Introducing Political Philosophy Introducing Political Philosophy E-Book

Dave Robinson

• Herausgeber: Icon Books
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 117

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014

Beschreibung

Essential illustrated guide to key ideas of political thought. Philosophers have always asked fundamental and disturbing questions about politics. Plato and Aristotle debated the merits of democracy. The origins of society, the state and government authority were issues addressed by Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and many other philosophers. Introducing Political Philosophy explains the central concepts of this intriguing branch of philosophy and presents the major political theorists from Plato to Foucault. How did governments get started? Why should they be obeyed? Could we live without them? How much power should they have? Is freedom a right? Which is the best form of government? In the wake of consumerism and postmodernism, our need for a better grasp of political ideas is greater than ever. Dave Robinson's account of this complex subject is always clear, informative and accompanied by the entertainingly inventive illustrations of Judy Groves.

Leseprobe

Published by Icon Books Ltd, Omnibus Business Centre, 39–41 North Road, London N7 9DPEmail: [email protected] 

ISBN: 978-184831-203-6

Text copyright © 2012 Icon Books Ltd

Illustrations copyright © 2012 Icon Books Ltd

The author and illustrator has asserted their moral rights

Originating editor: Richard Appignanesi

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Questions

Back to Basics

Natural Communities

Society and State

What is Political Philosophy

Origins in Ancient Greece

The City State of Athens

The Duties of Citizens

Direct Democracy

Asking Questions

The Sophists

Glaucon’s View of Society

Beehives and Workers

The Pure Form of the State

Government by Experts

Relative Knowledge

The Ship of Fools

Is Democracy Still Best

Aristotle and Teleology

The “Good’” Man and the Citizen

Pragmatic Reason

Aristotle’s Politics

Economic Equality

Human Nature and Beliefs

What are Ideologies?

The Ideology of Essentialism

How Free Are We?

The Effects of Evolution

What Does Evolution Prove?

Humans as Selfish Co-operators

Game Theory

Co-operators or Competitors?

Who’s Right About Human Nature?

Life Without Governments?

Politics After Aristotle

Ancient Anarchists

Roman Stoics and Early Christians

Christian Dualism

St Augustine’s City of God

The Theology of St Aquinas

“Natural” Law

The Renaissance

Machiavelli’s Prince

State Morality

Cynic or Realist?

Hobbes and Cromwell

The Science of Man

Psychological Egoists

The State of Nature

The Prisoners’ Dilemma

The Way Out

Enforceable Coercion

Sovereign Power

Absolute Monarchies

Problems with the Hobbesian View

Natural Selfishness

John Locke

Another State of Nature

Locke’s Natural Laws

Definition of Properly

The Right of Inequality

The Problem of Vendettas

The Advantages of Society

Divine Right

Governments and Citizens

Minimal Government

Changing Governments

Rebels and Regimes

Separation of Powers

Who Can Vote?

Consent or Subservience

Hume’s Criticism

Rousseau’s Political Philosophy

Civilization and Human Nature

Pre-social State of Nature

Property and Law

Natural Education

Freedom and Society

The Assembly

The General Will

Perfect Citizens and Backsliders

The Contract and the Legislator

Politics as Ethics

Corsica and Poland

State Morality

The French Revolution

The Birth of French Socialism

What is Socialism?

Charles Fourier’s Universal Harmony

Owen’s Utopian Socialism

Small-scale Democracies

Anarchism

Liberty Without Property?

Anarchist Social Morality

Hegel’s Political Philosophy

The Philosophy of Right

Citizens and the Organic State

The Constitution

The All-Powerful State

Hegel’s Metaphysics

The Dialectic

Rational Freedom and Progress

Criticism of Hegel’s State

Edmund Burke’s Conservatism

Paine’s Rights of Man

The Human Rights Issue

Right and Left Hegelians

Economic Determinism

The Inevitability of Capitalism

Wicked Capitalists

Congealed Labour

The Function of Ideologies

The Spectre of Communism

The Radiant Future

Fact or Prophecy?

Class and the State

A Stateless Society

Revolution Delayed

Developments of Marxism

Gramsci’s Theory of Hegemony

Our Political Ideology

Origins of Liberalism

The Marketplace

Free Enterprise and Equality

Contracts, Constitutions and Tolerance

What is the Use of Voting?

The Distribution Problem

Bentham’s Utilitarianism

A Science of Morals

The Free-Enterprise Market

Calculating Consequences

Useful to Government Policy

Blind Spots of Utilitarianism

Mill’s Utilitarian Reply

Qualifying the Majority

Representation by the Educated

In Defence of Democracy

Modem Utilitarianism

Rights and Minority Interests

Distribution and Equality

Nozick’s Political Philosophy

Equality of Opportunity

The Minimal State

Rawls’ Thought Experiment

Rawlsian Society

Totalitarian States

Are Philosophers to Blame?

Is Pluralist Society Best?

The Limits on Freedom

Why Should We Obey?

Communitarian Aristotelians

Postmodernist Politics

Knowledge and Power

Environmental Politics

Feminist Politics

Consumers and Citizens

Democracy by Choice

Further Reading

About the author and artist

Acknowledgements

Index

Questions

Political philosophers ask questions about individuals, communities, society, the law, political power, the State, and about how they all relate.

▶ Is it possible or desirable to say what human beings are “really like”?

▶ What is society? Is it something more than the people who live in it? Or was the British Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher right to say “There is no such thing as society”?

▶ What is the State? Is it an artificial construct or something that has naturally evolved?

▶ How free can the State allow individual citizens to be? Are there good moral reasons why citizens are obliged to obey the law? To what extent does the State have the right to punish those who disobey its commands?

▶ Is democracy the best form of government?

▶ Should the State be interested in furthering economic equality? If so, should it be allowed to interfere with other people’s private property?

DO WE NEED GOVERNMENTS AT ALL?

Back to Basics

Many political philosophers begin by concentrating on individuals. After all, societies and states are made up of individuals first, and governments must come after. Are political institutions simply the end result of attempts to fulfil the essential and universal needs of individuals? But what if we have no real knowledge about the needs and purposes of human beings? Besides, we aren’t just dropped into society with all the ready-made capacities that make us human.

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT SOCIETY MAKES US.EVEN OUR MOST “PRIVATE” THOUGHTS DERIVE FROM LINGUISTIC RESOURCES THAT AREN’T OUR OWN.BUT EVEN THOUGH WE MIGHT ALL BE DERIVATIVE “SOCIAL PRODUCTS”, NONE OF US FEEL WE’RE JUST ROBOTS.PARADOXICALLY, WE ARE MADE BY SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL WE HAVE THE RIGHT (AND DUTY) TO QUESTION.

Natural Communities

The word “community” suggests something immediate, local and praiseworthy. Political philosophers think of communities as small groups of people with shared values who enjoy solidarity with little need of laws or hierarchical chains of command.

THE EXISTENCE OF COMMUNITIES SUGGESTS THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN BE SOCIAL WITHOUT NECESSARILY BEING “POLITICALLY GOVERNED”.SO WHAT’S “SOCIETY”, THEN?SOCIETIES ARE LARGER THAN COMMUNITIES AND HELD TOGETHER BY COMPLEX SYSTEMS OF RULES, CUSTOMS AND INSTITUTIONS.

17th-century political philosophers made distinctions between free associations of individuals – societies, perhaps agreed on by some form of “contract” between individuals – and States, which are constituted by specific hierarchical power structures and the threat of coercion.

Society and State

Is it possible that we are all “social animals” but not necessarily political ones? Where is the evidence for non-political societies? Or is this an idealistic fantasy? Some philosophers believe that distinctions made between societies and States only lead to confusion. Societies can only exist if they are political. Power – and who has it – are features of human life that never go away.

THE “STATE” IS DEFINED AS AN AREA OF TERRITORY WITH AN ORGANIZED LEGAL SYSTEM AND A GOVERNMENT THAT HAS A “LEGITIMATE” MONOPOLY OF FORCE OVER ITS CITIZENS.MODERN STATES HAVE ENORMOUS AND OFTEN INTRUSIVE AUTHORITY…THAT’S WHY PHILOSOPHERS ENDLESSLY REDEFINE WORDS LIKE “CONSENT” “AUTHORITY” AND “OBLIGATION”.

What is Political Philosophy?

Most modern philosophers accept that moral and political propositions have no factual or logical status. Hence, it is impossible to prescribe what States should be or define what ought to be our relationship to them. Providing definitive answers to political problems must be ruled out.

ALL THAT PHILOSOPHERS CAN DO IS ANALYZE AND MAKE MORE PRECISE THE CONCEPTS WE USE IN EVERYDAY SPEECH – SUCH AS “POWER”, “LAW” “RIGHTS” AND SO ON. BUT POLITICS IS A VERY PRACTICAL AND IMPORTANT REALITY… WE EXPECT ADVICE FROM PHILOSOPHERS, NOT MERELY “ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTS”.

But political philosophy is as ideological as any other kind of discourse. We accept from it what agrees with our normal core beliefs and values. This is why all political concepts are always “essentially contrasted”.

Origins in Ancient Greece

The first people to write about political philosophy were the ancient Greeks. To begin with they were “stateless” semi-nomadic tribes who finally settled all over the coastal regions of the Aegean and Mediterranean.

WE WERE WARRIORS RULED BY WARLORDS. WE PLACED A HIGH VALUE ON COMRADESHIP, LOYALTY AND COURAGE. DIFFERENT WARRING TRIBES THEN CONGREGATED INTO LARGER UNITS FOR DEFENCE PURPOSES AND GRADUALLY ESTABLISHED “CITY STATES” LIKE ATHENS AND SPARTA.

The “Polis” or City State was usually small and independent, and each one was ruled by its own unique kind of government.

The City State of Athens

The most interesting and influential “Polis” was Athens, which experienced all sorts of governments. Political power had originally rested in the hands of a kind of aristocracy, similar to a tribal council, but gradually the citizen body itself acquired more and more power, and eventually ruled Athens between 461 and 322 BC.

ATHENS BECAME FAMOUS FOR ITS UNIQUE FORM OF DIRECT PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY. IT INVOLVED ALL OF ITS 50,000 ADULT MALE CITIZENS. BUT NOT WOMEN, SLAVES OR FOREIGNERS!

The Duties of Citizens

Being an Athenian “citizen” was a serious business, involving duties as well as rights.

WE DO NOT SAY THAT A MAN WHO TAKES NO INTEREST IN POLITICS IS A MAN WHO MINDS HIS OWN BUSINESS; WE SAY THAT HE HAS NO BUSINESS HERE AT ALL. THE POPULAR ASSEMBLY (I.E. THE “GOVERNMENT”), MADE UP OF ALL ADULT MALE CITIZENS, MET AT REGULAR INTERVALS TO DECIDE ON MATTERS OF STATE. SO ATHENS WAS GOVERNED BY AMATEURS.

The population was small enough for this kind of “pure” democracy to work, and most Athenians seemed to have been immensely proud of their State. They identified with it so completely that it was virtually impossible for any of them to imagine a life outside it.

Direct Democracy

Athenians fought alongside each other in battle and were more “tribal” than we are now. Their social and political world was very different from ours. They had little conception of “the individual” as something separate from “the citizen” and only very hazy notions of private rights. Society and State were indistinguishable.

FOR MODERN PHILOSOPHERS AND HISTORIANS THIS IS A MAJOR HEADACHE. MANY ANCIENT GREEK WORDS ARE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TRANSLATE, SO DEEPLY EMBEDDED ARE THEY IN THIS UNIQUE CULTURE. THIS HASN’T STOPPED MOST OF US FROM HAVING FIRM OPINIONS ABOUT THIS ANCIENT STATE RUN BY ITS OWN CITIZENS. Some, like Rousseau, Hegel and other modern “communitarians” think that many of its values and beliefs are exemplary, whereas other “liberals” express grave doubts about its notions of absolute citizenship.

Asking Questions

Athenian philosophers were argumentative. They were fascinated by debate and ideas, and invented the subject we now call “philosophy”. This means that they were “modern” because they were critical. They refused to accept religious or traditional explanations for anything and asked disturbingly original questions that no one had ever thought of asking before – especially about “society”, “morality” and “politics” (which derives from the Greek word Polis).

WE EVEN SPECULATED ABOUT WHAT LIFE MIGHT HAVE BEEN LIKE BEFORE “SOCIETY” BEGAN. AS MORE BECAME KNOWN ABOUT STRANGE PLACES LIKE EGYPT AND PERSIA, WE WONDERED HOW “NATURAL” OR “ARTIFICIAL” SOCIETIES WERE. ATHENIANS WERE BEGINNING TO THINK OF THEMSELVES AS INDIVIDUALS, AS WELL AS SOCIAL BEINGS, AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WAS BEGINNING.

The Sophists

Plato (c. 428–347 BC) was the first philosopher to record many of these theoretical discussions about politics. In his book The Republic, Socrates, Plato’s old teacher and friend, discusses the true nature of “justice” with his Sophist philosopher friends. (This “embedded” word “justice” means something like “behaving as you should”.) The Sophists were itinerant, radical thinkers who sold their services as tutors to wealthy families and specialized in teaching rhetoric.

THE SOPHIST THRASYMACHUS BEGINS BY INSISTING THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE FRAUDULENT. EACH TYPE OF GOVERNMENT ENACTS LAWS THAT ARE IN ITS OWN INTEREST: A DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRATIC LAWS; A TYRANNY, TYRANNICAL ONES; AND SO ON. “RIGHT” IS MERELY THE INTEREST OF THE ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL GOVERNMENTS WHO CLAIM A “NATURAL” RIGHT TO RULE ARE ALWAYS DISGUISING THE FACT THAT THEY RULE IN THE INTERESTS OF ONE PARTICULAR GROUP.

Glaucon’s View of Society

Another Sophist, Glaucon, insists that societies exist only because human behaviour has always to be restrained by law.

WITHOUT LAWS, HUMAN BEINGS ALWAYS REVERT TO BARBARISM, AND SO EVERYONE SUFFERS. THE ONLY REMEDY IS FOR EVERYONE TO AGREE CONTRACTUALLY TO OBEY A FEW COMPULSORY MORAL RULES. SO IT IS ARTIFICIAL LAWS, NOT CO-OPERATIVE INSTINCTS, THAT CONSTITUTE SOCIETIES.

Most Sophists insisted that morality, society, the state and governments are always the artificial creations of human beings – there is nothing at all “natural” or “organic” about them.

Beehives and Workers

Plato rejected this subversive scepticism. Both society and the State are natural, inevitable and benign. His mouthpiece “Socrates” rarely engages in real debate, but hammers away constantly at two ideas – that ruling is a skill, and that all human beings have a specific and prescribed natural function.

SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST SIMPLY BORN RULERS, AND THE REST OF US MUST REMAIN THEIR OBEDIENT WORKERS!

Plato was a communitarian and his ideal society is like a harmonious beehive in which everybody knows their role, and this is what “justice” or “behaving as you should” is all about.

The Pure Form of the State

Plato was an aristocrat, so his ideal hierarchical society of born rulers and submissive workers isn’t much of a surprise. But his advocacy of this orderly beehive rests on more than simple class loyalty. Plato was wholly convinced by the Pythagorean vision of mathematics. Numbers are “pure” – uncontaminated by the world, independent of human desires, eternal, incorruptible and always true. 2+2 will always equal 4, regardless of whether human beings exist or not.

ALL REAL KNOWLEDGE HAS TO BE LIKE NUMBERS – PERMANENT AND TRANSCENDENT. ALL WE SEE AROUND US ARE FEEBLE, TRANSIENT “COPIES” OF THE MORE REAL “FORMS” MYSTERIOUSLY ENCODED INTO THE UNIVERSE AND HUMAN MINDS.

Government by Experts

Plato’s idealist metaphysics of “pure Forms” is the result of a whole series of linguistic confusions. It meant that there had to be a perfect “Form” for “The State”. His Republic is largely concerned with the education of the State’s rulers called “The Guardians” – an élite group of political experts who know all there is to know about “The Perfect State”, composed of a hierarchy of metals.

THE “GOLD” GUARDIANS RULE OVER EVERYONE. THERE ARE “SILVER” ADMINISTRATORS … AND BELOW THEM, “BRONZE” AND “IRON” WORKERS WHO ALL HAPPILY ACCEPT THEIR PLACE IN OUR STABLE, SELF-PERPETUATING AND PERFECT STATE.