PHI 101: Social Philosophy
PHI 101: Social Philosophy PHIL101
Popular in Introduction to Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
CHEM 1110 - 02
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychlogy
This 35 page Bundle was uploaded by Carmen Chong on Sunday January 31, 2016. The Bundle belongs to PHIL101 at University of Oregon taught by in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 39 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Philosophy in Psychlogy at University of Oregon.
Reviews for PHI 101: Social Philosophy
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/31/16
Social and Poli▯cal Philosophy Chapter 8 • Anarchism: unﬂinching conﬁdence in the individual and none in the state • Totalitarianism: conﬁdence in a strong state and government • Individualism/paternalism: individual freedom 8.1 What is Social & Poli▯cal Philosophy? • Social philosophy: – Philosophical study of society and its problems and the applica▯on of moral principles to these problems including the problems of human rights, jus▯ce, freedom, and the rela▯on of the individual to society. • Poli▯cal philosophy: – Subdivision of social philosophy, – Looks at the proper role of the state or government in society. Addresses the ques▯on of jus▯ce, moral limits on the power of the state, moral obliga▯on to obey the laws. 8.2 What jus▯ﬁes the state? • Power and authority to make and enforce law even if par▯cular ci▯zens disagree; social contract theory tries to jus▯fy this power and authority by arguing that ci▯zens have made an agreement or “contract” that gives the state this power. • Contract theory: individuals agree to give up certain liber▯es and rights to the state, which in return guarantees rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hobbes – War of All against All • Principles of scien▯ﬁc materialism: the world is a mechanical system that can be explained in terms of the laws of mo▯on. • Human behavior/complex socie▯es is reducible to geometric and physical explana▯ons. • Leviathan: humans are driven by two needs – survival and personal gain (selﬁsh and greedy). Government is necessary to enforce peace among them. • Absolu▯s▯c state; resistance to authority is never jus▯ﬁed Locke – Natural Moral Laws • Viewed humans as essen▯ally moral beings who ought to obey natural moral rules. Warfare as human’s natural state. Viewed humans as free and equal by nature, regardless of the existence of any government • Government doesn’t decree mutual respect for the freedom and liber▯es of all – nature does. • Humans are by nature free, ra▯onal, and social creatures. • Speciﬁc and limited state; resistance to authority is essen▯al. • Social contract: crea▯ng a poli▯cal en▯ty capable of preserving their rights of “life, liberty, and estate”. • Locke emphasized freedom – government should leave people free to live and pursue whatever form of life they choose. • Government is only necessary to fulﬁll three missing things in the state of nature: 1. A ﬁrm, clearly understood interpreta▯on of the natural but unwri▯en moral laws 2. Unbiased judges to resolve disputes 3. A power capable of enforcing jus▯ce when one is wronged. Rousseau – General Will • Emphasized on personal moral autonomy • Without government, people’s property and security are at risk • Government is jus▯ﬁed only if it is consistent with human freedom and autonomy, outcome of a pact in which every ci▯zen agrees to unite under a “general will”, for in obeying the general will, the ci▯zen is obeying himself and so is free and autonomous. • General will: “will of all”, unanimity of feeling, common good • Obeying the general will to be free Hume - Skep▯cism • No social contract • Social contract is a historical ﬁc▯on Rawls – Contemporary Social Contract • Agrees social contract is a historical ﬁc▯on but helps us see what a just government is. • Argues that a just government is one we would choose to live under if we chose without knowing whether we would be rich or poor, black or white, and so forth. • “Veil of ignorance” we would choose a form of government that was fair to everyone by providing everyone with equal poli▯cal rights and economic opportuni▯es. • Just government = no favori▯sm • What a government ought to be • We would consent to live under the type of government if we were in the original posi▯on. Communitarianism • The community in which we live should be at the center of our analysis of society and government. • Emphasizes the social nature of human beings. Our iden▯ty (who we are) depends on our rela▯onships to others in our communi▯es (cultural prac▯ces etc.) • Aristotle, Hegel Communitarianism • Social contract theory – Neglects people’s social nature by focusing on the individual. – Assumes govt. is an ar▯ﬁcial construct (govt. is actually a natural outgrowth of our social nature; necessary for full human development) Aristotle • The state is prior to the individual • Humans cannot develop fully unless they live in the state (our poli▯cal abili▯es and social virtues emerge and develop only in the state • State is more important than an individual ci▯zen (whole is more important than one) Hegel • Humans can develop fully only within the state, and if he embraces the cultural prac▯ces of the state • Freedom is more than just not interfering with the lives of others, people are free to do more (more abili▯es = freer) • Only in the state people can be fully free Feminists • Susan Okins • Wrong assump▯ons of social contract theory: – Family structures are jus▯ﬁed bc males rule over females without their consent – “public” sphere of the state should not interfere with the “private” sphere of the family – Divides the “public” life of poli▯cs and econs (predominate by men), and “private” family life (women are conﬁned to labor so men can par▯cipate in public life). Women receive powerless roles. 8.3 Jus▯ce • Retribu▯ve jus▯ce: how fair is the punishment • Distribu▯ve jus▯ce: fair and proper distribu▯on of beneﬁts and burdens • Formal jus▯ce: treat similar people similarly (consistency) • Material/substan▯ve jus▯ce: what diﬀerences are “relevant” Jus▯ce as Merit • Beneﬁts and burdens should be distributed unequally according to ability, eﬀort, achievement, social status • Plato: people have diﬀerent talents and abili▯es. Society will func▯on best if each person plays the role for which he or she is best suited. Cri▯cs: unjust inequality. • Aristotle Jus▯ce as Equality • Equal shares of beneﬁts and burdens • Strict egalitarianism: no relevant diﬀerences among people, so all should be treated equally. – Cri▯cs: people’s ness needs are relevant when distribu▯ng beneﬁts, and their abili▯es when distribu▯ng burdens. • Moderate egalitarianism: poli▯cal rights and economic opportuni▯es should be distributed equally, other economic beneﬁts and burdens should be distributed according to the relevant diﬀerences – Cri▯cs: poli▯cal rights (i.e. criminals) should not be equal and that equality of opportunity is not possible. Jus▯ce as Social U▯lity • Distribute beneﬁts and burdens to achieve maximum social beneﬁts and minimum social harms. • John Stuart Mill • Cri▯cs: social u▯lity wrongly implies that injus▯ces (i.e. slavery) are just – sacriﬁce welfare of minori▯es for general welfare. Jus▯ce Based on Need and Ability • Socialism: burdens distributed by ability, beneﬁts by needs. • Karl Marx: people develop their poten▯al by working according to their ability, and distribu▯ng beneﬁts by need promotes human happiness. • Cri▯cs: no incen▯ve to work as it requires coercion Jus▯ce Based on Liberty • Rawls: equal opportunity. Economic inequali▯es are just if produced beneﬁts for the least advantage – promotes social stability. Distribute goods according to a pa▯ern • Classical liberalism (Nozick): equality and maximum liberty are just in poli▯cs, but freedom in distribu▯ng economic goods. 8.4 Limits on the State • Stoics said that what we today call ‘civic laws’ have their basis in natural law. • Natural law: – Pa▯ern of necessary and universal regularity holding in physical nature – Moral impera▯ve, a descrip▯on of what ought to happen in human rela▯onships • Eternal law: God’s decrees for the governance of the universe Law & Morality • Aquinas – Eternal law: God’s decrees for the universe – Natural law: moral law based on human nature – Human law: laws created by humans to govern their socie▯es. – True human law doesn’t violate the moral law and must be obeyed. Except in the case of an unjust law that violates the moral law. • King: – Discriminatory laws are unjust, they are not true laws and one is not obligated to obey them – Civil disobedience must be carried out openly, respec▯ully, nonviolently, and with a willingness to accept the penalty • Gandhi: – One has a right to disobey unjust laws and advocated nonviolent “passive” resistance to unjust laws bc using violence to overthrow unjust laws will lead to more violence • Williams: – Unjust laws need not be obeyed, but violence should be used to deal with unjust laws bc nonviolence is ineﬀec▯ve Freedom • John Stuart Mill: social u▯lity – Power exercised against an individual’s will can only be righ▯ully exercised if it is to prevent harm to others – Free thinking and debate help achieve the truth – Le▯ng people live as they want helps prove the worth of diﬀerent forms of life – Government must leave people free to think, live and associate as they want. Human Rights • Rights: impose du▯es on others • Nega▯ve rights: impose du▯es on others to leave people free to engage in certain ac▯vi▯es (protect freedom) • Posi▯ve rights: impose du▯es on others to provide the right-holder with certain goods (guarantee beneﬁts) • Moral/human rights: rights that all humans have Kant • Every person as an “end in himself” has an intrinsic value or dignity that everyone else must respect • Each person has a duty to respect other people’s freedom and to help others achieve their happiness • Everyone has nega▯ve and posi▯ve rights Donaldson • Moral rights must protect important things that are subject to substan▯al and recurrent threat • Fair and aﬀordable obliga▯ons should be imposed • All govt. must respect such rights and that wealthier na▯ons should help the poorer ones provide such rights War & Terrorism: 1. Poli▯cal Realism • Hobbes: – na▯ons exist in a state of nature without a common power to enforce jus▯ce, they are in a state of war in which concepts of morality or jus▯ce do not apply. – Violence btw na▯ons is neither right nor wrong but only for or against a na▯on’s best interests – Cri▯cs: acts of war are acts of human individuals, we can and do apply moral concepts to acts of war; there are interna▯onal bodies that can enforce jus▯ce. 2. Paciﬁsm • War us always immoral either on – Religious grounds or – The evils of war always outweigh the good war might produce or – The violence of war violates human dignity • Cri▯cs: some goods that outweigh the evils of war, that it is not wrong to defend oneself or others against unjust a▯ack, and that paciﬁsm is inconsistent bc if people have a right not to be subjected to violence, then they have a right to be defended from violence even with violence. • Condi▯onal paciﬁst: modern wars inﬂict so much violence that their violence outweighs any possible good that could be achieved • Cri▯cs: view that condi▯onal paciﬁst implies that the costs of war have to be weighed against its beneﬁts. Just War Theory (Aquinas) War is morally jus▯ﬁed if: 1. Declared by a legi▯mate authority 2. Fought for a just cause 3. Fought with a right inten▯on 4. Fought as a last resort 5. Real and certain danger 6. Reasonable probability of success 7. End is propor▯onal to the probable harm Jus ad bellum: jus▯ce when approaching war Jus in bello (jus▯ce when in war) condi▯ons: 1. Means used must be propor▯onal to the end 2. Combatants must not inten▯onally target noncombatants and must be able to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. 3. Terrorism • Coady: deﬁnes terrorism as inten▯onally targe▯ng noncombatants with lethal or severe violence to achieve poli▯cal purposes, perhaps through the crea▯on of fear and inclusion of targe▯ng property that is related to life or security • Poli▯cal realism: accepts • Paciﬁsm: condemns it as immoral • JWT: approve violence against terrorist only if it adheres to the nine principles of just war • Defenders of terrorism: some forms of terrorism can meet the condi▯ons of JWT and so can be morally jus▯ﬁed, par▯cularly when all ci▯zens of a target na▯on ac▯vely support an unjust government that is oppressing the terrorists, so these ci▯zens can be treated as combatants by the terrorists
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'