Aqa A2 Philosophy Unit 3 & 4, PHIL3/PHIL4 Revision Thread
Scroll to see replies
good revision tip I have is write general essays for each topic
eg I'm doing epistemology and metaphysics so for scepticism I have written paragraphs on everything I would include if that topic came up
it really helps me learn the content/practice writing essays and is easier than writing loads of different past exam q's
eg I'm doing epistemology and metaphysics so for scepticism I have written paragraphs on everything I would include if that topic came up
it really helps me learn the content/practice writing essays and is easier than writing loads of different past exam q's
Rawls and Nozick on justice
RAWLS: JUSTICE AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
John Rawls' theory of distributive justice (A Theory of Justice) is based on the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals. As such, it is marked by both conflicts between differing individual interests and an identity of shared interests. Principles of justice should `define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social co-operation'. (p. 4) Justice is the most important political value and applies to the `basic institutions of society' the political constitution and the institutions that regulate the market, property, family, freedom, and so on because it is intimately connected to what society is and what it is for. If society is a matter of cooperation between equals for mutual advantage, the conditions for this cooperation need to be defended and any inequalities in social positions must be justified. And so the principles of justice, Rawls thinks, must be `the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association' (p. 11). Justice, then, is fairness.
What are the terms of the `social contract'? What principles of justice would we agree to in this situation? For our agreement to secure a fair, impartial procedure, we need to eliminate any possible bias towards, say, the rich or the poor, or the religious or the atheist. So, argues Rawls, assume that we are to agree on these principles without knowing what our position in society will be or what our idea of the good is. The point of this `veil of ignorance' is to ensure
that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similar situated and no one is able to design principles to favour his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain. (p. 12)
Rawls calls this the `original position'. Of course, Rawls is not supposing that anyone has ever made decisions on this basis. The original position is simply a hypothetical thought experiment that seeks to `make vivid to ourselves the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for principles of justice, and therefore on these principles themselves'. (p. 18)
Two principles of justice
The goods to be distributed by justice are only those that we can assume everyone will want. These include rights, liberties, powers, opportunities, income, wealth, and self-respect. In the original position, Rawls argues, first, we will only agree to an equal distribution, unless a certain amount of inequality will work to everyone's advantage, for example by providing incentives which will generate more wealth for everyone. Second, once a certain level of material well-being is secured, we will value our basic liberties political liberty, the freedoms of speech, assembly, conscience, thought, personal property more than other goods. So equal liberty will be preferred to unequal liberty but greater wealth.
These two ideas lead to two principles of justice, with the first (political justice) always taking priority over the second (social justice):
1. each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all; and
2. social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
a. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and
b. attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. (p. 302)
The most controversial claim is 2(a), known as the `Difference Principle'. Rawls argues that inequalities should be to everyone's benefit. But is he right that we would choose the Difference Principle in the original position? Which of the following two scenarios is it rational to prefer, if we have a 50% chance of being either richer or poorer?
Richer Poorer Average
A: 50 40 45
B: 150 30 90
Rawls argues for A `maximise the minimum' level of welfare. But we can object that it makes just as much sense to maximise the average wealth (B), especially as there is equality of opportunity that will allow one to improve one's position.
Self and society
Rawls' theory is based on his view that society is a cooperative pursuit of what is in our individual interest, which can be identified prior to our existence in society. Both Conservatism and Marxism would reject this liberal individualism. It rules out any theory that sees social bonds as intrinsically good, rather than a means to our individual advantage. It assumes that we are fundamentally separate, rather than naturally social. It understands justice as arising out of conflicting claims between individuals who are disinterested in each other's welfare.
Second, in his defence of the usefulness of the original position, Rawls assumes that you and I can meaningfully exist as ourselves behind the `veil of ignorance' or the original position is useless in discerning justice for us. A different theory of the self, known as communitarianism, argues that our individual identities are defined by our values, what gives meaning to our lives. We cannot strip ourselves of such ideas in a thought experiment; nor would the results of the thought experiment be meaningful for us. Furthermore, our values and conception of what is good are derived from other people, and held in common with them. We gain our values in a community another objection to Rawls' individualism.
If this is right, then even if redistribution is justified, it is not justified by Rawls' argument. In the next section, we will discuss further objections to Rawls' theory of justice.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, LIBERTY AND RIGHTS
The three principles of distributive justice we discussed, based on equality, need and desert, did not comment on the relationships between justice and liberty, nor did they make use of the concept of `rights' in developing their accounts. By contrast, Rawls explicitly relates his theory to both liberty and rights.
Rawls' first principle of justice covers liberty, and he argues that, once a certain level of material well-being is secured, it should always take priority over the second principle regarding distributive justice. Liberty is more important than the distribution of social and economic inequalities.
Rawls rejects the idea of rights prior to the principles of justice. Principles of justice assign rights (and duties, benefits and burdens), so people can only make a rights claim once the principles of justice are in place.] We could object that justice is served when people receive what they have a right to. We could argue, for instance, that people have a right to what they need or deserve. A different theory, which bases justice on rights and liberty, is that of Robert Nozick.
Nozick's entitlement theory
Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia, Ch. 7) is primarily concerned with the distribution of property, and argues that justice involves three ideas:
1. Justice in acquisition: how you first acquire property rights over something that has not previously been owned
2. Justice in transfer: how you acquire property rights over something that has been transferred (e.g. by gift or exchange) to you by someone else;
3. Rectification of injustice: how to restore something to its rightful owner, in case of injustice in either acquisition or transfer.
Nozick's theory of justice claims that whether a distribution is just or not depends entirely on how it came about. By contrast, justice according to equality, need, desert or Rawls' Difference Principle depends entirely on the `pattern' of distribution at that moment.
An advantage of Nozick's theory is that if a certain distribution of goods (D1) is just (according to whichever theory you like), then if people voluntarily move to a different distribution (D2), observing justice in transfer, D2 will also be just. Whether D2 is patterned according to equality, need, desert or the Difference Principle is irrelevant. Suppose a famous footballer whom people love to watch, e.g. Christiano Ronaldo, asks to be paid 25p of each ticket sold for home games. The club agrees and fans are happy to pay the extra 25p each. If 400,000 people go to his games in a season, he will be £100,000 richer. According to Nozick, this is not unjust, because everyone gave the extra money voluntarily. Yet the new distribution would be deemed unjust by the other theories.
Justice, Nozick argues, is about respecting people's (natural) rights, in particular, their rights to property and their rights to self-ownership. We must allow people the freedom to decide what they want to do with what they own. Each person is separate, an individual, and we must respect their autonomy. People are `ends-in-themselves', and we cannot use them in ways they do not agree to, even if that would lead to some supposed `greater good' (e.g. other people getting what they need). This has a radical conclusion: to take property away from people in order to redistribute it according to some pattern violates their rights. But this is exactly what taxation (for the purpose of redistribution) does. To tax Ronaldo's extra earnings and return the money to the poorer fans violates his right to the money.
Nozick thinks property rights are important because they derive from `self-ownership'. A person has a right to what they produce, because they own their own labour, which they invest in creating the product. `Justice in acquisition' places constraints on exactly when and how this occurs, but this is the basic idea. And once something is (justly) owned, then justice is all about justice in transfer.
If people have the right to do as they choose with their property, then liberty upsets patterns, as the Ronaldo example shows. So all patterned theories of distributive justice restrict people's free actions. Either we will constantly have to intervene with the distribution of property to bring it back into line with our patterned principle of justice or we will `have to have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults'. (p. 162)
Discussion
Nozick's theory is very controversial, because it could justify very unequal distributions of property that may not respect what people deserve, nor what they need, nor give any kind of priority to people who are worse off. If he is right, redistribution cannot be justified except to rectify a previous injustice.
Rawls challenges Nozick's defence of property rights. Much of what people own is the result of people's social position and their natural talents, both of which are morally arbitrary. Therefore, any inequalities in ownership are unjust. Furthermore, what rights people have to property can't be decided before deciding on the principles of justice. People don't have a right to the earnings their talents bring them, only to that share which they keep according to the principles of distributive justice.
Nozick responds that each person's talents and abilities belong to them. They therefore have a right to keep (or do whatever they want with) whatever these talents and abilities gain for them. To forcibly redistribute what they earn is to fail to respect their autonomy.
But even if people own themselves, we can argue that this doesn't entail that we have the right to do whatever we want with all of our property. A reinterpretation of `justice in transfer' could place restrictions on property rights. Nozick supposes that any transfer, if it is freely consented to, is just. We can argue that the rules governing transfer should be sensitive to many political values, not just liberty. The rules we currently have (regarding tax, inheritance, transfer between married couples, gifts and so on) are a product of balancing many considerations relating to patterns of production and work, family life, and political institutions.
Furthermore, we can interpret individual liberty as a goal to be pursued, not a constraint. If the value of justice rests on liberty, and Nozick is right that property is so important for liberty, then surely we must ensure that everyone has sufficient property to be free. Redistribution of property from the rich to the poor will equally be a redistribution of liberty. But this is a patterned principle of justice.
A final objection to Nozick is this: History shows that a great deal of initial acquisition of property was unjust, based on theft, exploitation, slavery and colonization. All property that derives from unjust acquisition is unjustly held. You do not have a right to transfer property you stole, nor does the new owner have a right to what they receive. But, of course, we cannot now rectify the injustice of the past. We have no way of establishing what belongs to whom. So Nozick's theory has no application if we do not start from a just beginning; we must therefore work out a different theory of justice that is not so sensitive to past injustices that we cannot correct. The historical nature of Nozick's theory turns out to be a weak spot.
RAWLS: JUSTICE AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
John Rawls' theory of distributive justice (A Theory of Justice) is based on the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals. As such, it is marked by both conflicts between differing individual interests and an identity of shared interests. Principles of justice should `define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social co-operation'. (p. 4) Justice is the most important political value and applies to the `basic institutions of society' the political constitution and the institutions that regulate the market, property, family, freedom, and so on because it is intimately connected to what society is and what it is for. If society is a matter of cooperation between equals for mutual advantage, the conditions for this cooperation need to be defended and any inequalities in social positions must be justified. And so the principles of justice, Rawls thinks, must be `the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association' (p. 11). Justice, then, is fairness.
What are the terms of the `social contract'? What principles of justice would we agree to in this situation? For our agreement to secure a fair, impartial procedure, we need to eliminate any possible bias towards, say, the rich or the poor, or the religious or the atheist. So, argues Rawls, assume that we are to agree on these principles without knowing what our position in society will be or what our idea of the good is. The point of this `veil of ignorance' is to ensure
that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similar situated and no one is able to design principles to favour his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain. (p. 12)
Rawls calls this the `original position'. Of course, Rawls is not supposing that anyone has ever made decisions on this basis. The original position is simply a hypothetical thought experiment that seeks to `make vivid to ourselves the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for principles of justice, and therefore on these principles themselves'. (p. 18)
Two principles of justice
The goods to be distributed by justice are only those that we can assume everyone will want. These include rights, liberties, powers, opportunities, income, wealth, and self-respect. In the original position, Rawls argues, first, we will only agree to an equal distribution, unless a certain amount of inequality will work to everyone's advantage, for example by providing incentives which will generate more wealth for everyone. Second, once a certain level of material well-being is secured, we will value our basic liberties political liberty, the freedoms of speech, assembly, conscience, thought, personal property more than other goods. So equal liberty will be preferred to unequal liberty but greater wealth.
These two ideas lead to two principles of justice, with the first (political justice) always taking priority over the second (social justice):
1. each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all; and
2. social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
a. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and
b. attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. (p. 302)
The most controversial claim is 2(a), known as the `Difference Principle'. Rawls argues that inequalities should be to everyone's benefit. But is he right that we would choose the Difference Principle in the original position? Which of the following two scenarios is it rational to prefer, if we have a 50% chance of being either richer or poorer?
Richer Poorer Average
A: 50 40 45
B: 150 30 90
Rawls argues for A `maximise the minimum' level of welfare. But we can object that it makes just as much sense to maximise the average wealth (B), especially as there is equality of opportunity that will allow one to improve one's position.
Self and society
Rawls' theory is based on his view that society is a cooperative pursuit of what is in our individual interest, which can be identified prior to our existence in society. Both Conservatism and Marxism would reject this liberal individualism. It rules out any theory that sees social bonds as intrinsically good, rather than a means to our individual advantage. It assumes that we are fundamentally separate, rather than naturally social. It understands justice as arising out of conflicting claims between individuals who are disinterested in each other's welfare.
Second, in his defence of the usefulness of the original position, Rawls assumes that you and I can meaningfully exist as ourselves behind the `veil of ignorance' or the original position is useless in discerning justice for us. A different theory of the self, known as communitarianism, argues that our individual identities are defined by our values, what gives meaning to our lives. We cannot strip ourselves of such ideas in a thought experiment; nor would the results of the thought experiment be meaningful for us. Furthermore, our values and conception of what is good are derived from other people, and held in common with them. We gain our values in a community another objection to Rawls' individualism.
If this is right, then even if redistribution is justified, it is not justified by Rawls' argument. In the next section, we will discuss further objections to Rawls' theory of justice.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, LIBERTY AND RIGHTS
The three principles of distributive justice we discussed, based on equality, need and desert, did not comment on the relationships between justice and liberty, nor did they make use of the concept of `rights' in developing their accounts. By contrast, Rawls explicitly relates his theory to both liberty and rights.
Rawls' first principle of justice covers liberty, and he argues that, once a certain level of material well-being is secured, it should always take priority over the second principle regarding distributive justice. Liberty is more important than the distribution of social and economic inequalities.
Rawls rejects the idea of rights prior to the principles of justice. Principles of justice assign rights (and duties, benefits and burdens), so people can only make a rights claim once the principles of justice are in place.] We could object that justice is served when people receive what they have a right to. We could argue, for instance, that people have a right to what they need or deserve. A different theory, which bases justice on rights and liberty, is that of Robert Nozick.
Nozick's entitlement theory
Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia, Ch. 7) is primarily concerned with the distribution of property, and argues that justice involves three ideas:
1. Justice in acquisition: how you first acquire property rights over something that has not previously been owned
2. Justice in transfer: how you acquire property rights over something that has been transferred (e.g. by gift or exchange) to you by someone else;
3. Rectification of injustice: how to restore something to its rightful owner, in case of injustice in either acquisition or transfer.
Nozick's theory of justice claims that whether a distribution is just or not depends entirely on how it came about. By contrast, justice according to equality, need, desert or Rawls' Difference Principle depends entirely on the `pattern' of distribution at that moment.
An advantage of Nozick's theory is that if a certain distribution of goods (D1) is just (according to whichever theory you like), then if people voluntarily move to a different distribution (D2), observing justice in transfer, D2 will also be just. Whether D2 is patterned according to equality, need, desert or the Difference Principle is irrelevant. Suppose a famous footballer whom people love to watch, e.g. Christiano Ronaldo, asks to be paid 25p of each ticket sold for home games. The club agrees and fans are happy to pay the extra 25p each. If 400,000 people go to his games in a season, he will be £100,000 richer. According to Nozick, this is not unjust, because everyone gave the extra money voluntarily. Yet the new distribution would be deemed unjust by the other theories.
Justice, Nozick argues, is about respecting people's (natural) rights, in particular, their rights to property and their rights to self-ownership. We must allow people the freedom to decide what they want to do with what they own. Each person is separate, an individual, and we must respect their autonomy. People are `ends-in-themselves', and we cannot use them in ways they do not agree to, even if that would lead to some supposed `greater good' (e.g. other people getting what they need). This has a radical conclusion: to take property away from people in order to redistribute it according to some pattern violates their rights. But this is exactly what taxation (for the purpose of redistribution) does. To tax Ronaldo's extra earnings and return the money to the poorer fans violates his right to the money.
Nozick thinks property rights are important because they derive from `self-ownership'. A person has a right to what they produce, because they own their own labour, which they invest in creating the product. `Justice in acquisition' places constraints on exactly when and how this occurs, but this is the basic idea. And once something is (justly) owned, then justice is all about justice in transfer.
If people have the right to do as they choose with their property, then liberty upsets patterns, as the Ronaldo example shows. So all patterned theories of distributive justice restrict people's free actions. Either we will constantly have to intervene with the distribution of property to bring it back into line with our patterned principle of justice or we will `have to have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults'. (p. 162)
Discussion
Nozick's theory is very controversial, because it could justify very unequal distributions of property that may not respect what people deserve, nor what they need, nor give any kind of priority to people who are worse off. If he is right, redistribution cannot be justified except to rectify a previous injustice.
Rawls challenges Nozick's defence of property rights. Much of what people own is the result of people's social position and their natural talents, both of which are morally arbitrary. Therefore, any inequalities in ownership are unjust. Furthermore, what rights people have to property can't be decided before deciding on the principles of justice. People don't have a right to the earnings their talents bring them, only to that share which they keep according to the principles of distributive justice.
Nozick responds that each person's talents and abilities belong to them. They therefore have a right to keep (or do whatever they want with) whatever these talents and abilities gain for them. To forcibly redistribute what they earn is to fail to respect their autonomy.
But even if people own themselves, we can argue that this doesn't entail that we have the right to do whatever we want with all of our property. A reinterpretation of `justice in transfer' could place restrictions on property rights. Nozick supposes that any transfer, if it is freely consented to, is just. We can argue that the rules governing transfer should be sensitive to many political values, not just liberty. The rules we currently have (regarding tax, inheritance, transfer between married couples, gifts and so on) are a product of balancing many considerations relating to patterns of production and work, family life, and political institutions.
Furthermore, we can interpret individual liberty as a goal to be pursued, not a constraint. If the value of justice rests on liberty, and Nozick is right that property is so important for liberty, then surely we must ensure that everyone has sufficient property to be free. Redistribution of property from the rich to the poor will equally be a redistribution of liberty. But this is a patterned principle of justice.
A final objection to Nozick is this: History shows that a great deal of initial acquisition of property was unjust, based on theft, exploitation, slavery and colonization. All property that derives from unjust acquisition is unjustly held. You do not have a right to transfer property you stole, nor does the new owner have a right to what they receive. But, of course, we cannot now rectify the injustice of the past. We have no way of establishing what belongs to whom. So Nozick's theory has no application if we do not start from a just beginning; we must therefore work out a different theory of justice that is not so sensitive to past injustices that we cannot correct. The historical nature of Nozick's theory turns out to be a weak spot.
How well does Mill ground various rights, e.g. right to free speech?
Rights
THE NOTION OF RIGHTS
The idea of rights extends widely. I have a right to go to the cinema, a right not to be killed, a right to teach students at Heythrop College, a right to be paid, a right to have children, a right to the exclusive use of my house. Some rights are moral rights, some are legal, some are the results of contracts. We can also categorize rights by who has them (animal rights, workers' rights) or by what they are rights to (freedom of speech, job seekers allowance). In general, a right can be understood as an entitlement to perform, or refrain from, certain actions and/or an entitlement that other people perform, or refrain from, certain actions. Many rights involve a complex set of such entitlements
Wesley Hohfeld (Fundamental Legal Conceptions) provided a four-fold analysis of the `structure' of rights that is generally accepted. The first two are:
1. Privilege/liberty: I have a privilege/liberty to do x if I have no duty not to do x. I have the right to go to the cinema because I have no duty not to go to the cinema. But I have no right to steal, because I have a duty not to steal.
2. Claim: I have a claim right that someone else does x in certain cases in which they have a duty to me to do x. Claim rights can be `negative' they require that other people don't interfere with me (e.g. the right not to be killed); or `positive' they require that other people do specific action (e.g. the right to be paid if I'm employed). (I shall refer to negative v. positive rights as rights of non-interference v. rights of provision respectively.)
While every claim right entails a duty, not every duty entails a claim right. I may have a duty to give to charity, but I have not violated anyone's rights if I don't. Some duties are based on rights, but some are not. Talk of rights should not be confused with talk of what is morally right.
Liberties and claims are the core of most rights. The rest of our discussion of rights involves rights that are, or at least involve, claims.
Powers and immunities
Many rights relate to being able to alter duties.
3. Power: I have a power when I have the authority to alter my own or someone else's rights and duties. Judges have the right to set prison sentences, someone who is promised something has the right to enforce or waive the promise.
4. Immunity: I have an immunity when someone else does not have the power to change my rights and duties. So I have the right to freedom of religion, because no one has the right (power) to impose a particular religious practice on me.
Many `everyday' rights have a complex structure that involves all four of these aspects to a right. My property right to my books gives me the liberty to use them, a claim that no one else uses them, the power to waive that claim (lend my book to them) or transfer it (sell my book to them), and the immunity from anyone else waive or transferring my right to my books. However, my right is not absolute, the duties and liberties are limited, e.g. it does not give me the liberty to throw my books at other people, or give them permission to throw them. And if I refuse to pay taxes, my books may be seized and auctioned off to cover my debt. So to accept a system of rights is to accept a distribution of liberties and duties.
The distinction between natural and positive rights
`Natural rights' are rights people have simply in virtue of their nature, e.g. rationality, autonomy, or certain needs. They are moral rights, and do not depend on being recognised by law. Instead, laws that violate people's natural rights can be condemned for that reason. They are universal, not relative to a particular society or set of laws. For this reason, many people think that whether there are any natural rights depends on whether there is a universal, objective morality.
By contrast, `positive rights' are rights recognised and established in a system of rules. (This is usually the law, but also applies to religious rules and even games.) If all rights are positive rights, then rights only exist when recognised, e.g. in law. We can argue that a right imposes duties, which must be recognised and enforced. Rights appeal for authoritative recognition and legal enforcement. `Natural' rights therefore do not make sense.
But surely we can say that a law fails to recognise someone's rights. In response, we can argue that first, a law may violate someone's rights because it contradicts another law which has established those rights. For instance, UK law is required to conform to European law on what rights we have. Second, we can criticise laws for failing to recognise what ought to be (but is not yet) a right. Laws which do not establish the rights that people ought to have are morally wrong. But it is a confusion to say that people have the right before the law bestows it.
If we say there are natural rights as well as positive rights, we defend two types of right. It is simpler to reject natural rights, and talk about what rights should be established in law. Many people equate `human rights' and natural rights, and take a rejection of natural rights to undermine human rights. But we could argue, instead, that human rights are created by national and international law. The debate continues in the next section.
THEORIES OF HOW RIGHTS ARE GROUNDED
In arguments about the basis of rights, there are two distinct issues. The first is the function of rights. Do rights exist to protect individual choice and freedom? Or to protect individual's interests more generally? The second is what justifies rights. Are there deontological restrictions on how we treat individuals, based on individual worth or attributes? Or do rights serve some further moral or political goal, such as happiness, justice or equality?
Answers to the two questions tend to align, with choice defended by deontology, and interests defended by appeal to some goal. But this alignment is not necessary (e.g. we can defend the choice theory by appeal to happiness), and it is important to keep the two issues separate.
The function of rights: choice v. interests
Choice
Many rights relate to freedom freedom of thought, speech, movement, freedom from murder and torture. Rights, we can argue, have the specific function of saying when freedom may or may not be limited. A different argument is that to have a right is to have a choice either a liberty right to do something or not; or, for a claim right, the power to claim or waive another's duty. These claims recognise the special place that freedom and choice have in our lives. Rights protect that area of negative freedom necessary for us to live our lives according to our conception of what is good.
However, this theory disallows many apparent rights. We cannot ascribe rights to beings that do not make autonomous choices, so infants, animals and comatose patients do not have rights. If to have a right is to have a choice, this limits rights even further. For example, in Australia, it is compulsory to vote. Yet don't Australians also have the right to vote? Or again, many people think that certain rights, e.g. to life or freedom, are inalienable. An inalienable right is one that you do not have the power to waive or transfer, e.g. you cannot sell yourself into slavery. But if rights are choices, no rights are inalienable.
A second objection is that rights do more than just protect freedom. They tend, simultaneously, to protect other interests, such as not being physically or mentally harmed. If all, or most, rights do both, why pick out freedom as what rights protect?
One defence comes from the theory that claims rights are justified on the basis of autonomy.
Interests
If the function of rights is to protect individual interests, a person has a right because that will make them better off in some way. Having freedom, of course, is very much in our interests, but other interests also generate rights. Health, food, shelter and education all make us importantly better off. And beings without choice, such as infants and animals, nevertheless have their interests, and these interests may generate rights. There may also be inalienable rights, as some interests may be too important for a person to exercise choice over.
But then, does any interest generate a right? We clearly think not. It is in my interest to be given money, but I have no right to this. Michael Freeden argues that
a human right is a conceptual device...that assigns priority to certain human or social attributes regarded as essential to the adequate functioning of a human being; that is intended to serve as a protective capsule for those attributes; and that appeals for deliberate action to ensure such protection. (Rights, p. 7)
So not all interests generate rights. First, the interest must be closely to connected to what we think it takes to live an adequate human life. Second, we must want to protect against other considerations that might conflict with it, such as preferences. I might prefer you not to have freedom of speech, if I don't like what you are saying. But if you have this right to freedom of speech, then my preferences do not provide good enough grounds for depriving you of freedom of speech. Third, we must be able to impose (and enforce) duties to protect it.
Which interests meet these criteria is a matter of debate. It could even be that our interest in an area of negative freedom is the only one!
The justification of rights
Appeal to individual attributes
We can argue that we are morally required to assign and respect rights because of something about individuals. One version of this claim, deriving from Locke, argues that people have natural rights bestowed by God. Another argues that to have rights is to be part of a moral community that agrees to live by certain rules.
A third version, from Kant, is that individuals are `ends-in-themselves'. In brief, Kant argues that autonomous choice is the basis of morality itself. It is also the source of all value; everything else has value only because it is adopted as an end by someone. So we cannot weigh treating people as ends-in-themselves against any other end, as no other end has as much value. To ascribe rights recognises individuals as `ends-in-themselves', it respects their autonomy. We don't ascribe rights to someone because it is in their interests, but because it recognises what they are.
We can object, however, that our rights, even our fundamental rights, are shaped by many conditions that seem to relate not to ourselves, but to other people and social goods. My freedom of speech does not extend to saying `Fire!' in a crowded cinema. My right to my property doesn't entitle me to do whatever I want with it. If my rights were grounded just my autonomy, how can we explain this?
Appeal to moral or political goals
A second approach justifies rights by their role in securing some moral or political good. Mill argued that we could derive a theory of rights from utilitarianism. Certain of our interests, he argues, should be protected as rights. Society may use the law to regulate conduct that consists in `injuring the interests of one another, or rather certain interests which, either by express legal provision or tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights'. (On Liberty, p. 141)
Mill argues that utility is `the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being'. (p. 70) Rights relate to these `permanent interests' we have as `progressive beings'. Singling out these interests for protection will contribute most to utility. For example, Mill argues that freedom of thought and speech will help us to discover and understand the truth; and that `the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being'. (p. 120) On the other hand, we do not have a right to protection from economic competition, because economic competition contributes to the common good.
We can object, however, that if it proved that freedom of thought etc. did not contribute to utility, then we would no longer have these rights. We only have rights that contribute to greatest utility. Mill's defence of rights rested on his belief that we progress through having freedom. But after two World Wars and the rise of religious violence, we may doubt whether Mill is right about this. Do utility and rights conflict?
Second, a right protects the individual's interest against what may compete with it, e.g. the greater good. If I have a right to freedom of speech, then even if it would be better for everyone if I did not express my objectionable views, I may not be prevented from doing so. But if the ground of rights is utility, this protection seems insecure. If my rights are justified by general utility, then doesn't the general utility of overriding my rights justify violating them?
Other theories that appeal to moral or political goals to defend rights do not all face these objections. For example, John Rawls argues that we have certain rights as a matter of justice. What defines justice is not respect for the natural attributes of individuals, but fairness. Assigning and respecting rights, then, secures justice as fairness.
Marx's objection
Marx argued that talk of rights liberal rights, to liberty, property and so on should be abandoned. When we consider the function of rights, we see that the idea of rights derives from a view of human beings as separated from each other, not communally related. It assumes that individuals have interests which can be defined as their own, independent of other people. Liberty rights assume that they are always potentially in conflict with each other, property rights that they may do whatever they wish, so long as they don't harm others, ignoring the desperate need for resources elsewhere. These assumptions will create a society of isolated egoists. And the idea of equal rights creates an illusion that there is equality, when in reality there is not.
These are important considerations, but we can question whether the concept of rights must itself be given up. It may be that we should place more emphasis on group rights and less on individual rights.
Rights
THE NOTION OF RIGHTS
The idea of rights extends widely. I have a right to go to the cinema, a right not to be killed, a right to teach students at Heythrop College, a right to be paid, a right to have children, a right to the exclusive use of my house. Some rights are moral rights, some are legal, some are the results of contracts. We can also categorize rights by who has them (animal rights, workers' rights) or by what they are rights to (freedom of speech, job seekers allowance). In general, a right can be understood as an entitlement to perform, or refrain from, certain actions and/or an entitlement that other people perform, or refrain from, certain actions. Many rights involve a complex set of such entitlements
Wesley Hohfeld (Fundamental Legal Conceptions) provided a four-fold analysis of the `structure' of rights that is generally accepted. The first two are:
1. Privilege/liberty: I have a privilege/liberty to do x if I have no duty not to do x. I have the right to go to the cinema because I have no duty not to go to the cinema. But I have no right to steal, because I have a duty not to steal.
2. Claim: I have a claim right that someone else does x in certain cases in which they have a duty to me to do x. Claim rights can be `negative' they require that other people don't interfere with me (e.g. the right not to be killed); or `positive' they require that other people do specific action (e.g. the right to be paid if I'm employed). (I shall refer to negative v. positive rights as rights of non-interference v. rights of provision respectively.)
While every claim right entails a duty, not every duty entails a claim right. I may have a duty to give to charity, but I have not violated anyone's rights if I don't. Some duties are based on rights, but some are not. Talk of rights should not be confused with talk of what is morally right.
Liberties and claims are the core of most rights. The rest of our discussion of rights involves rights that are, or at least involve, claims.
Powers and immunities
Many rights relate to being able to alter duties.
3. Power: I have a power when I have the authority to alter my own or someone else's rights and duties. Judges have the right to set prison sentences, someone who is promised something has the right to enforce or waive the promise.
4. Immunity: I have an immunity when someone else does not have the power to change my rights and duties. So I have the right to freedom of religion, because no one has the right (power) to impose a particular religious practice on me.
Many `everyday' rights have a complex structure that involves all four of these aspects to a right. My property right to my books gives me the liberty to use them, a claim that no one else uses them, the power to waive that claim (lend my book to them) or transfer it (sell my book to them), and the immunity from anyone else waive or transferring my right to my books. However, my right is not absolute, the duties and liberties are limited, e.g. it does not give me the liberty to throw my books at other people, or give them permission to throw them. And if I refuse to pay taxes, my books may be seized and auctioned off to cover my debt. So to accept a system of rights is to accept a distribution of liberties and duties.
The distinction between natural and positive rights
`Natural rights' are rights people have simply in virtue of their nature, e.g. rationality, autonomy, or certain needs. They are moral rights, and do not depend on being recognised by law. Instead, laws that violate people's natural rights can be condemned for that reason. They are universal, not relative to a particular society or set of laws. For this reason, many people think that whether there are any natural rights depends on whether there is a universal, objective morality.
By contrast, `positive rights' are rights recognised and established in a system of rules. (This is usually the law, but also applies to religious rules and even games.) If all rights are positive rights, then rights only exist when recognised, e.g. in law. We can argue that a right imposes duties, which must be recognised and enforced. Rights appeal for authoritative recognition and legal enforcement. `Natural' rights therefore do not make sense.
But surely we can say that a law fails to recognise someone's rights. In response, we can argue that first, a law may violate someone's rights because it contradicts another law which has established those rights. For instance, UK law is required to conform to European law on what rights we have. Second, we can criticise laws for failing to recognise what ought to be (but is not yet) a right. Laws which do not establish the rights that people ought to have are morally wrong. But it is a confusion to say that people have the right before the law bestows it.
If we say there are natural rights as well as positive rights, we defend two types of right. It is simpler to reject natural rights, and talk about what rights should be established in law. Many people equate `human rights' and natural rights, and take a rejection of natural rights to undermine human rights. But we could argue, instead, that human rights are created by national and international law. The debate continues in the next section.
THEORIES OF HOW RIGHTS ARE GROUNDED
In arguments about the basis of rights, there are two distinct issues. The first is the function of rights. Do rights exist to protect individual choice and freedom? Or to protect individual's interests more generally? The second is what justifies rights. Are there deontological restrictions on how we treat individuals, based on individual worth or attributes? Or do rights serve some further moral or political goal, such as happiness, justice or equality?
Answers to the two questions tend to align, with choice defended by deontology, and interests defended by appeal to some goal. But this alignment is not necessary (e.g. we can defend the choice theory by appeal to happiness), and it is important to keep the two issues separate.
The function of rights: choice v. interests
Choice
Many rights relate to freedom freedom of thought, speech, movement, freedom from murder and torture. Rights, we can argue, have the specific function of saying when freedom may or may not be limited. A different argument is that to have a right is to have a choice either a liberty right to do something or not; or, for a claim right, the power to claim or waive another's duty. These claims recognise the special place that freedom and choice have in our lives. Rights protect that area of negative freedom necessary for us to live our lives according to our conception of what is good.
However, this theory disallows many apparent rights. We cannot ascribe rights to beings that do not make autonomous choices, so infants, animals and comatose patients do not have rights. If to have a right is to have a choice, this limits rights even further. For example, in Australia, it is compulsory to vote. Yet don't Australians also have the right to vote? Or again, many people think that certain rights, e.g. to life or freedom, are inalienable. An inalienable right is one that you do not have the power to waive or transfer, e.g. you cannot sell yourself into slavery. But if rights are choices, no rights are inalienable.
A second objection is that rights do more than just protect freedom. They tend, simultaneously, to protect other interests, such as not being physically or mentally harmed. If all, or most, rights do both, why pick out freedom as what rights protect?
One defence comes from the theory that claims rights are justified on the basis of autonomy.
Interests
If the function of rights is to protect individual interests, a person has a right because that will make them better off in some way. Having freedom, of course, is very much in our interests, but other interests also generate rights. Health, food, shelter and education all make us importantly better off. And beings without choice, such as infants and animals, nevertheless have their interests, and these interests may generate rights. There may also be inalienable rights, as some interests may be too important for a person to exercise choice over.
But then, does any interest generate a right? We clearly think not. It is in my interest to be given money, but I have no right to this. Michael Freeden argues that
a human right is a conceptual device...that assigns priority to certain human or social attributes regarded as essential to the adequate functioning of a human being; that is intended to serve as a protective capsule for those attributes; and that appeals for deliberate action to ensure such protection. (Rights, p. 7)
So not all interests generate rights. First, the interest must be closely to connected to what we think it takes to live an adequate human life. Second, we must want to protect against other considerations that might conflict with it, such as preferences. I might prefer you not to have freedom of speech, if I don't like what you are saying. But if you have this right to freedom of speech, then my preferences do not provide good enough grounds for depriving you of freedom of speech. Third, we must be able to impose (and enforce) duties to protect it.
Which interests meet these criteria is a matter of debate. It could even be that our interest in an area of negative freedom is the only one!
The justification of rights
Appeal to individual attributes
We can argue that we are morally required to assign and respect rights because of something about individuals. One version of this claim, deriving from Locke, argues that people have natural rights bestowed by God. Another argues that to have rights is to be part of a moral community that agrees to live by certain rules.
A third version, from Kant, is that individuals are `ends-in-themselves'. In brief, Kant argues that autonomous choice is the basis of morality itself. It is also the source of all value; everything else has value only because it is adopted as an end by someone. So we cannot weigh treating people as ends-in-themselves against any other end, as no other end has as much value. To ascribe rights recognises individuals as `ends-in-themselves', it respects their autonomy. We don't ascribe rights to someone because it is in their interests, but because it recognises what they are.
We can object, however, that our rights, even our fundamental rights, are shaped by many conditions that seem to relate not to ourselves, but to other people and social goods. My freedom of speech does not extend to saying `Fire!' in a crowded cinema. My right to my property doesn't entitle me to do whatever I want with it. If my rights were grounded just my autonomy, how can we explain this?
Appeal to moral or political goals
A second approach justifies rights by their role in securing some moral or political good. Mill argued that we could derive a theory of rights from utilitarianism. Certain of our interests, he argues, should be protected as rights. Society may use the law to regulate conduct that consists in `injuring the interests of one another, or rather certain interests which, either by express legal provision or tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights'. (On Liberty, p. 141)
Mill argues that utility is `the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being'. (p. 70) Rights relate to these `permanent interests' we have as `progressive beings'. Singling out these interests for protection will contribute most to utility. For example, Mill argues that freedom of thought and speech will help us to discover and understand the truth; and that `the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being'. (p. 120) On the other hand, we do not have a right to protection from economic competition, because economic competition contributes to the common good.
We can object, however, that if it proved that freedom of thought etc. did not contribute to utility, then we would no longer have these rights. We only have rights that contribute to greatest utility. Mill's defence of rights rested on his belief that we progress through having freedom. But after two World Wars and the rise of religious violence, we may doubt whether Mill is right about this. Do utility and rights conflict?
Second, a right protects the individual's interest against what may compete with it, e.g. the greater good. If I have a right to freedom of speech, then even if it would be better for everyone if I did not express my objectionable views, I may not be prevented from doing so. But if the ground of rights is utility, this protection seems insecure. If my rights are justified by general utility, then doesn't the general utility of overriding my rights justify violating them?
Other theories that appeal to moral or political goals to defend rights do not all face these objections. For example, John Rawls argues that we have certain rights as a matter of justice. What defines justice is not respect for the natural attributes of individuals, but fairness. Assigning and respecting rights, then, secures justice as fairness.
Marx's objection
Marx argued that talk of rights liberal rights, to liberty, property and so on should be abandoned. When we consider the function of rights, we see that the idea of rights derives from a view of human beings as separated from each other, not communally related. It assumes that individuals have interests which can be defined as their own, independent of other people. Liberty rights assume that they are always potentially in conflict with each other, property rights that they may do whatever they wish, so long as they don't harm others, ignoring the desperate need for resources elsewhere. These assumptions will create a society of isolated egoists. And the idea of equal rights creates an illusion that there is equality, when in reality there is not.
These are important considerations, but we can question whether the concept of rights must itself be given up. It may be that we should place more emphasis on group rights and less on individual rights.
(b) Assess whether the goal of distributive justice is compatible with protecting individual liberties
and rights
he concept of distributive justice requires us to consider the ethics of how political goods or benefits are
distributed. This includes the distribution of property but may also be taken to include the distribution of
other desirable goods, eg opportunity, security, etc. There are competing views of what a just distribution
of political goods might be based upon, eg universal human wants or needs, human rights, efforts and/or
merits. This question will probably be disputed within liberalism (although other political ideologies may
also be referred to):
The classical liberal view includes property within an individual.s sphere of protected rights: if this is
accepted then the value of liberty gives us a notion of distributive justice compatible with capitalism
and with high levels of inequality (generally, the more a .desert. is stressed, eg property rights or
effort, the less egalitarian the result).
An alternative view is that unchecked and increasing levels of inequality are detrimental to liberty
because, for example, this restricts opportunity and choice. If this is true, a just distribution of goods
would imply a degree of egalitarianism and would require some intervention by the state to regulate
markets and protect liberty and justice. (Property is not a protected individual or natural right).
Some of the following, or equivalent points, should be selected for discussion:
Locke.s view that our natural rights include property rights. Locke.s arguments in defence of this:
survival, labour, adding value through work. God gave the earth to the industrious.
Nozick.s defence of classical liberalism (in response to Rawls). The attempt to impose any
.patterned. notion of justice is inconsistent with individual liberty. Recognising liberty means that we
cannot restrict or interfere with property dealings.
Utilitarian arguments. The free market is the most efficient means of producing and distributing
goods and that this maximises happiness (this focuses less on the acquisition and more on the transfer
of property but, again, there is limited scope for state intervention). Alternatively, utilitarian
justifications for state intervention to lessen the impact of markets on inequality (a free market plus
welfare state).
There is considerable scope for discussion of utilitarian principles if a just distribution of .goods. is
extended to include, eg limbs, organs.
Socialism: the free market is wasteful and destructive; it produces alienated individuals and extreme
(and unjust) levels of inequality; a more equal distribution of goods is necessary in order to maximise
liberty (positive freedoms).
The attempt by welfare liberals, most notably Rawls, to argue for personal and political liberty as well
as the amelioration of socio-economic inequality. The argument for regulating markets is based on
the hypothetical contract rational agents would make under a veil of ignorance. According to Rawls,
they would opt for equal rights to basic liberties, fair opportunities and for social inequalities to be
arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged (ie an inequality is .just. if it makes the least
advantaged better off).
A range of argumentation is possible:
A just distribution of political goods is compatible with individual rights and freedoms and with
inequality: this is because justice is based on desert and the effort of the industrious, for example,
provides a moral basis for property rights. Neither the State nor any individual has a right to interfere
with this.
A just distribution of political goods is compatible with individual rights and freedoms but not with
inequality; this is because inequality has a negative impact on liberty because it confers lasting
advantages to some at the expense of others leading to discrimination and a lack of opportunity.
Justice requires some restrictions on individual freedoms.
If distributive justice and individual rights and freedoms are incompatible then which should take
priority? This question may lead to a discussion of the values of different political ideologies in
relation to justice, rights and freedom.
and rights
he concept of distributive justice requires us to consider the ethics of how political goods or benefits are
distributed. This includes the distribution of property but may also be taken to include the distribution of
other desirable goods, eg opportunity, security, etc. There are competing views of what a just distribution
of political goods might be based upon, eg universal human wants or needs, human rights, efforts and/or
merits. This question will probably be disputed within liberalism (although other political ideologies may
also be referred to):
The classical liberal view includes property within an individual.s sphere of protected rights: if this is
accepted then the value of liberty gives us a notion of distributive justice compatible with capitalism
and with high levels of inequality (generally, the more a .desert. is stressed, eg property rights or
effort, the less egalitarian the result).
An alternative view is that unchecked and increasing levels of inequality are detrimental to liberty
because, for example, this restricts opportunity and choice. If this is true, a just distribution of goods
would imply a degree of egalitarianism and would require some intervention by the state to regulate
markets and protect liberty and justice. (Property is not a protected individual or natural right).
Some of the following, or equivalent points, should be selected for discussion:
Locke.s view that our natural rights include property rights. Locke.s arguments in defence of this:
survival, labour, adding value through work. God gave the earth to the industrious.
Nozick.s defence of classical liberalism (in response to Rawls). The attempt to impose any
.patterned. notion of justice is inconsistent with individual liberty. Recognising liberty means that we
cannot restrict or interfere with property dealings.
Utilitarian arguments. The free market is the most efficient means of producing and distributing
goods and that this maximises happiness (this focuses less on the acquisition and more on the transfer
of property but, again, there is limited scope for state intervention). Alternatively, utilitarian
justifications for state intervention to lessen the impact of markets on inequality (a free market plus
welfare state).
There is considerable scope for discussion of utilitarian principles if a just distribution of .goods. is
extended to include, eg limbs, organs.
Socialism: the free market is wasteful and destructive; it produces alienated individuals and extreme
(and unjust) levels of inequality; a more equal distribution of goods is necessary in order to maximise
liberty (positive freedoms).
The attempt by welfare liberals, most notably Rawls, to argue for personal and political liberty as well
as the amelioration of socio-economic inequality. The argument for regulating markets is based on
the hypothetical contract rational agents would make under a veil of ignorance. According to Rawls,
they would opt for equal rights to basic liberties, fair opportunities and for social inequalities to be
arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged (ie an inequality is .just. if it makes the least
advantaged better off).
A range of argumentation is possible:
A just distribution of political goods is compatible with individual rights and freedoms and with
inequality: this is because justice is based on desert and the effort of the industrious, for example,
provides a moral basis for property rights. Neither the State nor any individual has a right to interfere
with this.
A just distribution of political goods is compatible with individual rights and freedoms but not with
inequality; this is because inequality has a negative impact on liberty because it confers lasting
advantages to some at the expense of others leading to discrimination and a lack of opportunity.
Justice requires some restrictions on individual freedoms.
If distributive justice and individual rights and freedoms are incompatible then which should take
priority? This question may lead to a discussion of the values of different political ideologies in
relation to justice, rights and freedom.
Original post by fierybluebeacon
I'm doing the exact same! I've spent so much time in class going over essay structure I think I've got it pretty good now. My best advice is to read through all the mark schemes on the aqa website! Otherwise your basic structure for unit 3 should be:
Intro- describe what the claim in the question is saying, who would support it, who would refute it, what's your opinion (but don't justify yet)
Point 1- go more in depth into what the supporter would say, what they believe, define all the key terms in the question (all A01 basically, try not to do more than page on this!)
Point 2- start evaluating the claim, use your best counter argument (also good to note that the aqa exam board have explicitly said they want to see you 'argue, counter argue, and recounter' THREE times in a unit 3 essay), at the end of each argument say what you think, which is a stronger argument
Point 3- continue and repeat this structure, using examples, and a wider range of theories to back up your point
Conclusion- reiterate your view trying not to repeat yourself, explain the implications of your conclusion, what does it mean for the theories? Link back to context of the question!
(For unit 4 it's a lot simpler, basically show the examiners that you know the text! They want to see the 'argue, counter argue, recounter' TWO times in the 45 marker, and 15 markers are pretty simple, just pure A01 text knowledge)
Hope that helped!
Intro- describe what the claim in the question is saying, who would support it, who would refute it, what's your opinion (but don't justify yet)
Point 1- go more in depth into what the supporter would say, what they believe, define all the key terms in the question (all A01 basically, try not to do more than page on this!)
Point 2- start evaluating the claim, use your best counter argument (also good to note that the aqa exam board have explicitly said they want to see you 'argue, counter argue, and recounter' THREE times in a unit 3 essay), at the end of each argument say what you think, which is a stronger argument
Point 3- continue and repeat this structure, using examples, and a wider range of theories to back up your point
Conclusion- reiterate your view trying not to repeat yourself, explain the implications of your conclusion, what does it mean for the theories? Link back to context of the question!
(For unit 4 it's a lot simpler, basically show the examiners that you know the text! They want to see the 'argue, counter argue, recounter' TWO times in the 45 marker, and 15 markers are pretty simple, just pure A01 text knowledge)
Hope that helped!
Thank you! thats very helpful
oh dear they want three!! i swear i can rarely find replies for most of the criticisms!!!
Do you happen to have any practice essays you don't mind sharing?
Original post by fierybluebeacon
I'm doing the exact same! I've spent so much time in class going over essay structure I think I've got it pretty good now. My best advice is to read through all the mark schemes on the aqa website! Otherwise your basic structure for unit 3 should be:
Intro- describe what the claim in the question is saying, who would support it, who would refute it, what's your opinion (but don't justify yet)
Point 1- go more in depth into what the supporter would say, what they believe, define all the key terms in the question (all A01 basically, try not to do more than page on this!)
Point 2- start evaluating the claim, use your best counter argument (also good to note that the aqa exam board have explicitly said they want to see you 'argue, counter argue, and recounter' THREE times in a unit 3 essay), at the end of each argument say what you think, which is a stronger argument
Point 3- continue and repeat this structure, using examples, and a wider range of theories to back up your point
Conclusion- reiterate your view trying not to repeat yourself, explain the implications of your conclusion, what does it mean for the theories? Link back to context of the question!
(For unit 4 it's a lot simpler, basically show the examiners that you know the text! They want to see the 'argue, counter argue, recounter' TWO times in the 45 marker, and 15 markers are pretty simple, just pure A01 text knowledge)
Hope that helped!
Intro- describe what the claim in the question is saying, who would support it, who would refute it, what's your opinion (but don't justify yet)
Point 1- go more in depth into what the supporter would say, what they believe, define all the key terms in the question (all A01 basically, try not to do more than page on this!)
Point 2- start evaluating the claim, use your best counter argument (also good to note that the aqa exam board have explicitly said they want to see you 'argue, counter argue, and recounter' THREE times in a unit 3 essay), at the end of each argument say what you think, which is a stronger argument
Point 3- continue and repeat this structure, using examples, and a wider range of theories to back up your point
Conclusion- reiterate your view trying not to repeat yourself, explain the implications of your conclusion, what does it mean for the theories? Link back to context of the question!
(For unit 4 it's a lot simpler, basically show the examiners that you know the text! They want to see the 'argue, counter argue, recounter' TWO times in the 45 marker, and 15 markers are pretty simple, just pure A01 text knowledge)
Hope that helped!
when did they ever say the argue counter argue re counter thing?
Political Philosophy Revision Notes
Brief Definitions
Autonomy - A group or individual who has the ability to govern themselves, make decisions and act upon those decisions. Self-Government.
Democracy A government ruled by the people, and consisting of `the people'.
Direct Democracy Electors (the people) vote on every Government Issue.
Representative Electors vote in a person to represent `the people'.
Ideology A set of rules, morals and political views that governments base their ideals on. Usually includes a view of human nature.
Social Contract The mutual agreement between the people and the government on issues that affect the country and the people within, such as rights and duties.
Theocracy Government, which subscribes to the ideals of religion. Rule by god.
Tyranny Government by one unelected individual who imposes his will upon the population.
Note: Some Tyrannies may be elected into power through deception. Eg, Hitler's German Nazi Party
Capitalism A society in which everybody works for their own gain, and/or financial development. Can lead to massive growth in middle classes.
Political Philosophy is aimed at analysing how a society works and how they are governed by a ruling power. It seeks to evaluate the different ethical and political standpoints in different political parties, and analyse how they affect the citizens of the country/state. Some key ideologies include;
Conservatism
o Tradition and custom is more important than change, unless change is desperately needed.
o Will tend to view human nature as innately selfish.
o It is government's job to create legislation in order to provide a secure and supportive social context in which people can realise their full potential. Concentrates on maximising Positive Freedom.
o If Thomas Hobbes had lived in the modern era, he would probably have been conservative.
Liberalism
o The individual should have the maximum liberty possible as long as his actions affect only him.
Socialism
o Response to Capitalism. Government in which wealth and state owned property is distributed among the population. According to Marx, the Proletariat rises against the bourgeoisie and seizes the privately owned property.
Anarchism
o Abolishment of the state. Individuals live together in harmony, usually in groups, and work for the survival and benefit of that group.
Types of Government
Democracy
o Literally means, "Rule by the People"
o Criticised by Plato as "committing the conduct of state affairs to the whims of the multitude". The people do not have the political experience to be able to make decisions that are best for everybody. Instead, people tend to vote for things that they want rather than what they need.
Two types of democracy
Representative Democracy Electors (aka, `the people') vote a representative into government who will carry out the will of the people. This is the type of government that is seen in many western countries today. The person voted in will be expected to vote for issues that concern the multitude most, as he is the `figurehead' of the people.
o Sometimes the elected representatives do not always carry out the will of the people, but more so the will of the ruling majority.
o The horse is taken to water and made to drink. In this context, it means that `the people' can not nominate a representative for the vote. The people are only given a choice between several government nominated individuals, whether they reflect the true will of the people or not
Direct Democracy All the electors are gathered to vote on every Government Issue. An example of a Direct Democracy would be Plato's Athens, which in those times only housed about 250,000 people. Out of those, 50000 would be entitled to vote on every Government Issue at hand. As Athens grew though, it became too hard to continue using this system, so it is much easier for governments to use an individual to represent the multitude.
THE STATE
The state is a political entity, which claims control over a people and a geographical area. It usually contains a set of institutions that claim an authority, and help decide the laws that people must follow within it's border.
Max Weber defined the state as an entity which claims "a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within it's territory".
o Such examples include armed forces, police, the legal system, etc.
o The state may disarm others within it's own jurisdiction who threaten to provoke it's power.
o The state claims a licence to regulate all activities within its territory, even those of other organisations within the jurisdiction.
o The State claims to represent the people and institutions of the country.
Although the state is a universal power within the jurisdiction, it is made up of many different ideologies that are constantly in conflict with each other. This is known as the Government, and although have similar basic principles, they all have differing ideas about how the state should run the country. In general, the ideal that is held by the majority/ruling power is the main set of rules by which the state will attempt to act on.
Functions of the state
The primary role of the state is to protect its citizens, and provide security for the general population. This can include defence from foreign aggression, prevention of crime within the state and maintenance of institutions such as the penal system and the courts.
o Hobbes argues that in order for any sort of trade, agriculture, `commodius living', etc to be achieved, then the state MUST be powerful enough to protect its borders, and must also be powerful enough to exercise punishment on people who commit crime. Only once these conditions have been fulfilled can the state work on the lesser important necessities (by lesser important, we mean that Security is the most important factor in a country).
Locke and Augustine have an opposing view to Hobbes. They both argue that the citizens within the state have a right to enjoy protection from abuse of the states power. It is the states duty to protect the people from itself. The state must then thus far be limited in it's action so to protect its citizens.
o Hobbes would argue that any power exercised by the state is legitimate. The people do not get a say on how the ruler rules, unless the people are in direct threat of death by the actions of the state. Since the state is providing security for the people, any situation is better than the chaotic `state of nature'.
Aristotle and Plato both had similar views about the roles of the state.
They both believed a leader chosen for his intellectual qualities and ability to produce strong and beneficial moral laws, should rule the state.
This leader would be more concerned with the character of his people, and would set down institutions to educate and train people to have certain desirable properties. This was the proposal of Aristotle.
o This is similar to what we have today. Schools and colleges ensure people are trained to think a certain way and have certain qualities.
Machiavelli responded to Aristotle by saying that the ruler does not need to abide by strict moral codes, and infact discourages it as it only produces a weak, squeamish leader.
o The main political goal for the leader should be to gain more power. The pursuit of power is how things get done, and if the leader was too squeamish, then he would fail in this pursuit.
o The leader can lie and doesn't have to respect the population, as this would make him a weak leader.
But surely a leader who deceives his people cannot be trusted. If the people cannot trust their leader, then doesn't this make him weak?
The pursuit of power has been the downfall of major regimes, eg the German Nazi party.
Another problem with Aristotle's idea of a leader is that the leader claims to have correct moral laws that apply to everyone. The fact is not everybody has the same idea of morality, and so how can one person claim to know what's good for all-others?
Even with the intellectual capacity of this leader, noone can be virtuous enough to be trusted not to abuse his unlimited power.
FREEDOM
There are generally 2 types of freedom.
Negative Freedom
o Often described as `Freedom From'
o Includes freedom from the law, slavery, hunger, thirst, etc.
o Example of the spinning bicycle wheel;
The bicycle is free to revolve around its axis. When you apply the brakes, you are forcing the wheel to stop.
This is analogous to Negative freedom. When we restrict someone's negative freedom, then we are forcing/coercing them to act in a certain way.
o Emphasis placed on Negative Freedom in liberal politics, ie by Mapping out a private sphere for the individual that he can act within without interference from the state. This was the view of John Stuart Mill.
It would not be justifiable for the state to interfere with any action that is within the individuals `private sphere'.
Mill argues the only time government can limit a person's freedom is when their actions begin to harm others. The Harm Principle
This begs the question, what counts as harm? Pain to an average person is harm, whereas it is a pleasure to a masochist.
Liberals stress the importance of protecting the individuals liberty from the state by mapping out this private sphere of self-concerning actions.
Conservatives argue that an excess of a persons liberty can be a risk, and much prefer a supportive social context in which people can realise their potential.
o Characterised by Hobbes as a person's `Liberty' and the absence of restraint.
Defined Law as the form of constraint which puts the brakes on a person's negative freedom.
Law in this sense is an evil, as it always strives to limit a person's sphere of action. Hobbes thought that the unlimited freedoms of people are too great a threat, and so it seems that law is a necessary evil.
Positive Freedom
o Many philosophers are against the idea that Negative freedom is the kind of freedom we should strive to increase. Positive freedom is a far more important goal.
o Characterised as a person's freedom to act and achieve.
o Often described as `Freedom To'
o Freedom to hold and express an opinion, to get married, to have a good job and earn a good living, etc.
o Example of the spinning bicycle wheel;
The wheel is designed to work in a certain way and carry out certain functions, such as move the rider forward.
If for some reason the wheel cannot perform this function, then its positive freedom is reduced.
The positive freedom of the wheel is how well it is able to carry out its purpose.
o Emphasis placed on increasing an individual's Positive Freedom in left-wing Conservative politics.
The law should promote social order and cohesion, as these things all lead to positive freedoms.
Sometimes, to increase positive freedom, a certain amount of negative freedom needs to be restricted. Children forced to go to School, etc.
o Isaiah Berlin pointed out that positive freedom can be used as a weapon by the government to justify all types of unjust coercion. Such would include coercing you on the grounds that they are increasing your freedom. He does not attempt to show that positive freedom is a bad thing; he just tries to show that history has shown that it can be abused.
Constitutive and Regulative Rules
There are two types of rules. Constitutive and Regulative rules;
Constitutive Rules
o Corresponds to the Positive freedom aspect of the law
o In a game of football, the rules that define the way the game should be played are Constitutive. They define the purpose of the games mechanics, for instance, each team must attempt to score goals, includes a description of the field of play, etc.
Regulative Rules
o Corresponds to the Negative freedom aspect of the law.
o In football, the regulative rules would be the rules which stop the players from doing certain things, for instance, the players must not foul the other team, they must not be violent on the pitch, and generally restrict what the player can do on the field. They also define appropriate punishments for breaches of these rules.
Rousseau argues that increasing freedom of an individual can lead to eventual decrease of his positive freedom.
o Examples: Person becoming addicted to alcohol and nicotine. They are no longer as free as they were before as they are burdened with this addiction.
Recent smoking ban in enclosed places will mean smokers will have less freedom than non-smokers.
o An example from politics would be a party that offers more freedom to the voters such as reduced tax, but are actually corrupt and use the same methods and before once they get into power. This leads to a reduced freedom for the citizens
Rousseau says that citizens should be made aware of such possible losses of freedom, and then they will be able to decide whether to accept this coercion or not.
Rights
What does it mean to have a right? And what rights do we have?
There was a Universal Declaration of human rights after the WW2 atrocities to try and assert the very basic rights that everybody has, regardless of situation.
Sometimes we think of rights in the `possession' context. We possess certain rights
Even Locke talked about rights by putting them in the context of `property. He is quoted as saying; "the reason mean enter society is the protection of their property", and by property he doesn't just mean physical objects. He is also talking about a person's rights.
When rights are not seen as a possession, they can be viewed upon as an individual's ability to be able to act in a society.
Hohfeld described 4 types of rights;
I have a liberty to so something if I am not prevented by some duty from doing it.
I have a claim-right if there is someone else who has a duty to protect something for me. Such rights would include that everybody has a right to be protected by the state, and even from the state. It is the states duty to protect it's citizens, so the citizens claim a right on the protection.
If I have been designated responsibility by the state or the law, then I have a power.
If I have immunity, then I am free from obligation to submit to the legally assigned power of that territory. Foreign Diplomats have immunity.
There are philosophers who believe and maintain that unless a right is enforceable, then the right is not meaningful. There is no point, for instance, in claiming a right to live a free secure lifestyle in a war zone like Iraq. There is no point in claiming a right to get money back that you have loaned out if there are no measures in place to prevent the person from keeping the loan.
How do we balance the rights of the individual against the common good?
Some liberties and claims should be recognized and enshrined in the law.
As such, cases for changes in the law are often described as an assumed moral right.
o Example would be a terminally ill patient who wants to die. A case could be argued along the lines of rights to life a right to deah.
Mill's Harm Principle
LAW
In order to decide what laws the country should have, we must decide on what our goals our. Different ideologies will have different goals in mind.
Examples:
Liberalism will attempt to maximise the individual's liberty by laying down an individual's private sphere of action that is free from government interference.
In a Theocracy, the goal of government will be to please God. As such, the law will be mainly based on religious text and morality.
On the Conservative left, they believe that it is government's goal to rule society. They will generally set down laws that aim to maximise a person's Positive Freedom by making legislation which provides peace and security.
One thing to note is that Law and Justice are not synonymous. This means that there may be things in society that are regarded as harmful or unpleasant, but are not illegal in the eyes of the law. For instance, bullying is legal in the eyes of the law unless there is a breach of race, sex or disability laws.
o Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between `bullying' and harmless comments. People can take criticism different ways and some will get more upset than others, so where do we know when to interfere?
The laws of different states will clash with justice in different ways. One can make reference to Adolf Hitler's Nazi party with the treatment of the Jews, and Idi Amin's treatment of Ugandan Asians. Robert Mugabe's discrimination against whites recently, and the mid 20th century discrimination against non-whites in the USA are also fine examples.
What are the essential elements of the Law? Should law reflect Morality?
Philosophers disagree on these questions, and there are two sides of the spectrum. On one side, you have the Minimalists; and on the other, you have the Maximalists.
Minimalist Theories
o Law is independent of Morality. We can understand the law without reference to Morality.
o The law is a set of commands that represents the will of the government, or the `lawmaker'.
o The purpose of the law is to guarantee a minimum state of peace and security, as the State claims a monopoly on all forces of coercion such as the army and the police.
o The power of the law is based on the lawmaker's ability to enforce it. If a law in un-enforceable, then it is meaningless and has no force.
o Citizens are required to obey the law (coercion), otherwise face the appropriate punishments.
Maximalist Theories
o Law is mutually related to morality. How would we know a just law from an unjust law if we didn't look at it from a moral point of view?
o The function of the law is to achieve order so that the common good can be achieved
o The law should also provide the minimum of peace and security. This is the prerequisite for a society of order.
o The law does not represent the `lawmakers' will, it represents the product of reason which aims to establish an environment in which people can achieve the common good.
o The state can use legislation to `guide' people into achieving the common good. They can use directive legislation which can persuade people from doing undesirable things, such as smoking and getting mindlessly drunk. They can also use coercion to threaten people with sanction (punishment) if they do commit extremely undesirable offences, such as crime.
It should be noted that the Maximalist and Minimalist theories are not complete opposites. They can both accept ideas from one another without accepting the entire theory.
Liberals will tend to hold the ideal that the law should reflect morality only if the effects are utilitarian sense that they contribute to the general happiness and utility of society. They must also stay within the limits of the Harm Principle, and guarantee a maximisation of a person's liberty.
Conservatives would argue that there are some moral principles which should be basic in the eyes of the law, such as the right to life. Such natural rights should be enshrined in legislation for the benefit of the common good.
Sometimes, undesirable/immoral things may be allowed by the law, but it has been argued by philosophers that immoral people will be dealt with in other ways. In his book On Liberty, Mill describes and encourages Natural Penalties, which is the result of an immoral person that abides by the law. The government may not be able to interfere with his immoral actions, but he will have the live with the consequences of society's rejection of him.
Unjust Law
What is a just law?
A fair law is one that is just
An unfair law is one that is unjust
So how do we define what laws are fair and what are unfair? We could define these if we look at law in the following areas;
Who does the law serve? The common good or the interests of the ruler? If the law serves the interests of the ruler while jeopardising the common good, then the law can be said to be unjust.
Who is the law being put forward by? Some philosophers argue, especially the minimalists, that if the law is being proposed by someone who can neither enforce it coercively, or has the legitimacy for people to take it seriously, then the law becomes unjust.
Does the law discriminate? If so, is it a fair and relevant discrimination? There is a law which states that sex offenders cannot work around children, but this is a just law as it justly protects society and the common good. However, if there was a law that stated that ginger people could not work around children, then this would be an unjust law as the reasons for discrimination are clearly invalid and irrelevant to the job and the common good.
So, if a law turns out be `unjust', do we as citizens have a right to disobey it? There are conflicting views to this. Socrates was famous for obeying a law which he believed was unjust. He believed that even though the allegations of `corrupting Athenian youth' was completely bogus, and even though he had numerous chances to escape from prison, he decided to remain in prison to be executed as he more or less felt he had a duty to obey the law.
When deciding to disobey a law, there are several things that may have to be taken into consideration.
How probable success is.
Whether your disobedience will cause more harm than the unjust law.
How what you do will effect others.
However, some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes argued that civil disobedience is wrong. He argued;
Everybody who lives under a ruler is at a complete obligation to obey the rules which he sets down.
The ruler is providing security and peace within the state. It may be at expense of some of your liberties, but it is a much better situation than the `state of nature'.
The only time you would possibly be allowed to disobey the law is if it causes a direct risk to your life and security.
The minimalists also hold a similar view to Hobbes. Since the state claims a monopoly on the use of legitimate coercive force within its territory, then the citizens do not have the legitimacy or power to be able to object to the ruler's law/will.
Liberals are heavily critical of Hobbes. Liberals accept the conflict between society's opinion and the opinion of the state. They say that society should disobey an unjust law, but Liberals put more emphasis on discussing the matter. Only through discussion will the law be seen to be unjust, and a new synthesis can be formed afterwards as a result of the two thesis colliding.
Social Contract theory stresses the need for consent under the law.
Hobbes' version says consent is given through conquest and/or surrender to a ruler.
o Is this really consent? It would seem like the conquered have no choice but to consent...
o Does the generation after the conquered have the right to disobey the law? They haven't consented to anything.
Hobbes' may argue that simply by continuing to live within the rulers jurisdiction is enough consent.
Examples of Civil Disobedience from history;
Mahatma Gandhi's `sit-down' protests for an independent Indian state
Martin Luther King's protests against black segregation in the USA in the 1960's.
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where students were massacred by the Chinese communist government for peacefully protesting against the party. All communist opposing views in China were subsequently silenced by the government.
Punishment
When we punish an offender, we are forcibly taking away his freedom. The amount of freedom we take away from his needs to be decided by the state, and begs the following questions;
How should the state decide on appropriate penalties for breaches of the law?
What should we aim to achieve by punishing offenders?
Retribution;
There are two things which make up the crime. The `guilty mind' and the `guilty action'. Both of these are required to punish the criminal.
If the criminal intentionally breaks the law, they he will be made to pay for his crimes.
Subscribes to a sense of justice which seeks to get revenge for the victim.
The criminal gets what he deserves, regardless of whether there are any beneficial factors for him or society as a whole.
`Eye-for-an-eye'
o This idea of retribution only appeals to the baser and cruder feelings associated with justice. `Revenge' is generally regarded as a very crude response to being harmed and is even exhibited in animals.
o What effects does this have on the criminal? The criminal may be likely to commit the crime again once he has been punished. In retributivism, there is no attention to the effects on society or the criminal. The only thing that matters is that the criminal has paid for what he did.
Deterrence;
The criminal is made an example of.
The punishment will hopefully deter others from committing the same crime under fear of meeting the same consequences.
Public Hanging and Public Humiliation are perfect examples of deterrent punishments.
o Major criticism is that this form of punishment could be used to justify punishing the innocent, as long as it deters others from committing the same crime.
o Critics have argued that punishment as a deterrent simply doesn't work. Reoffending rates also seems to show that some criminals who leave prison seem undeterred to commit further crime in the future.
o In some circumstances, deterrence simply won't enter into the equation of a guilty mind. For instance, if Woman's husband cheats on her and she decides to poison his dinner, then the consequences of her actions will not matter to her.
The protection of society;
If criminals are locked up, then they cannot harm anybody
Protects society from people who are likely to keep on committing crime.
o The criminals have to be released someday; we can't sweep them under the rug. In the long term, it doesn't work.
o Society doesn't need to be protected from certain crimes. For instance, the woman who poisons her husband because he is having an affair is unlikely to commit the same crime again.
Reformation and Rehabilitation;
Instead of forcing the criminal to act in a certain way, we can try and change their characters into a law-abiding one.
Punishment will serve to change their character so that they will not commit crime again.
Methods such as Anger Management have been shown to effectively reduce the likelihood of reoffending in some criminals.
Sex offenders can be placed into counseling sessions with a Psychiatrist and other offenders to be taught how to control their actions.
o Criticism that this doesn't work in a lot of cases. Some people, such as paedophiles, cannot be cured of their desires.
o Some offenders do not need to be reformed as they are unlikely to commit the same crime again. For instance, there is no point in trying to reform someone who has only committed petty theft.
o Even though this has met with some success, the public are not so convinced that this is really justice for the victims of crime.
AUTHORITY
Power
What is power?
In physics, power is the ability to do work. The overcoming of inertia, the resistance offered by mass to motion.
In politics, Power is the ability to get people, the masses, to do what you want.
The people will offer a resistance, and so the government needs power to overcome this resistance.
How is power exercised?
Persuasion
o Power is exercised by making the masses willingly corporate.
o They do not cooperate solely for the government; they agree to the action and have their own reasons for cooperating.
Coercion
o Power is exercised through forcing people to act in the way you want them to
o This is can be done with the exercise of superior physical force, such as the police or the armed forces.
o Not always necessarily with the consent of the people.
Although these two forms of exercising power are mutually opposed, there are common cases where they both contribute toward the same goal. For example, trade unions `negotiate' with employers by threatening industrial action. It is disputed as whether this is a persuasive force or a coercive force, as the employer doesn't have any choice but to agree with the unions.
Aristotle evaluated some institutions as better than others. One of the ways he done this was by to decide whether the rule was conducted in the interests of the ruler or the interests of society (common good).
Who would you rather be ruled by? Somebody who shows you why decisions are in your best interests or somebody who forces you to act in a certain way?
To be coerced into action without explanation is to be treated as `less than human', or effectively like a child.
It is disheartening to some philosophers that people tend to obey and accept the authority of the state without any real reasoning or rationalization as to why they are obeying them in the first place. If I asked an average person "Why do you obey the prime minister?", he may very well reply back with "Because he Is the prime minister!"
Philosophers such as Kant and Rousseau have stress the importance of obeying the rules you set for yourself. One is free to create their own law, so it is a shame to waste this faculty by blindly obeying an authority without question.
Mill argues in On Liberty that one should strive to develop his own individuality and not blindly follow the rules of custom. Uncustomary things allow us to see what is fit for custom.
o Does Mill not contradict himself? Encouraging uncustomary things to see what is fit for custom
Conservatives may argue that law is the memory of the solutions to problems of the pasts, and the solutions that worked in the past may very well work in the future. What worked before can work again
o Not always necessarily the case. The political and social situations in the past are clearly very different to what they are now, so previous solutions may no longer be applicable.
Authority is a convenient social mechanism for getting things done quickly and efficiently.
It also allows for the accumulated experience of the community to be used when it is dealing with problems.
However, authority short-circuits all argument and endangers innovation.
It is a threat to an individual's liberty as it suspends their own judgement in favour of established procedures.
Legitimacy
What is the Legitimacy of an authority?
Legitimacy is how well the authority is able to account for being accepted as an authority. Ie, why should we accept it as an authority?
Max Weber defined the 3 main points which contribute to the legitimacy of a power;
Rational-legal: Some would say that this is the authority that we are used to, as the state justifies itself on legal grounds and codified law.
o Legitimacy is earned through arguing putting points across in a relevant and rational way. Usually, the most legitimate would be the party that can put forward the most compelling argument.
Traditional: Authority is inherited. Such a case would be a Monarchy which passes down power from heir to heir.
Charismatic: The leader would be able to put his points forward in a very precise and maybe even charming way. Some may argue that there is an element of this type of authority in our government.
o Would not generally be regarded as truly legitimate, as the basis of the legitimate factor would be purely the leaders own personality. We should avoid assuming that a leader knows best when all we like about him is the way he puts his ideas across.
Obligation
On what grounds can the government legitimately account for our obligation to obey their laws?
Consent of the governed
o A view taken by the Liberals. Consent is central to obligation, and people are only bound by the obligations which they have freely taken on. The government has no right to manufacture a Social Contract theory without the official consent of society.
o Anarchists take this further and argue that nobody has any obligation to obey an authority, as there is no opportunity for them to ever agree to such.
Consent is given within the act of remaining in the jurisdiction of the authority. If you remain, then you are enjoying the benefits of that authority, and thus consenting to it's rule.
o Marxists would argue that consent of the people is manufactured by the state when the proletariat rises up and seizes the means of production from the bourgeoisie.
Hobbes' account of obligation is that the consent comes from a treaty, or non-aggression pact created after a successful conquest.
o By agreeing not to show aggression to the new state, you are accepting their authority.
o There is a total obligation to obey the conquerors rule. Under Hobbes' account, there is no room for criticising the legislator as you have consented to whatever law he may want to impose.
This may not account for all generations. Do the people of a subsequent generation to the conquered have a right to object to the ruler? They haven't consented to anything, especially if they do not have the resources to move out of the states control.
Achievement of the General Will
Brief Definitions
Autonomy - A group or individual who has the ability to govern themselves, make decisions and act upon those decisions. Self-Government.
Democracy A government ruled by the people, and consisting of `the people'.
Direct Democracy Electors (the people) vote on every Government Issue.
Representative Electors vote in a person to represent `the people'.
Ideology A set of rules, morals and political views that governments base their ideals on. Usually includes a view of human nature.
Social Contract The mutual agreement between the people and the government on issues that affect the country and the people within, such as rights and duties.
Theocracy Government, which subscribes to the ideals of religion. Rule by god.
Tyranny Government by one unelected individual who imposes his will upon the population.
Note: Some Tyrannies may be elected into power through deception. Eg, Hitler's German Nazi Party
Capitalism A society in which everybody works for their own gain, and/or financial development. Can lead to massive growth in middle classes.
Political Philosophy is aimed at analysing how a society works and how they are governed by a ruling power. It seeks to evaluate the different ethical and political standpoints in different political parties, and analyse how they affect the citizens of the country/state. Some key ideologies include;
Conservatism
o Tradition and custom is more important than change, unless change is desperately needed.
o Will tend to view human nature as innately selfish.
o It is government's job to create legislation in order to provide a secure and supportive social context in which people can realise their full potential. Concentrates on maximising Positive Freedom.
o If Thomas Hobbes had lived in the modern era, he would probably have been conservative.
Liberalism
o The individual should have the maximum liberty possible as long as his actions affect only him.
Socialism
o Response to Capitalism. Government in which wealth and state owned property is distributed among the population. According to Marx, the Proletariat rises against the bourgeoisie and seizes the privately owned property.
Anarchism
o Abolishment of the state. Individuals live together in harmony, usually in groups, and work for the survival and benefit of that group.
Types of Government
Democracy
o Literally means, "Rule by the People"
o Criticised by Plato as "committing the conduct of state affairs to the whims of the multitude". The people do not have the political experience to be able to make decisions that are best for everybody. Instead, people tend to vote for things that they want rather than what they need.
Two types of democracy
Representative Democracy Electors (aka, `the people') vote a representative into government who will carry out the will of the people. This is the type of government that is seen in many western countries today. The person voted in will be expected to vote for issues that concern the multitude most, as he is the `figurehead' of the people.
o Sometimes the elected representatives do not always carry out the will of the people, but more so the will of the ruling majority.
o The horse is taken to water and made to drink. In this context, it means that `the people' can not nominate a representative for the vote. The people are only given a choice between several government nominated individuals, whether they reflect the true will of the people or not
Direct Democracy All the electors are gathered to vote on every Government Issue. An example of a Direct Democracy would be Plato's Athens, which in those times only housed about 250,000 people. Out of those, 50000 would be entitled to vote on every Government Issue at hand. As Athens grew though, it became too hard to continue using this system, so it is much easier for governments to use an individual to represent the multitude.
THE STATE
The state is a political entity, which claims control over a people and a geographical area. It usually contains a set of institutions that claim an authority, and help decide the laws that people must follow within it's border.
Max Weber defined the state as an entity which claims "a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within it's territory".
o Such examples include armed forces, police, the legal system, etc.
o The state may disarm others within it's own jurisdiction who threaten to provoke it's power.
o The state claims a licence to regulate all activities within its territory, even those of other organisations within the jurisdiction.
o The State claims to represent the people and institutions of the country.
Although the state is a universal power within the jurisdiction, it is made up of many different ideologies that are constantly in conflict with each other. This is known as the Government, and although have similar basic principles, they all have differing ideas about how the state should run the country. In general, the ideal that is held by the majority/ruling power is the main set of rules by which the state will attempt to act on.
Functions of the state
The primary role of the state is to protect its citizens, and provide security for the general population. This can include defence from foreign aggression, prevention of crime within the state and maintenance of institutions such as the penal system and the courts.
o Hobbes argues that in order for any sort of trade, agriculture, `commodius living', etc to be achieved, then the state MUST be powerful enough to protect its borders, and must also be powerful enough to exercise punishment on people who commit crime. Only once these conditions have been fulfilled can the state work on the lesser important necessities (by lesser important, we mean that Security is the most important factor in a country).
Locke and Augustine have an opposing view to Hobbes. They both argue that the citizens within the state have a right to enjoy protection from abuse of the states power. It is the states duty to protect the people from itself. The state must then thus far be limited in it's action so to protect its citizens.
o Hobbes would argue that any power exercised by the state is legitimate. The people do not get a say on how the ruler rules, unless the people are in direct threat of death by the actions of the state. Since the state is providing security for the people, any situation is better than the chaotic `state of nature'.
Aristotle and Plato both had similar views about the roles of the state.
They both believed a leader chosen for his intellectual qualities and ability to produce strong and beneficial moral laws, should rule the state.
This leader would be more concerned with the character of his people, and would set down institutions to educate and train people to have certain desirable properties. This was the proposal of Aristotle.
o This is similar to what we have today. Schools and colleges ensure people are trained to think a certain way and have certain qualities.
Machiavelli responded to Aristotle by saying that the ruler does not need to abide by strict moral codes, and infact discourages it as it only produces a weak, squeamish leader.
o The main political goal for the leader should be to gain more power. The pursuit of power is how things get done, and if the leader was too squeamish, then he would fail in this pursuit.
o The leader can lie and doesn't have to respect the population, as this would make him a weak leader.
But surely a leader who deceives his people cannot be trusted. If the people cannot trust their leader, then doesn't this make him weak?
The pursuit of power has been the downfall of major regimes, eg the German Nazi party.
Another problem with Aristotle's idea of a leader is that the leader claims to have correct moral laws that apply to everyone. The fact is not everybody has the same idea of morality, and so how can one person claim to know what's good for all-others?
Even with the intellectual capacity of this leader, noone can be virtuous enough to be trusted not to abuse his unlimited power.
FREEDOM
There are generally 2 types of freedom.
Negative Freedom
o Often described as `Freedom From'
o Includes freedom from the law, slavery, hunger, thirst, etc.
o Example of the spinning bicycle wheel;
The bicycle is free to revolve around its axis. When you apply the brakes, you are forcing the wheel to stop.
This is analogous to Negative freedom. When we restrict someone's negative freedom, then we are forcing/coercing them to act in a certain way.
o Emphasis placed on Negative Freedom in liberal politics, ie by Mapping out a private sphere for the individual that he can act within without interference from the state. This was the view of John Stuart Mill.
It would not be justifiable for the state to interfere with any action that is within the individuals `private sphere'.
Mill argues the only time government can limit a person's freedom is when their actions begin to harm others. The Harm Principle
This begs the question, what counts as harm? Pain to an average person is harm, whereas it is a pleasure to a masochist.
Liberals stress the importance of protecting the individuals liberty from the state by mapping out this private sphere of self-concerning actions.
Conservatives argue that an excess of a persons liberty can be a risk, and much prefer a supportive social context in which people can realise their potential.
o Characterised by Hobbes as a person's `Liberty' and the absence of restraint.
Defined Law as the form of constraint which puts the brakes on a person's negative freedom.
Law in this sense is an evil, as it always strives to limit a person's sphere of action. Hobbes thought that the unlimited freedoms of people are too great a threat, and so it seems that law is a necessary evil.
Positive Freedom
o Many philosophers are against the idea that Negative freedom is the kind of freedom we should strive to increase. Positive freedom is a far more important goal.
o Characterised as a person's freedom to act and achieve.
o Often described as `Freedom To'
o Freedom to hold and express an opinion, to get married, to have a good job and earn a good living, etc.
o Example of the spinning bicycle wheel;
The wheel is designed to work in a certain way and carry out certain functions, such as move the rider forward.
If for some reason the wheel cannot perform this function, then its positive freedom is reduced.
The positive freedom of the wheel is how well it is able to carry out its purpose.
o Emphasis placed on increasing an individual's Positive Freedom in left-wing Conservative politics.
The law should promote social order and cohesion, as these things all lead to positive freedoms.
Sometimes, to increase positive freedom, a certain amount of negative freedom needs to be restricted. Children forced to go to School, etc.
o Isaiah Berlin pointed out that positive freedom can be used as a weapon by the government to justify all types of unjust coercion. Such would include coercing you on the grounds that they are increasing your freedom. He does not attempt to show that positive freedom is a bad thing; he just tries to show that history has shown that it can be abused.
Constitutive and Regulative Rules
There are two types of rules. Constitutive and Regulative rules;
Constitutive Rules
o Corresponds to the Positive freedom aspect of the law
o In a game of football, the rules that define the way the game should be played are Constitutive. They define the purpose of the games mechanics, for instance, each team must attempt to score goals, includes a description of the field of play, etc.
Regulative Rules
o Corresponds to the Negative freedom aspect of the law.
o In football, the regulative rules would be the rules which stop the players from doing certain things, for instance, the players must not foul the other team, they must not be violent on the pitch, and generally restrict what the player can do on the field. They also define appropriate punishments for breaches of these rules.
Rousseau argues that increasing freedom of an individual can lead to eventual decrease of his positive freedom.
o Examples: Person becoming addicted to alcohol and nicotine. They are no longer as free as they were before as they are burdened with this addiction.
Recent smoking ban in enclosed places will mean smokers will have less freedom than non-smokers.
o An example from politics would be a party that offers more freedom to the voters such as reduced tax, but are actually corrupt and use the same methods and before once they get into power. This leads to a reduced freedom for the citizens
Rousseau says that citizens should be made aware of such possible losses of freedom, and then they will be able to decide whether to accept this coercion or not.
Rights
What does it mean to have a right? And what rights do we have?
There was a Universal Declaration of human rights after the WW2 atrocities to try and assert the very basic rights that everybody has, regardless of situation.
Sometimes we think of rights in the `possession' context. We possess certain rights
Even Locke talked about rights by putting them in the context of `property. He is quoted as saying; "the reason mean enter society is the protection of their property", and by property he doesn't just mean physical objects. He is also talking about a person's rights.
When rights are not seen as a possession, they can be viewed upon as an individual's ability to be able to act in a society.
Hohfeld described 4 types of rights;
I have a liberty to so something if I am not prevented by some duty from doing it.
I have a claim-right if there is someone else who has a duty to protect something for me. Such rights would include that everybody has a right to be protected by the state, and even from the state. It is the states duty to protect it's citizens, so the citizens claim a right on the protection.
If I have been designated responsibility by the state or the law, then I have a power.
If I have immunity, then I am free from obligation to submit to the legally assigned power of that territory. Foreign Diplomats have immunity.
There are philosophers who believe and maintain that unless a right is enforceable, then the right is not meaningful. There is no point, for instance, in claiming a right to live a free secure lifestyle in a war zone like Iraq. There is no point in claiming a right to get money back that you have loaned out if there are no measures in place to prevent the person from keeping the loan.
How do we balance the rights of the individual against the common good?
Some liberties and claims should be recognized and enshrined in the law.
As such, cases for changes in the law are often described as an assumed moral right.
o Example would be a terminally ill patient who wants to die. A case could be argued along the lines of rights to life a right to deah.
Mill's Harm Principle
LAW
In order to decide what laws the country should have, we must decide on what our goals our. Different ideologies will have different goals in mind.
Examples:
Liberalism will attempt to maximise the individual's liberty by laying down an individual's private sphere of action that is free from government interference.
In a Theocracy, the goal of government will be to please God. As such, the law will be mainly based on religious text and morality.
On the Conservative left, they believe that it is government's goal to rule society. They will generally set down laws that aim to maximise a person's Positive Freedom by making legislation which provides peace and security.
One thing to note is that Law and Justice are not synonymous. This means that there may be things in society that are regarded as harmful or unpleasant, but are not illegal in the eyes of the law. For instance, bullying is legal in the eyes of the law unless there is a breach of race, sex or disability laws.
o Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between `bullying' and harmless comments. People can take criticism different ways and some will get more upset than others, so where do we know when to interfere?
The laws of different states will clash with justice in different ways. One can make reference to Adolf Hitler's Nazi party with the treatment of the Jews, and Idi Amin's treatment of Ugandan Asians. Robert Mugabe's discrimination against whites recently, and the mid 20th century discrimination against non-whites in the USA are also fine examples.
What are the essential elements of the Law? Should law reflect Morality?
Philosophers disagree on these questions, and there are two sides of the spectrum. On one side, you have the Minimalists; and on the other, you have the Maximalists.
Minimalist Theories
o Law is independent of Morality. We can understand the law without reference to Morality.
o The law is a set of commands that represents the will of the government, or the `lawmaker'.
o The purpose of the law is to guarantee a minimum state of peace and security, as the State claims a monopoly on all forces of coercion such as the army and the police.
o The power of the law is based on the lawmaker's ability to enforce it. If a law in un-enforceable, then it is meaningless and has no force.
o Citizens are required to obey the law (coercion), otherwise face the appropriate punishments.
Maximalist Theories
o Law is mutually related to morality. How would we know a just law from an unjust law if we didn't look at it from a moral point of view?
o The function of the law is to achieve order so that the common good can be achieved
o The law should also provide the minimum of peace and security. This is the prerequisite for a society of order.
o The law does not represent the `lawmakers' will, it represents the product of reason which aims to establish an environment in which people can achieve the common good.
o The state can use legislation to `guide' people into achieving the common good. They can use directive legislation which can persuade people from doing undesirable things, such as smoking and getting mindlessly drunk. They can also use coercion to threaten people with sanction (punishment) if they do commit extremely undesirable offences, such as crime.
It should be noted that the Maximalist and Minimalist theories are not complete opposites. They can both accept ideas from one another without accepting the entire theory.
Liberals will tend to hold the ideal that the law should reflect morality only if the effects are utilitarian sense that they contribute to the general happiness and utility of society. They must also stay within the limits of the Harm Principle, and guarantee a maximisation of a person's liberty.
Conservatives would argue that there are some moral principles which should be basic in the eyes of the law, such as the right to life. Such natural rights should be enshrined in legislation for the benefit of the common good.
Sometimes, undesirable/immoral things may be allowed by the law, but it has been argued by philosophers that immoral people will be dealt with in other ways. In his book On Liberty, Mill describes and encourages Natural Penalties, which is the result of an immoral person that abides by the law. The government may not be able to interfere with his immoral actions, but he will have the live with the consequences of society's rejection of him.
Unjust Law
What is a just law?
A fair law is one that is just
An unfair law is one that is unjust
So how do we define what laws are fair and what are unfair? We could define these if we look at law in the following areas;
Who does the law serve? The common good or the interests of the ruler? If the law serves the interests of the ruler while jeopardising the common good, then the law can be said to be unjust.
Who is the law being put forward by? Some philosophers argue, especially the minimalists, that if the law is being proposed by someone who can neither enforce it coercively, or has the legitimacy for people to take it seriously, then the law becomes unjust.
Does the law discriminate? If so, is it a fair and relevant discrimination? There is a law which states that sex offenders cannot work around children, but this is a just law as it justly protects society and the common good. However, if there was a law that stated that ginger people could not work around children, then this would be an unjust law as the reasons for discrimination are clearly invalid and irrelevant to the job and the common good.
So, if a law turns out be `unjust', do we as citizens have a right to disobey it? There are conflicting views to this. Socrates was famous for obeying a law which he believed was unjust. He believed that even though the allegations of `corrupting Athenian youth' was completely bogus, and even though he had numerous chances to escape from prison, he decided to remain in prison to be executed as he more or less felt he had a duty to obey the law.
When deciding to disobey a law, there are several things that may have to be taken into consideration.
How probable success is.
Whether your disobedience will cause more harm than the unjust law.
How what you do will effect others.
However, some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes argued that civil disobedience is wrong. He argued;
Everybody who lives under a ruler is at a complete obligation to obey the rules which he sets down.
The ruler is providing security and peace within the state. It may be at expense of some of your liberties, but it is a much better situation than the `state of nature'.
The only time you would possibly be allowed to disobey the law is if it causes a direct risk to your life and security.
The minimalists also hold a similar view to Hobbes. Since the state claims a monopoly on the use of legitimate coercive force within its territory, then the citizens do not have the legitimacy or power to be able to object to the ruler's law/will.
Liberals are heavily critical of Hobbes. Liberals accept the conflict between society's opinion and the opinion of the state. They say that society should disobey an unjust law, but Liberals put more emphasis on discussing the matter. Only through discussion will the law be seen to be unjust, and a new synthesis can be formed afterwards as a result of the two thesis colliding.
Social Contract theory stresses the need for consent under the law.
Hobbes' version says consent is given through conquest and/or surrender to a ruler.
o Is this really consent? It would seem like the conquered have no choice but to consent...
o Does the generation after the conquered have the right to disobey the law? They haven't consented to anything.
Hobbes' may argue that simply by continuing to live within the rulers jurisdiction is enough consent.
Examples of Civil Disobedience from history;
Mahatma Gandhi's `sit-down' protests for an independent Indian state
Martin Luther King's protests against black segregation in the USA in the 1960's.
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where students were massacred by the Chinese communist government for peacefully protesting against the party. All communist opposing views in China were subsequently silenced by the government.
Punishment
When we punish an offender, we are forcibly taking away his freedom. The amount of freedom we take away from his needs to be decided by the state, and begs the following questions;
How should the state decide on appropriate penalties for breaches of the law?
What should we aim to achieve by punishing offenders?
Retribution;
There are two things which make up the crime. The `guilty mind' and the `guilty action'. Both of these are required to punish the criminal.
If the criminal intentionally breaks the law, they he will be made to pay for his crimes.
Subscribes to a sense of justice which seeks to get revenge for the victim.
The criminal gets what he deserves, regardless of whether there are any beneficial factors for him or society as a whole.
`Eye-for-an-eye'
o This idea of retribution only appeals to the baser and cruder feelings associated with justice. `Revenge' is generally regarded as a very crude response to being harmed and is even exhibited in animals.
o What effects does this have on the criminal? The criminal may be likely to commit the crime again once he has been punished. In retributivism, there is no attention to the effects on society or the criminal. The only thing that matters is that the criminal has paid for what he did.
Deterrence;
The criminal is made an example of.
The punishment will hopefully deter others from committing the same crime under fear of meeting the same consequences.
Public Hanging and Public Humiliation are perfect examples of deterrent punishments.
o Major criticism is that this form of punishment could be used to justify punishing the innocent, as long as it deters others from committing the same crime.
o Critics have argued that punishment as a deterrent simply doesn't work. Reoffending rates also seems to show that some criminals who leave prison seem undeterred to commit further crime in the future.
o In some circumstances, deterrence simply won't enter into the equation of a guilty mind. For instance, if Woman's husband cheats on her and she decides to poison his dinner, then the consequences of her actions will not matter to her.
The protection of society;
If criminals are locked up, then they cannot harm anybody
Protects society from people who are likely to keep on committing crime.
o The criminals have to be released someday; we can't sweep them under the rug. In the long term, it doesn't work.
o Society doesn't need to be protected from certain crimes. For instance, the woman who poisons her husband because he is having an affair is unlikely to commit the same crime again.
Reformation and Rehabilitation;
Instead of forcing the criminal to act in a certain way, we can try and change their characters into a law-abiding one.
Punishment will serve to change their character so that they will not commit crime again.
Methods such as Anger Management have been shown to effectively reduce the likelihood of reoffending in some criminals.
Sex offenders can be placed into counseling sessions with a Psychiatrist and other offenders to be taught how to control their actions.
o Criticism that this doesn't work in a lot of cases. Some people, such as paedophiles, cannot be cured of their desires.
o Some offenders do not need to be reformed as they are unlikely to commit the same crime again. For instance, there is no point in trying to reform someone who has only committed petty theft.
o Even though this has met with some success, the public are not so convinced that this is really justice for the victims of crime.
AUTHORITY
Power
What is power?
In physics, power is the ability to do work. The overcoming of inertia, the resistance offered by mass to motion.
In politics, Power is the ability to get people, the masses, to do what you want.
The people will offer a resistance, and so the government needs power to overcome this resistance.
How is power exercised?
Persuasion
o Power is exercised by making the masses willingly corporate.
o They do not cooperate solely for the government; they agree to the action and have their own reasons for cooperating.
Coercion
o Power is exercised through forcing people to act in the way you want them to
o This is can be done with the exercise of superior physical force, such as the police or the armed forces.
o Not always necessarily with the consent of the people.
Although these two forms of exercising power are mutually opposed, there are common cases where they both contribute toward the same goal. For example, trade unions `negotiate' with employers by threatening industrial action. It is disputed as whether this is a persuasive force or a coercive force, as the employer doesn't have any choice but to agree with the unions.
Aristotle evaluated some institutions as better than others. One of the ways he done this was by to decide whether the rule was conducted in the interests of the ruler or the interests of society (common good).
Who would you rather be ruled by? Somebody who shows you why decisions are in your best interests or somebody who forces you to act in a certain way?
To be coerced into action without explanation is to be treated as `less than human', or effectively like a child.
It is disheartening to some philosophers that people tend to obey and accept the authority of the state without any real reasoning or rationalization as to why they are obeying them in the first place. If I asked an average person "Why do you obey the prime minister?", he may very well reply back with "Because he Is the prime minister!"
Philosophers such as Kant and Rousseau have stress the importance of obeying the rules you set for yourself. One is free to create their own law, so it is a shame to waste this faculty by blindly obeying an authority without question.
Mill argues in On Liberty that one should strive to develop his own individuality and not blindly follow the rules of custom. Uncustomary things allow us to see what is fit for custom.
o Does Mill not contradict himself? Encouraging uncustomary things to see what is fit for custom
Conservatives may argue that law is the memory of the solutions to problems of the pasts, and the solutions that worked in the past may very well work in the future. What worked before can work again
o Not always necessarily the case. The political and social situations in the past are clearly very different to what they are now, so previous solutions may no longer be applicable.
Authority is a convenient social mechanism for getting things done quickly and efficiently.
It also allows for the accumulated experience of the community to be used when it is dealing with problems.
However, authority short-circuits all argument and endangers innovation.
It is a threat to an individual's liberty as it suspends their own judgement in favour of established procedures.
Legitimacy
What is the Legitimacy of an authority?
Legitimacy is how well the authority is able to account for being accepted as an authority. Ie, why should we accept it as an authority?
Max Weber defined the 3 main points which contribute to the legitimacy of a power;
Rational-legal: Some would say that this is the authority that we are used to, as the state justifies itself on legal grounds and codified law.
o Legitimacy is earned through arguing putting points across in a relevant and rational way. Usually, the most legitimate would be the party that can put forward the most compelling argument.
Traditional: Authority is inherited. Such a case would be a Monarchy which passes down power from heir to heir.
Charismatic: The leader would be able to put his points forward in a very precise and maybe even charming way. Some may argue that there is an element of this type of authority in our government.
o Would not generally be regarded as truly legitimate, as the basis of the legitimate factor would be purely the leaders own personality. We should avoid assuming that a leader knows best when all we like about him is the way he puts his ideas across.
Obligation
On what grounds can the government legitimately account for our obligation to obey their laws?
Consent of the governed
o A view taken by the Liberals. Consent is central to obligation, and people are only bound by the obligations which they have freely taken on. The government has no right to manufacture a Social Contract theory without the official consent of society.
o Anarchists take this further and argue that nobody has any obligation to obey an authority, as there is no opportunity for them to ever agree to such.
Consent is given within the act of remaining in the jurisdiction of the authority. If you remain, then you are enjoying the benefits of that authority, and thus consenting to it's rule.
o Marxists would argue that consent of the people is manufactured by the state when the proletariat rises up and seizes the means of production from the bourgeoisie.
Hobbes' account of obligation is that the consent comes from a treaty, or non-aggression pact created after a successful conquest.
o By agreeing not to show aggression to the new state, you are accepting their authority.
o There is a total obligation to obey the conquerors rule. Under Hobbes' account, there is no room for criticising the legislator as you have consented to whatever law he may want to impose.
This may not account for all generations. Do the people of a subsequent generation to the conquered have a right to object to the ruler? They haven't consented to anything, especially if they do not have the resources to move out of the states control.
Achievement of the General Will
Political Phil REVISION QUESTIONS:
TEST YURSELF AND GOOD LUCK !!
1. Why are there different ideologies?
2. What is the role of the state according to liberals?
3. Outline Locke's theory of the state?
4. Outline Mill's theory of the state?
5. Outline Burke's theory of the state?
6. Explain the heart of conservatism.
7. Explain the objections to conservatism.
8. Explain why Marx thinks that the state is an oppressive institution.
9. Explain why anarchists think that the state is an oppressive institution.
10. Explain the difference between positive and negative liberty.
11. How would you defend liberty?
12. Does obeying the law increase or decrease our liberty?
13. Explain the distinction between natural and positive rights.
14. How would you justify the idea of rights?
15. How should we resolve the tension between rights and utility?
16. Explain different principles of justice.
17. Outline Rawls' theory of redistribution.
18. Outline Nozick's theory of redistribution.
TEST YURSELF AND GOOD LUCK !!
1. Why are there different ideologies?
2. What is the role of the state according to liberals?
3. Outline Locke's theory of the state?
4. Outline Mill's theory of the state?
5. Outline Burke's theory of the state?
6. Explain the heart of conservatism.
7. Explain the objections to conservatism.
8. Explain why Marx thinks that the state is an oppressive institution.
9. Explain why anarchists think that the state is an oppressive institution.
10. Explain the difference between positive and negative liberty.
11. How would you defend liberty?
12. Does obeying the law increase or decrease our liberty?
13. Explain the distinction between natural and positive rights.
14. How would you justify the idea of rights?
15. How should we resolve the tension between rights and utility?
16. Explain different principles of justice.
17. Outline Rawls' theory of redistribution.
18. Outline Nozick's theory of redistribution.
Original post by TSweety
Gud luck with revision
Do u hav any guesses for wat might come up for political phil
Do u hav any guesses for wat might come up for political phil
My guesses are just war, or a specific theory in relation to liberty, neither of those type have come up for a while
Original post by phoebc
when did they ever say the argue counter argue re counter thing?
My teacher went to an aqa board meeting where they said they wanted to see that. It's also mentioned on the examiners notes a few times (you can see those on aqa with the papers and mark schemes, pretty useful actually)
Original post by fierybluebeacon
My guesses are just war, or a specific theory in relation to liberty, neither of those type have come up for a while
Yhhh i think liberty and Nations too
Gud luck dude
Original post by TSweety
Yhhh i think liberty and Nations too
Gud luck dude
Gud luck dude
My teacher said liberty is very likely to come up too, how do you think it could be asked?
Original post by Joshb873
I'm doing Mind and Moral for Unit 3 as well as Plato for Unit 4. Hoping Functionalism doesn't come up but it was a question last year so...
Any guess for Plato?
HOW HAS IT TAKEN ME SO LONG TO FIND THIS!! PLEASE HELP!!
ok so please is anyone doing phil 3 Mind + Epistemology, then phil 4 Descartes??- I'm finding it really hard to structure my revision- I feel like I know most of it pretty well, because we've been treating the course synoptically all year, but in the upcoming days I don't just want to be doing random bits of revision, I feel like I need an effective structure to my revision.
There's basically been a horrible crisis all year in our class- last year not a single person achieved an A at AS, and over half the year got Us, DESPITE our teacher being a chief examiner... Hence this year, everyone's been sceptical about the standard of teaching. No one has any idea if the marks we're being given for essays are correct
The post about structure (3 arguments thing) is news to me. I thought you could get away with 2- so hahaha that's my timings down the pan!
my structure was going to be:
intro- outline claim and address my line of argument (which would echo a philosophical stance) in comparison to opposing arguments
first paragraph- begin with counter to my argument, which I unpick with philosophical stance that supports me, and explain how implications of my argument undermine the counter
second paragraph- same again but with different arguments
first option for conclusion- round up argument, and define exactly what I believe, and how this acts accordingly with the philosophical standpoints that i was advocating.
second option for conclusion- in the intro i would have hinted at an argument which could provide holistic answer to question. this wouldn't be addressed in body of my argument, but body of my argument would lend itself to a final point within my conclusion, which could provide potential solution to the claim. (that's poorly explained i know!) Can i do this??
I have to get an A in this course, as my uni want AAB and i'm aiming for a B in History. I want to trust my teacher but after last year it's very hard to. please if someone could help me i would be incredibly grateful!!!! (otherwise i will be resitting next year.)
ok so please is anyone doing phil 3 Mind + Epistemology, then phil 4 Descartes??- I'm finding it really hard to structure my revision- I feel like I know most of it pretty well, because we've been treating the course synoptically all year, but in the upcoming days I don't just want to be doing random bits of revision, I feel like I need an effective structure to my revision.
There's basically been a horrible crisis all year in our class- last year not a single person achieved an A at AS, and over half the year got Us, DESPITE our teacher being a chief examiner... Hence this year, everyone's been sceptical about the standard of teaching. No one has any idea if the marks we're being given for essays are correct
The post about structure (3 arguments thing) is news to me. I thought you could get away with 2- so hahaha that's my timings down the pan!
my structure was going to be:
intro- outline claim and address my line of argument (which would echo a philosophical stance) in comparison to opposing arguments
first paragraph- begin with counter to my argument, which I unpick with philosophical stance that supports me, and explain how implications of my argument undermine the counter
second paragraph- same again but with different arguments
first option for conclusion- round up argument, and define exactly what I believe, and how this acts accordingly with the philosophical standpoints that i was advocating.
second option for conclusion- in the intro i would have hinted at an argument which could provide holistic answer to question. this wouldn't be addressed in body of my argument, but body of my argument would lend itself to a final point within my conclusion, which could provide potential solution to the claim. (that's poorly explained i know!) Can i do this??
I have to get an A in this course, as my uni want AAB and i'm aiming for a B in History. I want to trust my teacher but after last year it's very hard to. please if someone could help me i would be incredibly grateful!!!! (otherwise i will be resitting next year.)
Original post by TSweety
Any guess for Plato?
I'm expecting Simile of the Ship to come up for 15 marks with a 45 marker on Democracy and Political rule, then there will be the standard 45 marker on a question regarding the forms, but there could be a virtue question, not had one of those in a while. You know, "what makes Plato's ruler virtuous" etc
Who is doing Hume?
Original post by Joshb873
I'm expecting Simile of the Ship to come up for 15 marks with a 45 marker on Democracy and Political rule, then there will be the standard 45 marker on a question regarding the forms, but there could be a virtue question, not had one of those in a while. You know, "what makes Plato's ruler virtuous" etc
Original post by Joshb873
I'm expecting Simile of the Ship to come up for 15 marks with a 45 marker on Democracy and Political rule, then there will be the standard 45 marker on a question regarding the forms, but there could be a virtue question, not had one of those in a while. You know, "what makes Plato's ruler virtuous" etc
Ahhhh yhhhhh thts a gud one divided line could come up too since it has never came up
Original post by TSweety
Ahhhh yhhhhh thts a gud one divided line could come up too since it has never came up
What are you doing for Unit 3?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- Sociology Help Thread
- a level study : BLOG
- Over 500 questions on AQA Bio Unit 4 + Current Spec and old Spec papers + MS!
- How do you get A's in Biology A levels
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- My GCSE journey!! 🦞
- A-level Business Study Group 2022-2023
- Official GCSE RS Help Chat
- A-level Economics Study Group 2022-2023
- Economic's AS + A2 Notes (ALL BOARDS)
- The Official 'I'm going to fail my exams' Society
- GCSE Biology Study Group 2022-2023
- Revision Struggles?! Join the 2023 TSR All Day Revision Thread!
- btec applied science extended certificate aqa
- Inorganic Chemistry (AQA) - A level
- AQA Environmental Studies AS Level Revision Notes Here
- AQA A-Level Biology Revision Notes (New Spec)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 hours ago
GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 day ago
AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
any updates on what the guest password is for philosphy cat ?Last reply 1 week ago
How to get A* in a level ocr religous studiesLast reply 1 week ago
A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (8062/ 2A and 2B) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
WJEC GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Aqa a level philosophy and ethics (rs) paper 2 christianity and dialogues 2023Last reply 3 weeks ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Religious studies a level EduqasLast reply 4 weeks ago
Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
Eduqas religious studies a level 2023Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 hours ago
GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 day ago
AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
any updates on what the guest password is for philosphy cat ?Last reply 1 week ago
How to get A* in a level ocr religous studiesLast reply 1 week ago
A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (8062/ 2A and 2B) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
WJEC GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Aqa a level philosophy and ethics (rs) paper 2 christianity and dialogues 2023Last reply 3 weeks ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Religious studies a level EduqasLast reply 4 weeks ago
Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
Eduqas religious studies a level 2023
