SUMMARY OF Social and Political Philosophy Contents

Social and Political Philosophy

Contents

·         Social Contract

·         Human Rights

·         On Social and Political Philosophy

·         Social Justice

·         Anarchism and Authority

·         Sovereignty and Civil Disobedience

(A)   Social Contract

                In common usage, a contract is an agreement between free and independent individuals for a stipulated purpose. However, the social contract, which is historically traced to Glaucon, one of Plato’s interlocutors in The Republic, is a hypothetical agreement between members of the society, entered into before the emergence of society for the preservation of life and other rights. Social and political philosophers use the hypothesis of the social contract to justify the existence of the state: that it is a creation of rational agency. In this way, the social contract is a compromise for the sake of social relations into which human beings enter, thereby taking responsibility for one another and having obligation to the state. Two premises underpin the hypothesis of the state as an index of social contract namely: the state of nature and the state as human creation, thus, the claim is that human beings, prior to the state exist in a state of nature; and that, they create the state by agreement, relinquishing some of their rights and taking up certain responsibilities. Prominent social contract theorists include Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Their social contract paradigms converge and diverge in a number of areas.

The Social Contract of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

                 The definitive statement of Thomas Hobbes social contract theory is contained in his seminal work, Leviathan. In this tractate, he argues that human beings are fundamentally selfish, quarrelsome, and suspicious. He maintains that two principles are operative in the human person: desire and reason. In this connection, he hypothesizes about a state of nature in which the principle of desire dominated. Resources were limited and so, life in this state of nature was summarily a survival of the fittest and it was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” However, there is a fundamental imperative active in the human person which commands them to self-preservation. But, the life in a state of nature is ultimately inimical to self-preservation. This realization is a function of the principle of reason. With this principle of reason, human beings who are to create the society come together in agreement of some fundamental laws: (a) Seek peace, but, if it is not available, defend yourself. (b) Give up those rights that threaten peace. (c) These laws hold, if and only if everyone keeps their own terms of the agreement. However, human beings cannot be really trusted to keep their agreement, so, a sovereign who has absolute power to ensure that the terms of the contract are kept is put in place. This sovereign, who is the Leviathan or the commonwealth is the sole adjudicator and arbiter of the social contract. Sovereignty lies solely with the leviathan. It is at the point of making the leviathan the arbiter of the terms of contract that the state begins to exist.

Criticisms of T. Hobbes

i.                    The leviathan can become tyrannical. Objection: it can be either ways. The leviathan may not be tyrannical.

ii.                  The state of nature does not describe any actual or real state (merely hypothetical). Objection: but it is actually a hypothesis – an explanatory paradigm.

iii.                Some feminists say that Hobbes’ state does not seem to have a place for women.

iv.                There was no time in human history when a contract was made. Objection: because the contract is an agreement, it can be verbal or tacit. So, maybe there was no verbal agreement but tacitly, people agree to stay together by say, living together in the society.

v.                  How long was the contract to last, since it is in the nature of contracts to last for a stipulated time?

vi.                T. Hobbes’ society only admits of rational beings.

vii.              Hobbesian social and political thought is aimed at an elimination of God from these spheres. 

The Social Contract of John Locke (1632-1704)

                John Locke developed his social contract theory in his work Two Treatise on Government. In the first treatise he argued against patriachalism ­- the divine rights of kings, for which Robert Filmer had argued in his Patriacha. The second treatise contains his development of the social contract as alternative justification for the emergence of the state. The state is a human creation made by the agreement of free individuals for the preservation of life and protection of property. Notably, the individuals in the state have the power to replace the government if the purpose for the creation of the state is not met. Furthermore, Locke describes a hypothetical state of nature where life was peaceful and one only kept as one’s private property what one got from nature, e.g. a bucket of water fetched from the stream. The basis of this kind of life was the spoilage theory: get and keep only what you need. It was such that “as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property.” Here, private property is a function of putting personal effort on common property. This happy and peaceful life was undermined with the emergence of trade exchange: people started wanting more. So, they started trespassing the private property of others. Life was endangered. As a result, individuals come together to agree that an instrument of protection of the rights of human dignity and private property be put in place, having given up some other rights. This instrument is the civil state. In this state, power lies with the governed: they can boycott and change the government when it is no longer able to discharge its duties.

Criticism

i.                     The Lockean civil state seems to be created for the protection of only the rich.

The Social Contract of Jean Jacques Rousseau

                J. J. Rousseau’s contract theory can be reasonably drawn from three of his works where he makes major disquisitions on it. They include Discourse on the Sciences and Arts¸ Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, and The Social Contract. He held that humanity is essentially good but is corrupted by society. He argues that in the state of nature, two principles are at work pity and self-preservation. In this state, people are happy; have few needs; have no idea of good or evil; and are few in number. The transition from the state of nature to the civilized state, a process through which the state emerges, is one necessitated by limited resources and scrambling for these. The human person in the state of nature was not concerned about any moral conventions because there were none since there were no social relations. Life was simple and peaceful. However, population increased, people started relating, started comparing themselves with others, and the possession of private property became a norm. Then, there was struggle for the limited resources. This led to inequality: there were the haves and the have-nots. This division puts human persons in constant strife. It is to address this strife between the poor and the rich that the legitimate political society – the state, emerges by general will. Sovereign power lies in this general will.

Comparing and Contrasting the Social Contract Theorists

1.       The State of Nature (mentioned by the Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau)

Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature is cruel and frightening.

John Locke’s state of nature is calm and peaceful.

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s state of nature is one characterized by freedom, nonexistence of values, little or no acquaintance. And therefore, no strife. When people started increasing and the struggle for limited resources began, and inequality set in, the state of nature is disrupted and society transits into civilization by consent of the general will. The state *seems* like a necessary evil, for Rousseau.

2.       Sovereignty (identified by the Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau)

For Hobbes, sovereignty lies in the hand of the leviathan absolutely.

Locke posits that sovereignty lies with the governed: they can supplant a bad government – one that does not protect human dignity and private property.

In Rousseau’s political thought, sovereignty lies in the general will.

3.       Private Property (mentioned by Locke and Rousseau)

John Locke thinks that private property is present prior in the state of nature; and that, in fact, one of the reasons why the state is created is to protect this.

Rousseau sees the possession of private property, in the sense Locke describes it in the state of nature, as the very reason why inequality exists, and why there is strife.

(B)   Human Rights

What are they?

The idea of human rights can be traced to the very origins of human civilization. Nevertheless, it came into much philosophical discourse after the Second World War when some atrocities were identified as being crimes against humanity. This discourses led to the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) on December 10, 1948.

Furthermore, human rights are rights that all human beings enjoy insofar as they are human beings. They are inherent rights. They are the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled, and which is believed to belong justifiably to every person. They are rights that belong to an individual as a consequence of a being human. Human rights are those rights which are essential for a dignified and a decent human living as well as human existence and adequate development of human personality.

The following characteristics of human rights are identified:

a)       Inalienability – human rights are inalienable, that is, cannot be taken away.

b)       Comprehensiveness – human rights are comprehensive touching on all areas of human life that pertain to decent living. 

c)       Universality – human rights apply to all human beings irrespective of race, class, color, sex, language, religion, nationality, etc.

d)       Justice Ability - human rights are justiciable, that is, they can be matters for the law court.

e)       Non-absoluteness – human rights can be restricted.

f)        Indivisibility – human rights cannot be treated in isolation

g)       Interconnectedness – human rights are all dependent on one another.

The Justification of Human Rights

                It is a fact that human rights can be justified. There are a number of theories for the justification of human rights. All of these justifications are underlined by the fundamental principle of egalitarianism - equality of all. Thus, human beings have rights because they are equally humans. But, the question is asked, can human equality be justified?

1.       Presumption of Equality Argument – let it just be assumed that all human beings are equal, unless there are better reasons to assume otherwise. Objection: it can also be simply assumed that human beings are unequal.

2.       Basic Belief Argument – (Ronald Dworkin) equality is one of the basic truth that ought to be accepted without demonstration. Objection: basic beliefs in philosophy and the academia, unlike in other spheres need justification.

3.       The Existential Argument (Radical Egalitarianism – Kai Nielsen) - the decision to treat others equally should simply be made. Objection: the decision can also be made for people to be treated unequally.

4.       Libertarianism – every human person is free; therefore, every human being is equal. Objection: the concept of freedom itself demands justification; besides, human beings are not equally free.

5.       The Pragmatic Argument – (Joel Feinberg) – this theory has an existential and pragmatic twist to it. Its claim is that: a decision be made for an equal treatment of others (existential). This is good for the society (pragmatic). Objection: it is simply utilitarian; there is no justification for the claim that a society of equals is just and civil.

6.       Rational Agency – human beings are rational. Rationality means they ought to be free to do that which accords with their wellbeing. Because they are free, they are equal. Therefore, because they are rational, human being are free, and being free, they are all equal. Objection: that freedom is a necessity for the actualization of rationality does not mean that freedom is a right. And so, it cannot be a basis for equality.

The Importance of Human Rights

i.                     Human rights are indispensable for the preservation of human dignity and decent existence.

ii.                   Human rights are necessary for the actualization of the potentials in individual persons.

iii.                 Human rights are important for the full development of the human personality.

iv.                 Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity.

v.                   Human rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves, and what kind of government they want to support, among many other things.

vi.                 Human rights also guarantee people the means necessary to satisfy their basic needs, such as food, housing, and education, so they can take full advantage of all opportunities.

vii.                By guaranteeing life, liberty, equality, and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful.

Social and Political Philosophy

Social Philosophy is a critical inquiry into the concept of the human person as a social being. It involves a reflective investigation into the underpinnings and fact of the human person in society. Political philosophy on the other hand, is a philosophical investigation into the nature of the human person as a political being. This philosophical concern is pertinent since it pertains to the nature of the human person to be interested in the management and organization of the polis.  Accordingly, politics is understood as the process through which human agents order the society the goal of which is unity in the social order. This ordering of society is a fundamental human goal and is brought about by values, virtues. In this wise, Harold Laski defines politics as the search for social unity.

There is this link between politics and society: the values that ground politics are derived from and applicable to society. There is therefore no alienation between politics and society. Politics is because of society and an ordered society is grounded on politics. Thus, a society can be said to be an organized group of people. More so, a society is a system of social relations.

Social and political philosophy therefore, is the critical investigation into the social and political institutions in the society, which involves the description of what is, the prescription of what should be or ought to be, and, the reconciliation of conflicting theories and alternatives. It is a critical inquest, a philosophical inquiry, into the nature and concept of the human person as both a social and a political animal.

The Relevance of Philosophy to Social Studies and Political Science (the essence of social and political philosophy)

There are three major points worthy of note here, three of which are underpinned by the facticity of critical investigative analysis which philosophy is.

1.       The justification of what is the case in the social and political spheres. This is descriptivity – an analysis, a description of what obtains in the social and political order of human society.

2.       The proposal of social and political models, ideals, “what-should-be.” This relates the fact of normativity – prescribing what is best for the society.

3.       The reconciliation of conflicting social and political theories, an adjudication which is typically achieved by dint of critical analysis.  

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 ev37\

en 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,.