Socrates’ Truth vs. Kant’s Enlightenment

Although Kant’s essay, “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” emerged in 1784, centuries after Plato’s “Apology,” both Kant and Socrates address the concepts of acceptable political discussion and disobedience. The philosophers each remark upon knowledge and agree that wisdom is furthered best outside of a civic post. Socrates states, “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if he is to survive for even a short time,” (Plato 34; 32a) as he denounces holding a position in the Athens government. He believes that he cannot express his true political views and must conform to the majority. Similarly, Kant believes, “…greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post,” (525) in regard to the use of one’s reason. Like Socrates, Kant recognizes that expectations for those in civic positions differ from citizens, especially concerning matters of disagreement and disobedience of authority. However, despite this parallel, Kant and Socrates’ standards for proper political discussion differ and each has a distinct criterion for when personal opinions are permissible. Ultimately these philosophers have slightly disparate views on the process of reasoning and enlightenment.
Socrates supported the questioning of the Athens’ government. Although he says, “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private…life” (Plato 34; 32a) he does not defend the uniformity of opinions in the public authority. While on trial Socrates states, “throughout my life, in any public activity I may have engaged in, I am the same man as I am in private life” (Plato 35; 33a). He does not alter his opinions or actions depending on the audience or position. Socrates seems more anti-political than anti-public, as he testifies that the Athens representatives, “were ready to prosecute me…but I thought I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you…when you were engaged in an unjust course” (Plato 35; 32b-c). He does not believe that an individual should compromise his or her own beliefs according to the political majority. Useful discussion, according to Socrates, is not public conferences, “that path that would have made me of no use either to you or to myself” (Plato 38; 36c). He protests for his system of private enlightenment in which, “I went to each of you privately and conferred upon him what I say is the greatest benefit” (Plato 38; 36c). Although Socrates would like to speak his mind openly the Athenian government opposes contradicting opinions and so he must consult with others privately, not because he necessarily wants to, but because the majority makes public search of truth impossible.
Deviating from a purely free speech, Kant’s view of using one’s reason to discuss is dependent on the manner. He defines “public use of one’s reason…the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world” (523) and the “private use of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him” (523). Kant’s idea of “private” more closely resembles Socrates’ and the modern meaning of a public. This contrasting definition makes an exact comparison far less clear cut. But if Kant’s idea of public is roughly similar to what is designated as private, his standards for political discussion differ from Socrates. Kant believes in a civic position, “one certainly must not argue” (523). Instead of questioning authority and stating different views, individuals put their personal feelings aside for the majority. Also, when participating in administrative discussions, “members must conduct themselves in an entirely passive manner so that through an artificial unanimity, the government may guide them toward public ends” (523). He views a consenting majority as the best means to create public law. However, Kant also states that outside of this station an individual has, “an unrestricted freedom to use his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind” (523). Although a pastor must teach according to the church’s law and a soldier must obey his superior (523), they are allowed to disapprove of these institutions publicly. Citizens can, “set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of [the head of state’s] laws, even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect” (525). For Kant, one’s actions at a post need not coincide with the individual’s actual beliefs or personal actions.
In general, Socrates would agree with Kant that enlightenment is furthered best outside of a civic position, but he would not contest that authority must be blindly followed while under its command. Socrates encourages questioning the majority’s decisions, while Kant states that in politically one must not argue and only obey. Both believe that reason and enlightenment must begin with private discussions but differ regarding behavior at public posts. While Socrates’ criterion for wisdom is pursuing truth regardless of position, he believes that it is easiest to seek out privately. Kant considers the government an important agency to influence the public to think more for themselves. Overall, although the specifics of each philosopher’s argument differ, each considers, “the unexamined life is not worth living for men” (Plato 39; 38a).

Read Full Post »

Mill On Gay Marriage

John Stuart Mill spent much of “The Subjection of Women” discussing the issue of marriage and its flaws. Throughout his work he is well versed and seems to consider himself an informed and knowledgeable writer on this topic. In present times, many of the issues Mill raises against marriage have already been fixed. Women are taking less subordinate and even more dominant roles in partnerships, women have the right to file for divorce, and also have legal rights to their children. What would Mill’s thoughts be on a more modernized version of this topic, gay marriage? Mill has many reasons for opposing the institution of marriage and if these causes for opposition are obliterated, it is likely that Mill will support marriage. I argue that Mill would support gay marriage as it rids of many of his causes for opposing marriage.

Read Full Post »

My Two Cents on the Disabled Competing in Sports

A x-ray of my right hand taken around 2003.

I have a disability called Poland Syndrome. Poland Syndrome is a birth-defect characterized by the absence of the pectoral (chest) muscle on one side of the body. In my particular case, I am missing my right pectoral muscle and one of the side-effects is that I have a smaller right hand with shortened fingers that are not really capable of bending. In the fifth chapter of Mika LaVaque-Manty’s the Playing Fields of Eton that is called “Being a Woman and Other Disabilities,” LaVaque-Manty claims that, “In disability sport, the idea of open competition is that anyone who can compete can join in. It is not only true in disability sport,” (LaVaque-Manty 147). As a person with my own disability and drawing from my own experiences and thoughts, I believe if a disabled person can participate in a sport, disability or able-bodied, he or she should have a right to compete with or without the help of an aid.

From my own experiences with sports, such as baseball, if a disabled person is able to compete, they should have a right to do so. I used to play on a baseball team when I was younger. In order to play, I would have to wear my baseball glove on my left hand to catch the ball, and as soon as I caught the ball, I would immediately rip off my glove and throw the ball with my left hand. In order to play well, I had to do this quickly. I did not need any aids in order to play; therefore, if I could do well enough to compete, then I should have a right to play just as the fully able-body athlete does. The only roadblocks I could have faced or any other disabled person to keep from contending would be overcoming value barriers such as a team not wanting an athlete with a small hand on the team. Fortunately, I never had to experience such barriers.

When it comes to disabled people competing in sports with the help an aid of some sort such as a prosthetic limb, if that disabled person can participate in competition, then they should have a right to compete. In one case, South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius was born without fibulae in his lower legs and uses prosthetic legs known as the Cheetahs in order to make himself participate in running (LaVaque-Manty 147). If the Cheetahs enable Pistorius to compete on the same scale of able-bodied sprinters, then he should be allowed to compete. There was some debate about Pistorius’ use of his aids, “Pistorius’s case required complicated adjudication on whether he had an obvious advantage or simply lots of talent or hard work,” (LaVaque-Manty 148). The use of an aid can bring questions on whether disabled athletes have advantages over able-bodied athletes. I personally believe that if an aid is there just to simply fulfill a function that a disabled person does not have, then by all means, let disabled athletes with aids compete on the same level as able-bodied athletes.

In addition, let’s say I wanted to take up the sport of boxing. Boxing is a sport that I really should not participate in because it would be very dangerous for me to participate in (not because it’s dangerous already). Since I am missing my right pectoral muscle, the entire right side of my rib cage would be exposed. However, if there was some way to create a special pad that could cover my chest that would be of the same shape and consistency of a pectoral muscle, then I could be possible for me to participate in boxing. Yet, it could be brought up that it would be unfair for me to box because I have a pad over my chest that could put me at an unfair advantage to other boxers who do not need a pad over their chests. There would have to be some sort of institutional reform to determine if my participation would be equal and meaningful just as Pistorius had to undergo a case with the International Amateur Athletics Federation (LaVaque-Manty 147). However, from my view as a person with a disability, if there is an aid that can cancel out a disability to make a person equal, then they should be all means have a right to compete.

As a person with Poland Syndrome, I know what it is like to play in sports where you have to work harder than everyone else. Disabled people are placed at a disadvantage in life, and if they are able to overcome their disabilities to participate in sports, then there should be no restrictions to keep them from doing so.

Works Cited

LaVaque-Manty, Mika. The Playing Fields of Eton. University of Michigan, 2009. 131-152.

Read Full Post »

The Advantages Of Weakness

Modern society has made many progressive steps in assisting women gain more equality. However, the repressive nature of women’s pasts have created strength of character and built a skill set which enabled women to fight more for their own independence. The disadvantages of physical weakness and self-sacrifice which Mill attributed to women in his “Subjection of Women” allowed women to build up characteristics which gave them advantages in modern society.

One of the disadvantages brought to light by Mill was that of physical strength where men greatly overpowered women. This generalization by Mill that men have greater muscle power naturally over women was one of the reasons men thought themselves superior to women. Mill states that this difference is translated from a physical fact to one of political fact (Mill 654). Mill refutes this logic as a means of political dominion over women by relating it to slavery and the power of the master over the slave. If one were to take Mills argument of women’s inferior physical strength to be true then in modern society, this physical strength no longer serves as a basis of power of men over women in that physical strength no longer holds as much weight in the ability to gain power over society in general. With the advancement of technology and the creation of industrialized society where brain power and business skills are more useful than brutish arm strength, men’s natural power over women becomes a mute point in an attempt to keep women under their control. Rather women throughout history had to find ways to work around this physical weakness, using the art of negotiation to get what they wanted from their husbands, as Mill showed on page 671 speaking of women’s use of the power to scold. Even though this skill was only practiced by women against men who were not of the most tyrannical personalities, it still was a skill which might allow women more advantages within modern society. Having already developed this skill women would be prepared to negotiate in a business setting.

Another disadvantage attributed to women by Mill is one of the self-sacrificing nature of women. Mill makes a claim that women are disadvantaged by their need to take care of their family and putting the family ahead of themselves (Mill 673). Essentially, Mill links this part of female nature to make it so that women are best occupied in homely duties, by taking care of the children and household, and that even if women were given political power they would still occupy this position in the house because their working outside of the home would cause them to neglect or do a poor job of their instinctual motherly duties. However, this “disadvantage”  becomes an advantage when looked at from a modern perspective. Industrialized societies allow for more expansion of business allowing practices such as part time work, having nannies, and even working from home that allows women an even greater opportunity to work. By making it easier to reconcile the conflict of career vs. family in a woman’s world, today’s society has made it easier for a woman to work thereby making her more independent from her husband giving her more rights. Furthermore, having both parents working in the household, creates a requirement upon men to assist in more of the home duties, which they would be ill prepared for according to Mill’s logic. Mill arguments lead one to believe that women are able to adapt better to the continual pull on ones time from multiple sources due to their experience of it throughout the majority of history. Men, on the other hand do not have this advantage, and since they do not contain the self-sacrificing nature, they often struggle to balance their desire for personal success and family life.

If one were to look at Mill’s overgeneralizations towards the nature of women, in that they are physically weak and self-sacrificing, presuming them to be true it would lead to one thinking that it was the experience of these disadvantages which helped women to overcome the same difficulties and to be better suited to adapt to the new modern culture. By being self-sacrificing and having to overcome physical weakness women were better prepared to deal with a society in which self-sacrifice is a part of daily adult life and physical superiority no longer allows any political or economical advantage.

Read Full Post »

Court Is In Session

Our society is and has been a malleable creature. It has constantly been evolving and restructuring as we have changed the relationships with our neighbors and our government. As our neighbors came closer and closer, as our cities grew taller and taller, and as our government wanted more and more from us, the format of our political activities attempts to heal whatever ails us. Guided strongly by the philosophers, scholars and politicians that try to critique our successes and failures, we have tried to rebuild our world every time that it fails us. Many believe that our American government is a great culmination of the political successes throughout history. But if you were to ask a panel of our most esteemed philosophers from history – many of whom we have read for this class – would they agree with that? If there were a supreme court of political theory, what would they have to say about the legitimacy of our government?

Let’s name the Dream Team. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, we’ll appoint nine justices: Niccolò Machiavelli, Socrates, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Edmund Burke, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and for the ninth we’ll roll all of the authors of the Federalist Papers into one justice. With our judicial board now in place, court is in session. The case: U of M’s Political Science 101 Class v. U.S. Government. The sides have argued, and with the justices left to their own philosophies to render their opinions, they have reached their verdict.

Not off to a great start, Justice Machiavelli votes against the U.S. Government. In his opinion, the leader of a nation must rule in a way where his power is the dictating factor, and much of that power is derived from hereditary rule. With the constant turnover and democratic functions of the U.S. government, the power gained is not true power in his view. Machiavelli also believed that “the ends justify the means,” a philosophy that is highly controversial today and is often brushed aside because of our respect for individual rights. Nevertheless, Machiavelli gives us a thumb down.

Socrates is up next. Justice Socrates, as the “gadfly” of Athens, believed that individuality and opposition were important for a true democracy. He felt that the majority rule of the Athenian senate was wrong, and his life became an attempt to thwart their opinions, including his own trial and death. Here in America, though often many feel their voices aren’t heard by those in power, minority opinions are valued and given consideration in political and societal functions. This is seen in our civil protections from majority, and from the activism of minority in government. Thus, Socrates approves of us.
Unsurprisingly, Hobbes is a solid dissenting opinion. His vision of a social contract is that of a sovereign who holds the responsibility of all those in the society. But since our society does not believe that our sovereign can gain our consent to govern through fear and overall power, we have little to agree on.

Next, Justice Locke sees enough of his own philosophy in the U.S. political system to give it his endorsement. He likes the fact that the democratic functions of America replicate the consent to govern that protects from a state of war. The U.S. protects private property, which Locke also likes. And on top of all of that, Americans believe in the right to revolution. It was the founding act of our country, and as Americans we still hold strong to our right to stand up and assemble in protest.

In a similar fashion to Locke, Rousseau believes that a true legitimate government is the consent to a governing body that acts for the best possible result for all. He can see that the U.S. is a large body under a strong constitution and that it attempts to act with the general will in mind, and can give it his support.
Edmund Burke is a difficult case to determine. Historically, though he is famous for opposing the French Revolution, Burke was actually in favor of the American Revolution. That being said, Burke might not be a fan of the vast reforms, social revolutions, and battles for civil rights and liberties America has experienced since the time of the Revolution. If Burke were to pass his opinion right now, because America still has the same governing body and for the most part our authority has remained at the top of our legislative and executive branches, Burke would reluctantly approve of our political state.

The authors of the Federalist Papers are obvious proponents. They may have had their quarrels with the Anti-federalists about the protection of individual rights, the U.S. Constitution remains as the strongest beacon of our protections from oppressive government. The document that they fought to ratify continues to battle the effects of factions and creates the relationship between the federal and local levels of government to this day. Thus, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay are supporters of the U.S. Government under that document.

Another strong supporter of our current system is Justice Kant. America is famous for its support of free speech and free thought, and Kant is in favor of the ability of each American citizen to reason for himself or herself the correct path within society. Although pragmatically this is not always the case, Justice Kant can see that the U.S. society is one in which the ability to reason for oneself is hardly restricted at all.

Finally, we come to Justice Mill. Like Kant, freedom of expression is important to Mill’s vision of society. Mill feels that no one opinion can be quieted by the majority and that the “tyranny of the majority” cannot usurp the right an individual has over himself. The U.S. is a strong protector of individual rights, and Mill would most likely agree with the protection of minority opinions that are so important to the functions of our politics and society.

The Verdict is in! After much heated debate, the Supreme Court of Political Theory has come to a decision of 7 to 2 in favor of the U.S. political system. While this may not be the actual case in terms of the philosophies of our justices, this hypothetical situation shows us something very important. Our society is a collection of ideas. It is a living, breathing organism that learns and adapts as philosophies and ethical standards change throughout the world and within our own history. We have encountered countless critiques and modifications of our views, and we never cease to evolve.

Sources:
Plato’s The Trial and Death of Socrates, From Modern Political Thought: Machiavelli (Pg. 10 – 52), Hobbes (Pgs. 118 – 245), Locke (Pgs. 285 – 353), Rousseau (Pgs. 371 – 449), Burke (Pgs. 502 – 521), Kant (Pgs. 522 – 525), Hamilton and Madison (Pgs. 543 – 557), and Mill (592 – 677)

Read Full Post »

Are we in an age of enlightenment or an enlightened age?

It is natural for men to progress and mature as society develops. However, sometimes there are factors, whether internal or external, that prevent society from evolving. Kant addresses this issue in his writing, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment. According to Kant’s definition, enlightenment is “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity” (522). Furthermore, immaturity is understood as, “the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another” (522). Kant goes on to qualify his argument by stating that enlightenment cannot be attained unless men are allowed “the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters” (523). In other words, for enlightenment to occur, Kant argues that people need to have the right to express their opinions and thoughts openly to the public without being punished. On the other hand, the private use of reason often restricts enlightenment, which Kant defines as “reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him” (523).  After defining the concept of enlightenment and its premises, Kant addresses the question: Do we live in an enlightened age or an age of enlightenment? He argues that in 1784 in Prussia the society lived in an age of enlightenment, meaning they were in the process of becoming enlightened, but had not yet achieved an age of enlightenment. Many men were still caught in that state of immaturity and therefore could not express their opinions to the public because they did not have any thoughts of their own to express. Would Kant argue that the 21^st century society of the United States lived in an enlightened age? While citizens of the U.S. enjoy many rights, such as the freedom of speech, there are still factors like biased outlets of media, which hinder us from being in an enlightened age, and instead place us in an age of enlightenment.

Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified three years after Kant wrote about enlightenment, citizens are guaranteed basic freedoms, including the freedom of speech and religion. The granting of these rights to every member of society was an important advancement that allowed people to express their opinions and beliefs openly without being reprimanded, something that Kant saw as essential in order for enlightenment to take place. Therefore, in that aspect, the U.S. is more enlightened than the society in which Kant lived. Americans are not denied the right to use reason in public; they can have their own opinions and religion, regardless of the government’s principles. However, just because these freedoms exist in U.S. society today does not mean we are in an enlightened age because factors still exist that hold our citizens in a state of immaturity.

One of the major issues of 21^st century American society that is hindering us from entering an enlightened age is the omnipresent and often biased media. Media outlets have such an immense impact on people’s thoughts that they cause people to stay in a state of immaturity where they cannot think for themselves. One of the most obvious examples of this situation is the broadcasts of predisposed media during presidential elections. During this time, people of the media from both sides of the political spectrum report outrageous and warped stories that affect how the citizens of the U.S. think of each candidate, and potentially how they vote. After hearing the stories of the prejudiced media it is impossible for people to have their own opinions and thoughts, therefore preventing an age of enlightenment in the U.S. Some people may argue that the media allows citizens an outlet to express their views without referring to a higher authority, therefore it allows for enlightenment. However, media is an institution in which reporters and journalists take a civic post. Therefore their sharing of information through media is actually private reason and does not promote men breaking free from their state of immaturity and achieving an age of enlightenment.

While the U.S. should be in an age of enlightenment because of our freedoms, especially those under the First Amendment, we are not yet there due to the influence of the media on our citizens. It is apparent through the biased claims of the media and the impact they have on society’s decisions and thoughts that we are unable to reach an age of enlightenment in the U.S. because some citizens are still affected by the self-imposed state of immaturity that stops them from becoming enlightened.

Reference:

“An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” by Immanuel Kant

Read Full Post »

Kant’s Enlightenment and the Internet: Are We as a Nation in an Enlightened Age?

The question of whether or not we live in an “enlightened age” in our country is an interesting topic when thinking about the internet and mass media.  In politics, the internet and web media is used by politicians as a tool to help spread their messages. These messages do not necessarily contain truths, and are often misconstrued, but nonetheless spread to millions and millions of citizens across the country.  Immanuel Kant would see the media as an extremely negative force – one that puts immense pressure on individuals to not seek out answers for themselves, instead relying on websites, forums and videos on the internet to tell them what to think.

Kant addresses the topic of enlightenment in his short essay, “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?”  Kant argues that enlightenment is attained by having the courage to use reason and understanding to pull oneself out of the lazy habits of following others’ guidance. He affirms that while we can use this reason to exceed immaturity, we must do so not just in private life, but more importantly in public life, so that others may be affected by our actions and expressions. While most occupations require duties and obligations to be obeyed and not questioned, one is allowed to and should publically “express [their] thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice” of anything they feel necessary, even if it is related to their job.

The public aspect of both observing and speculating on information has become incredibly relevant in modern times as it is extremely simple to turn on the computer for news or opinions. Even if you are online and not trying to hear others’ opinions, one is often force-fed politics—be it via commercials, pop-up ads, or friends’ status updates on Facebook.  While this technology can often quickly and broadly help expose inconsistencies or false information, it can also magnify the effect of such spurious info.

Admittedly, there are examples of online media types that can facilitate enlightenment, such as certain discussion forums, blogs (such as this one), and news sites that present truthful information with minimal biases.  These forums and blogs provide a straightforward way to get one’s opinion out there for everyone else to see and respond to.  In addition to being easy to use, many of these sites connect people from many different backgrounds from all over the world; a diverse group of opinions can be brought to the table.  However, the vast majority of internet websites and forums are not for the purpose of pure learning and understanding; many are motivated by either self-interest or profit, and therefore are not valid tools for reaching enlightenment.  Many of the forums are centered on certain hobbies or interests, meaning the users often have very similar views and do not learn from one another.  If someone comes online and posts an opinion that goes against the beliefs of many forum members, they are often shot down by the majority and not given a chance to explain their point and have others try to understand it.  The general lack of policing on the internet means that while there is the opportunity for open, intelligent discussion and a chance for everyone’s voice to be heard, these freedoms are often abused and the lack of policing means that it can be hard to sort the useful discussions that could be enlightening from the inadequate ones.

This situation is somewhat of a paradox, as our contemporary society is thought of as one of the most tolerable places in the world to practice free speech and exercise one’s freedoms of expression. These freedoms are what Kant states as the tools towards achieving enlightenment, yet the media has become such a powerful force that it can easily counteract the available freedoms by allowing individuals to remain lazy and simply follow everything that is said by others.

As technology continues to advance, will modern and future forms of media put an even more serious constraint on the next generation’s path towards enlightenment, as it becomes easier and easier to hear the opinions of others?

Reference:

“An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?” by Immanuel Kant

Image from: http://www.louisgray.com/graphics/usage_graph.jpg

Read Full Post »

Machiavelli’s Subliminal Republicanism

According to many scholars, Niccolό Machiavelli was by no means a supporter of Principalities, such as that of the Medici family of Florence, but rather an enthusiast of Republicanism. He truly believed in a Republicanism that recognized all people as naturally moral, and respected the common person. Why then, did he write an instruction manual for the Medicis outlining exactly how to run a successful, intimidating, brutal principality? Some theorists argue that Machiavelli had ulterior motives for writing The Prince. Knowing this, we can see that Machiavelli used two approaches in The Prince in order to establish Republicanism as the primary governing ideal under which Florence was ruled. It is apparent that these theorists may be correct in viewing The Prince as a tool Machiavelli used to either set up the Medici principality for disintegration, or influence them to govern in a more Republican manner.

In the Prince, Machiavelli describes exactly how to run a successful Principality. One of Machiavelli’s central arguments revolves around the concept of amorality. He says that morality is meaningless when it comes to the good of the state. He references the idea of Raison d’état, meaning that a ruler is governed by a different set of ethics than the common people. For a ruler, the ends justify the means, allowing a ruler to execute any action, no matter how brutal or unfair, in order to achieve a good outcome for the state as a whole. If The Prince was intended by Machiavelli to be leaked to the general public, we can assume that the people of Florence would not have liked the thought of the Medici family ruling them under the concept of amorality. Even though a good outcome for the state would sound appealing to most people, the thought of a ruler being permitted to use any means necessary to achieve that outcome does not. Though the Florentines may have valued their state very highly, the possibility of being brutally treated by the Medici family would cause discontent among them, setting the stage for a Republican coup.

Another way Machiavelli infiltrated the Medici Principality with his Republican ideals is through his discussion of strategic amoralism. Machiavelli references a Greek figure, Agathocles, who he describes as wicked and evil. At first glance, the actions of Agathocles do not seem to differ at all from those Machiavelli states are necessary for creating and maintaining a successful principality. Agathocles committed acts of brutality and torture in order to gain power of a state. Agathocles’s actions, though physically identical to those of a Machiavellian ruler, were committed out of self interest with the only goal being personal glory. Machiavelli explains that only when a man is driven by the desire to improve the condition of the state and the lives of the people are actions of violence and brutality acceptable. Through this argument, Machiavelli smuggled his ideas of a Republican government that serves the people into the minds of the Medici family. Since the rest of The Prince describes traits of a successful, almost totalitarian ruler, Machiavelli attempts to disguise Republican thought as totalitarian direction in order to show the Medici family that working for the best interests of the people is the most effective method of government.

Read Full Post »

Hobbes vs Locke in Regards to Paying Fines

At my current residence, my landlord issued a warning that he would fine $20 to every apartment in our complex for cleaning up cigarette butts on the sidewalk in front of the entrance to my apartment complex. Cigarette butts are a common thing to find on any sidewalk in a city, but I can understand a landlord wishing to keep its property litter-free. Yet, the problem I have with this possible fine is I do not smoke; therefore, I have nothing to do with cigarette butts being discarded onto the sidewalk. So there are two possible actions I can take if this fine is imposed: I could take the Hobbesian route and pay the fine because it is unjust to go against the sovereign (in this case, the landlord) or I could take Locke’s advice by opposing the sovereign and an unjust statute.

According to Hobbes, he would say I would have to pay this clean-up fine, regardless of how responsible I am for it. In my situation, I have entered a social contract with my landlord in the form of a residential lease. The only section of my lease that remotely justifies the clean-up fine is, “Tenants also shall maintain the Premises in a neat and orderly manner.” So even if my lease does not say that my landlord has a right to fine me, he is still in the right according to Hobbes because it was I who signed a contract putting the landlord into a position of power, “there can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign,” (Hobbes 176). Hobbes is saying that the sovereign is unable to break a contract because only the people who placed the sovereign into power are in a position to break a contract.  In addition, Hobbes would say that I would have no right to object from paying the $20 because, “being thereby bound by covenant, to own the actions, and judgments of one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant, amongst themselves,” (Hobbes 175-176). This means that it would be unjust for me to approach the landlord and claim myself to be exempt from the fine no matter how innocent I am. In a Hobbesian setting, the only solution would to be to keep my original covenant and pay the fine.

On the other hand, Locke claims that I should not pay the clean-up fine. By Locke’s terms, the landlord in my situation is using arbitrary power, or governing without settled laws (Locke 323) because there is no writing in my lease that claims that the landlord has a right to charge every apartment a fine for the clean-up of a public space. As Locke claims, “the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions,” (Locke 324). Consequently, my landlord is no position to charge me $20 because the landlord should only take actions outlined in our contract. In addition, Locke would also suggest that it would be right for me to stand up against the landlord and to not pay the $20. Locke says that people have a right to rebel if an authority changes the laws, and the people have a right to rebel, “when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion,” (Locke 347). Not only is it my right to rebel the fine, but Locke is saying that it is fault of the landlord for me to rebel in the first place by creating this fine.

Both Hobbes and Locke both have several convincing points in their arguments that could dictate my action if this $20 fine of cleaning up cigarette butts is charged upon me. Which side would I choose in this situation? Locke’s side would be an easy choice because not only would it keep me $20 richer, but mostly because the power to fine for cleaning public space is not outlined in our contract. Yet, Hobbes does make a point that I agreed to put the landlord in a position of power over me. Regardless, this situation shows how the different ideals of Locke and Hobbes can be implemented at many levels of modern society.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan.” Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Ed. David Wooton. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008. 116-277.

Locke, John. “Second Treatise of Government.” Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Ed. David Wooton. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008. 285-353.

Read Full Post »

Are Beneficial Ends Justified by Immoral Means?

Dylan Ashworth

Political Science 101

Section 004

Are Beneficial Ends Justified by Immoral Means?

The famous saying, “The ends justify the means,” is a highly loose concept that can be interpreted in many ways. One particularly debatable way to think about the concept is if beneficial ends are justified by immoral means.  The famous 15^th century philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli embraced the idea that as long as the ends are beneficial, it does not matter how you get there. My stance on the concept supports Machiavelli’s theory, but it defiantly has some limitations driven by real life situations. I have concluded that the benefits reached by immoral actions must be for the greater good. In addition to this, I believe immoral actions should only be used on a defensive standpoint. Many immoral actions can help the greater good, but if the actions are not being used in a defensive manner, the intentions of the final goal never outweigh the action.  In other words, the immorality of the action will not condone the goal.

The first factor I have to address that supports my belief is through public safety. A very immoral thing to do is to torture someone; however, at times this can be very productive. For example, information is needed from a terrorist on the location of a bomb that will kill many people, and unfortunately, he will not willingly tell you where it is. However, you can immorally torture the information out of the terrorist and save countless innocent people. In essence, it is an end for the greater good that was reached immorally, and the decision was made to defend many people.  However, one may argue that in some situations, a person could be innocent and wrongly tortured. It is a very inconvenient truth on the matter, but if there is probable cause to believe someone is guilty, it is worth the chance to torture to save countless other people.  Machiavelli expresses throughout The Prince that a leader’s actions should attempt to benefit the state at all costs. Saving many citizens would be in the state’s interest, and that one tortured person would be of lesser importance.

Another more relatable example of public safety that was provided by immoral actions occurred in World War II. When President Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan he ended the war and saved many American lives that would have died in a land invasion. The negative side of this action is that he killed many Japanese people. Killing vast amounts of Japanese citizens is no doubt immoral, but if you look at the positive of our own soldiers being alive it has an end for the greater good. Also, we were placed on the defensive when Japan forced us into a war. I would have deemed this action unsuitable if we wanted to conquer Japan, but our intention of the atomic bomb was to save our own soldiers lives. On the opposite side, it would be perfectly acceptable if Japan used the atomic bomb against us. We were an aggressor on their land and they could have used it to protect themselves if they had the technology. It is the duty of a leader to protect one’s own before all others according to Machiavelli.

My final factor, which supports my thesis, is different from the first two. It shows why immoral means for beneficial ends can be bad if used in an offensive manner. The Watergate incident is well known throughout American history in that our president unjustly withheld information from the public, so that he could personally benefit. In the incident, President Nixon had people break into the Watergate Building to steal information that would help him win reelection. As a result, he lost the respect and trust of the nation. Nixon was on the offensive because he wanted to steal information. Therefore, he had no legitimate cause to try and do this other than for his own person gain. Overall, he violated my two restrictions when committing immoral acts, and history has proved the majority of people were not happy with his choices.  His offensive and personal, immoral act was not condoned by the majority of people.

In conclusion, immoral means do justify beneficial ends under two circumstances. First of all, the immoral act must be used in a defensive manner, and secondly, the act must be done to benefit the greater good. If either of these restrictions are breached, it is not just to commit an immoral act.

 

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince: Modern Political Thought. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008.

Read Full Post »