AQA A2 Philosophy(old spec) 17th June

Structure a response to the state? Please elaborate.

Don't worry.
You don't have to get EVERYTHING in.
In fact, it's probably a good idea not too.
What you want to do is make sure you several good, evaluative and illustrated points.
For Hohfield's types of rights, I would say this is more of a side issue to address. The main point of that question would be the classical distinction of rights i.e. Natural / Legal.

Reply 62

i'm so worried now. i hate this!

****! **** **** ****!

are you doing mill? i'm stuck on the "assess mill's claim that democracy is a tyranny of teh majority" q :frown:

ah at least i have a ums cushion. praise ze lord for the generous examiner last year

Reply 63

yesyes!! tyranny of the majority is likely to come up cause it hasnt come up in years!!! do u know anything on it?? i dont understand it... :confused:

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 64

i have no idea.

overhung, you splendid creature, would you be able to advise me on structures for mill/ any philosopher for unit 5? danke

Reply 65

For this question I'd probably aim to defend a view that social contract theories account for our obligation to the state strongly, though in themselves they are insufficient. I'd argue that to account fully for political obligations, there needs to be some form of consent on the part of every individual, perhaps (Lockian) tacit consent, or Hart's fairness tacit consent.

It's not what I'd really choose, but it's what springs to mind.

For this question I'd include:

Hobbesian contract (state of nature, sovereign etc.) [+5 to obligations]
Contrast with Lockian contract (things aren't really that bad) [-2 to obligations]..
Introduce the problem of philosophical anarchism: there must be consent / we have a right not to be governed unless we consent.
Hypothetical consent (contracts) is not, strictly speaking, consent.
Needs to be something more: notion of tacit consent.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 66

okay, so I might start like this.

In this essay, I shall assess the extent to which social contract theories account for our political obligations. I believe that social contract theory logically leads to political obligation and provides a substantial basis for it. However, at no point does social contract theory force us into a situation of political obligation.

Okay that wasn't great.
But that kind of structure.

Funnily enough I was on the phone to my friend earlier about why I was worried, that I wasn't worried. I have maybe 12 hours revision tops. I have a good knowledge base though, since I like to read philosophy anyway.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 67

well, i'd include all your points, but it's v useful to see how someone would structure.

how long do you spend planning at the beginning?

i'd never heard of hart outside of the devlin-hart debate; what is his fairness tacit consent?

Reply 68

overhung

you also need to say stuff about Rawls and Nozick!

Reply 69

overhung

i thought social contracts meant we were obligated to a state. eg hobbes and obeying laws no matter what, as despotism is better than anarchism? waah!

Reply 70

nicole2567

you also need to say stuff about Rawls and Nozick!

How come? Neither offer any form of social contract. Rawls offers a hypothetical contract regarding the principles we'd choose when forming a state, but does not argue a social contract in terms of our obligation to form a state. (Have I misunderstood?)

Reply 71

laughingwithpicasso

Oh my god. I know nothing of what Rawls, Nozick, Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau say about anything. Woe, woe, woe.

Reply 72

Yes indeed, I am doing Mill too.
SO, Assess mill's claim that democracy is a tyranny of the majority.

You would explain Mill's definition of the term.
i.e. A majoritarian tyranny that arises from democracy, ignoring minorities, and promoting solely self-interests.

POINTS FOR DISCUSSION.

1) Democracy does appreciate minority views e.g. legalisation of homosexuality.

2) However, when voting is required, this results in the majority advancing. e.g. A bill that passes with 51% approval.

3) Democracies can be replaced, so it is surely the general will.

4) Mill takes a negative view of society - they might aim for societies good.

Reply 73

Aesop

nono your right...but you need to show i an exam that you can distinguish that to begin with they offer a different social contract from locke....soo basically they are bouncing off Lockes idea and changing it, then criticising each other...then you criticise them by saying that they are both useless in explaining social contract because its only hypothetical e.c.t...

Reply 74

@nicole. That was a hypothesis, so no philosophers. But I don't see much room for the Rawls/Nozick debate. Maybe Rawls for his 'original position'.

Social contract theory does mean we have obligations, however, we are free to break out of them. Hobbes said that the only exception to break from the sovereign ruler was if they could no longer protect you. The tacit consent argument is that, if we choose to remain within a state, then we are consenting to it's rules. Otherwise, we should leave.

@laughingwithpicasso. You'd better get learning really fast.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 75

"When any number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules, and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to these restrictions when required have a right to similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission" (Hart, 'Are there any natural rights?', 85)

Similar to tacit consent presented by Locke, except that Hart is advocating a form of fairness, or rather, a right to fairness. If people have restricted their liberty (in the state), then they have a right to expect those who benefit (us) to perform a similar submission. While Locke simply argues that by benefitting we are consenting, Hart argues that others have a right to expect us to consent if we enjoy the benefits of their consent.

Hope that makes sense for you =)

edit: in answer to your question, I'll probably spend 30 seconds just noting down what I will cover, I write too slowly to do otherwise :P

edit 2: btw i made up the term 'fairness tacit consent', i wouldn't use it in the exam :P

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 76

overhung

sorry but why does mill take a negative view of society??
does it become a tyranny when democracy failes??

Reply 77

nicole2567

I think what you're trying to say is that you should explain other types of political obligation?
But I wouldn't illustrate that by using Nozick and Rawls.

Here is a list of possible political obligation:

-Social contract theory.
-Consent of the governed.(democracy)
-For achievement of the general will/common good.
-To provide justice.(liberal morality)

Reply 78

right, i'm stopping this now because you're all stressing me out! thanks, you're all remarkably intelligent but now i feel so, so low and abysmally dumb! bye, and good luck

Reply 79