Is there any genuine, morally defensible justification for the state?
A subject that philosophers have grappled with for centuries, but thus far I've failed to see a genuine argument legitimising the states authority over us other than; it is a "necessary" evil, and that society couldn't work without one.
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by VV Cephei A
A subject that philosophers have grappled with for centuries, but thus far I've failed to see a genuine argument legitimising the states authority over us other than; it is a "necessary" evil, and that society couldn't work without one.
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state you view as sufficient?
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state you view as sufficient?
I think that the fact that we cannot trust eachother and the fact that our entire legal system woudl collapse without government is enough to have a government. Also I veiw taxs as a moral contract. You live in the state, you use the roads, hospitals ect. You are protected by the laws so you pay for their upkeep. If you broke an actual contract you could be jailed so not paying taxes is exactly the same.
Original post by VV Cephei A
A subject that philosophers have grappled with for centuries, but thus far I've failed to see a genuine argument legitimising the states authority over us other than; it is a "necessary" evil, and that society couldn't work without one.
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
The simple justification is democratic process: because people voluntarily elect a state. If no-one voted in elections, or protested, we would get rid of the state like that.
Obviously it's not likely to happen because people value the security the state brings and have too much fear of what there lives would be like in an anarchistic society.
Original post by VV Cephei A
A subject that philosophers have grappled with for centuries, but thus far I've failed to see a genuine argument legitimising the states authority over us other than; it is a "necessary" evil, and that society couldn't work without one.
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
I've read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Heumer, which addresses this precise question. My main problem with his approach is that he relies on our moral intuitions, which I find to be deeply flawed and illogical. Nonetheless, he makes a convincing case, from an intuitive perspective, that political authority and the State cannot be justified.
I, by contrast, believe that there is such thing as objective morality (as argued forcefully by Derek Parfit and Peter Singer, recently), and that such a moral system is utilitarian. Thus, I do accept the justification that the State is needed to hold society together for the greater good, and find Huemer's intuitive objections (it's too demanding, etc) to utilitarianism to be unconvincing.
Having said that, my ideal society would be an anarcho-socialist one, where the State, the class system and currency have all been abolished. Incidentally, this would be the society that pure, rational utilitarians would adopt too.
Original post by viddy9
I've read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Heumer, which addresses this precise question. My main problem with his approach is that he relies on our moral intuitions, which I find to be deeply flawed and illogical. Nonetheless, he makes a convincing case, from an intuitive perspective, that political authority and the State cannot be justified.
My main problem with Huemer is his treatment of property. Other libertarians critiqueing his book brought up the point that his objections to authority with regard to the state could also potentially be used against property rights. Huemer did respond to this, but was very dismissive rather than providing an argument against, in a way that suggested either that he's not very familiar with anarchist thought, or he's just being disingenuous.
Original post by VV Cephei A
A subject that philosophers have grappled with for centuries, but thus far I've failed to see a genuine argument legitimising the states authority over us other than; it is a "necessary" evil, and that society couldn't work without one.
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
I need my welfare cheque innit
Original post by Aph
I think that the fact that we cannot trust eachother and the fact that our entire legal system woudl collapse without government is enough to have a government. Also I veiw taxs as a moral contract. You live in the state, you use the roads, hospitals ect. You are protected by the laws so you pay for their upkeep. If you broke an actual contract you could be jailed so not paying taxes is exactly the same.
So the first argument is essentially a consequentialist one; the state is justified because of the good it does. This is pretty sketchy, however; there is no good reason to think the market cannot handle the majority of functions which the state currently does, and do it more efficiently and to a higher standard. If anything, you might say that a limited government which is restricted to the protection of our rights is justified, since we have yet to see a large scale society function without at least these basic state functions. But you certainly couldn't justify the vastly excessive, authoritarian aspects of the current governments we live under, which employ high taxation, arbitrary laws limiting individual freedom, and so forth.
The contractarian argument fails. Contracts must be explicit and there must be an ability to refuse. At no point did I sign a contract regarding roads, hospitals, etc. They were forced upon me by taxation. Any other contract would not be considered valid under these terms.
Original post by xylas
The simple justification is democratic process: because people voluntarily elect a state. If no-one voted in elections, or protested, we would get rid of the state like that.
Obviously it's not likely to happen because people value the security the state brings and have too much fear of what there lives would be like in an anarchistic society.
Obviously it's not likely to happen because people value the security the state brings and have too much fear of what there lives would be like in an anarchistic society.
Then the individuals who vote for a state should be the only ones forced to submit to its authority. If say, I was to abstain from voting, or if I had voted for a different party who did not win the election, then I have given no voluntarily consent to the rulers currently in power.
Original post by VV Cephei A
So the first argument is essentially a consequentialist one; the state is justified because of the good it does. This is pretty sketchy, however; there is no good reason to think the market cannot handle the majority of functions which the state currently does, and do it more efficiently and to a higher standard. If anything, you might say that a limited government which is restricted to the protection of our rights is justified, since we have yet to see a large scale society function without at least these basic state functions. But you certainly couldn't justify the vastly excessive, authoritarian aspects of the current governments we live under, which employ high taxation, arbitrary laws limiting individual freedom, and so forth.
The contractarian argument fails. Contracts must be explicit and there must be an ability to refuse. At no point did I sign a contract regarding roads, hospitals, etc. They were forced upon me by taxation. Any other contract would not be considered valid under these terms.
Then the individuals who vote for a state should be the only ones forced to submit to its authority. If say, I was to abstain from voting, or if I had voted for a different party who did not win the election, then I have given no voluntarily consent to the rulers currently in power.
The contractarian argument fails. Contracts must be explicit and there must be an ability to refuse. At no point did I sign a contract regarding roads, hospitals, etc. They were forced upon me by taxation. Any other contract would not be considered valid under these terms.
Then the individuals who vote for a state should be the only ones forced to submit to its authority. If say, I was to abstain from voting, or if I had voted for a different party who did not win the election, then I have given no voluntarily consent to the rulers currently in power.
Except it doesn't. You can refuse if you want. If you don't want to use roads, hospitals or anything you can go live in the woods alone. Because the means of making money are supplied by the state. And the market cannot be trusted. Without government the markets fail because contracts are ignored and people suffer due to lack of social protection.
Original post by VV Cephei A
Then the individuals who vote for a state should be the only ones forced to submit to its authority. If say, I was to abstain from voting, or if I had voted for a different party who did not win the election, then I have given no voluntarily consent to the rulers currently in power.
You assume democratic process can work without a majority. If one person abstains but everyone else is happy with the state then I'm afraid that justifies the state being there.
The state isn't a continuous thing, it either exists or it doesn't. And it isn't a state if it doesn't cover all its citizens (you can't individually opt out of being a citizen but living within the boundaries i.e. jurisdiction of the state).
Voting for a different party by democratic process is obviously affirming the state not rebelling against it.
Original post by viddy9
Having said that, my ideal society would be an anarcho-socialist one, where the State, the class system and currency have all been abolished. Incidentally, this would be the society that pure, rational utilitarians would adopt too.
Having said that, my ideal society would be an anarcho-socialist one, where the State, the class system and currency have all been abolished. Incidentally, this would be the society that pure, rational utilitarians would adopt too.
But what if economic systems can not be understood. What if the rational response to complexity is that we can not predict it in any meaningful way?
Yes, because morality is subjective. There are moralities in which the state is justified, and moralities in which it is not, and selection between them is simply Darwinian.
viddy9 has criticised moral intuitivism as illogical, which it is, but all more complex schemes are just (failed) attempts to give rational clothing to moral intuitions.
What Huemer has done is tried to derive a political morality that follows logically from a personal morality that most of his readers will find intuitive, and then argued (more or less reasonably in my opinion) that personal morality is probably closer to peoples' "true" intuitive morality than their intuitive ideas about political abstractions.
However, many possible readers will not find Huemers personal morality intuitive (e.g. devout Muslims), and so his political conclusions won't apply to them. Huemer doesn't notice, because these people just don't read his book.
viddy9 has criticised moral intuitivism as illogical, which it is, but all more complex schemes are just (failed) attempts to give rational clothing to moral intuitions.
What Huemer has done is tried to derive a political morality that follows logically from a personal morality that most of his readers will find intuitive, and then argued (more or less reasonably in my opinion) that personal morality is probably closer to peoples' "true" intuitive morality than their intuitive ideas about political abstractions.
However, many possible readers will not find Huemers personal morality intuitive (e.g. devout Muslims), and so his political conclusions won't apply to them. Huemer doesn't notice, because these people just don't read his book.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Having said that, my ideal society would be an anarcho-socialist one, where the State, the class system and currency have all been abolished. Incidentally, this would be the society that pure, rational utilitarians would adopt too.
Huh, why? Currencies are practical tools that increase utility by any probable definition.
Stateless societies require mass murder, because if you let even a small fraction of current humanity live there will be enough people who have different ideas about how society should be run to make it unviable.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
Huh, why? Currencies are practical tools that increase utility by any probable definition.
Stateless societies require mass murder, because if you let even a small fraction of current humanity live there will be enough people who have different ideas about how society should be run to make it unviable.
Stateless societies require mass murder, because if you let even a small fraction of current humanity live there will be enough people who have different ideas about how society should be run to make it unviable.
I'm much more skeptical about applying it to current humanity.
I don't see how currencies necessarily increase pleasure and reduce suffering. Pure, rational utilitarians would equally consider the comparable interests of all sentient beings anyway: they wouldn't need a currency. Everybody would aim to maximise utility all of the time.
As another utilitarian put it:
if everyone was perfectly altruistic, then there would be no need for a state apparatus to force people to be Utilitarian. People could voluntarily give of themselves and the only state-like elements in such a society might be technocratic experts who would be consulted to coordinate this giving to maximize benefit. But it would not be a state in the sense that the means of production would need to be owned by it, nor would they have to monopolize the use of force. Arguably in such a society, no one would own anything, but things would be voluntarily shared according to Utilitarian principles.
On your other point, we don't even need to give rational clothing to most of our moral intuitions. Derek Parfit in On What Matters (particularly Parts One and Six), along with Singer and de-Lazari Radek in The Point of View of the Universe build on Henry Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics to demonstrate that there is an objective moral system that we have reasons to follow: although Parfit stops somewhat short of it, this system is classical, hedonistic utilitarianism.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by VV Cephei A
A subject that philosophers have grappled with for centuries, but thus far I've failed to see a genuine argument legitimising the states authority over us other than; it is a "necessary" evil, and that society couldn't work without one.
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
Most contractarian arguments simply fail; even Locke's thinking which sought to limit government can't get around the simple fact that a contract of any sort has to involve explicit consent, and the ability to refuse. The whole concept contradicts everything we understand about contracts and the ethical principles which make them valid and binding.
Any argument related to the provision of public goods or the correction of market failures, even if they were legitimate from an economic standpoint, cannot avoid the fact that taxation can only be obtained through coercion at the threat of imprisonment or death. Which in any other context, would be deemed immoral by all.
I'm no anarchist, but it seems the furthest we've got so far is to say "we haven't yet worked out how to function without a government".
Are there any philosophical defenses of the state that you view as sufficient?
Man chooses to live in groups for a long list of reasons. we choose to be taxed.
We choose to have a portion of our rights limited, We want to progress, To progress you need industry. etc. etc. etc.
If the, "necessary evil" you refer to is that portion of our "total freedoms" we relinquish to the state in exchange for security, I would say it depends on whether your an individual or a group. As individuals our rights are total and complete. But they are of little use to us, there because are no applications until we are part of the group.
Bottom line; The majority, (gov) , is not what limits our rights, The gov. is not the necessary evil, Our need for gov. is the necessary evil.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- the problem of evil
- Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech
- Fitness to Practice Help
- MSt Creative Writing - Cambridge
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- General interest books about these topics?
- Could a controlling partner be good?
- should i tell my brown muslim parents that i'm bisexual?
- Building chemistry with housemates
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Has anyone got 22-25 marks on an A Level history essay?
- BTEC- Business Level 3 Revision help for finals
- how many people here smoke?
- Is Israel winning
- Can someone correct my Macbeth essay
- BTEC Business Pearsons Unit 2 - Developing a Marketing Campaign
- Is this a massive overreaction?
- AQA A-level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
I tried to apply to Disabled Student’s Allowance but…Last reply 1 minute ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Has anyone else been offered a place at UoYork for Midwifery?Last reply 7 minutes ago
If anyone does music and you please do my NEA form 🙏Last reply 9 minutes ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 10 minutes ago
TSR Decisions Drop In 2024 - open any time - help choosing university offersLast reply 11 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 12 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 13 minutes ago
Student finance for Pre-Settlement Status applicant for BSc NursingLast reply 17 minutes ago
Can I do medicine with these gcse grades and what unis would be most likely to acceptMedicine
11
Last reply 19 minutes ago
Bath vs Durham vs Leeds vs Nottingham vs LiverpoolLast reply 21 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 23 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 23 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 and A108 Offer Holders 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
