the distribution, then there is a problem with the distribution. To achieve this fairness, Rawls employs an argument whereby people in the original position (state of nature) make decisions behind a veil of ignorance of their place in society, rich or poor using a reason technique he calls reflective equilibrium. This in the end will lead to the promotion of the welfare of the less advantaged.

Nozick on social justice`

His position is essentially a critique of Rawls’ position, namely that it does not hold water to argue that because all members of a society benefit social cooperation, the less advantaged ones are automatically entitled to the share of the earnings of the more successful ones. In place of Rawls’ difference principle, Nozick proposes an entitlement principle.. The principle states that individual holdings of various economies and social goods are justified only if they derive from just acquisitions or voluntary transfers. Therefore, taxation, because it is an involuntary transfer of one’s resources, is wrong.

Criticisms: Fro Rawls- It may lead to laziness and lack of creativity, May be vulnerable to excessive taxation.  For Nozick-In the absence of taxation, how would government provide some basic social amenities? The poor might feel isolated,.