Review PoliSci1 Session Plato's response to corruption? Proper virtues: Reason- wisdom is virtue (philo king) Spiritedness-courage(warrior) Desire- moderation(laborers) Within individual and within the society Parallel between soul and city Corruption applies to both Loss of rule of reason over the whole Essentially a disharmony between parts of the soul (can effect individuals or city as a whole. Must put soul back together.) Philo-kings, laborers, warriors Knowledge of the truth, they are the only ones who know how they should properly function If they aren't working together, then there is corruption Why Plato philosophically justified? -reason makes philosophically justified -consent doesn't play a role for Plato -constant giving of reason and support makes something a philo justification Locke natural right to property: Life, liberty, property. How do you come to acquire property? You labor, adds value. Hobbes: everything is everyone's, no one owns anything except their bodies -no property right like Locke says. Anything you need to maintain your own security and life, there is no property. You have your own mind and body, no one can take that away from you Allegory of the Cave: cave is realm of ignorance and appearance (appearance vs. truth). Cant have knowledge of something that isn't real. Idea of a tree, form of a tree is real. Cant have knowledge of a shadow. Outside is form, reality. Reason is the faculty that takes us out of the cave and allows us to
realize the truth..Philo kings use reason to come out and learn. Fuels noble lie and helps them to reasonably rule the city. Reason should rule, that is the purpose of the Cave Allegory. Justify the rule of the philo kings. Hypothetical consent: explicit and tactic are first two we learned about. Doesn't want to talk about how people actually consent..interested in what people would consent to in a fair choice situation. What would people agree to if they were put in a particular situation (the original situation). From this find out what understanding of justice we would agree to. Any consent must be publicly justifiable and agreed upon by all parties. Not actually doing it..its a completely hypothetical consent basis Man Who Should be President: proper characteristics for a particular character or ruler. Elements of Machiavelli and Plato. Secondary literature, it exemplifies what Mach and Plato say Racial Contract: Sections about what racial contract has to do with Hobbes and Locke, how it contrasts/compares. Critique of social contract of Locke and Hobbes. Based on race as opposed to the basis of reason. Mills points out that these don't apply to everyone, there is a deeper problem. Mills says its no accident that things turned out the way they did. Sections on Kant: social contract theorists had racialized understandings of people from the beginning, but didn't include it, generalized it. He says that the social contract is based on non-reasonable and sub human values. The social contract doesn't apply to everyone. Hobbes/Locke sub-human: people who can't use reason he defines it (pg138). Says racial contract is constantly changing with the times. The social contract stays the same. Reason is important for Locke and Hobbes, to be unreasonable is to be sub-human. Mills says that blacks are subhuman because they are ignorant and therefore unreasonable, so Mills says that automatically they are subhuman because they have no reason. Reason is instrumental for Hobbes, tells you how to get what you want. For plato, reason is a faculty that allows you to determine the truth. For Locke: most important thing is property Reason: Hobbes, tells you how to get what you want...(subjective). Reason doesn't get you anything. Linked to power and desires. Locke: it brings you to a fundamental understanding , tells that you there is a natural law and you have an obligation to them Rawls: in original position, reason tells you that you want economic gains. Self-interested, life plan. Want things, but don't know who I am and what will ultimately help me. Know that social primary goods are necessary for a life plan Reason: Plato(objective, tells you something), Hobbes(subjective, tells you something about yourself) Social contract: Hobbes (can be absolute, whatever)- people sign away rights, one stage Locke: two stages: first between people, then between people and their gov'. There are more limits for Locke. Sovereign NOT part of state of social contract because they are constantly in the state of nature. Hobbes says the sovereign is the soul of the commonwealth. There is no contract between sovereign and the ind' so therefore there is no right to revolution; revolution doesn't make sense. Hobbes:
everything is given up except right to self-preservation (inalienable rights). Locke: only give up right to govern yourself. Hobbes: subjects have no right to use action in order to judge the sovereign. Mach v. Hobbes: Hobbes: we consented to put him there Mach: economy of violence is how he gained power. How does fortuna resemble virtu? fortuna is a flood, its gonna happen no matter what. Fortuna is unpredictable Virtu: flexible usage of prudence and audacity in response to necessity. Significance: proper characteristic that is required/essential for Mach political ruler. has audacity and prudence. Has to act like fortuna, because he has to be unpredictable, has to be able to deal with different situations. Variation in fortuna is seen in a successful prince Source of authority for Prince is: virtu (but it's a characteristic, personal characteristics are very important) SIMILAR Plato-Mach: Personal characteristics of the ruler are important Hobbes: Characteristics of ruler don't matter at all Plato: political authority can be justified because of wisdom Mach: question of justifying authority is of no concern. Its just gotten Political Authority/Leaders Characteristics: Plato: Wisdom of truth that brings us reason. Having virtues and being moral Mach: Virtu in response to necessity because there is no philosophical justification for authority leading to an economy of violence . Appearing to be moral. Government is trying to live up to higher principles Hobbes: Doesn't matter. It's the office that gives the power, not the characteristics Locke: similar to Hobbes. Majority rule, consent justifies their political authority Equality: Plato: fundamental inequalities inherent in nature that make the noble lie necessary. Thinks we are unequal by nature, we were born that way. Fundamental inequality about the noble lie is truthful, not necessarily the noble lie itself. Noble lie done so that people in nature can accept the inequalities that h cant understand Mach: not really mentioned...cause its not important...there is inequality because not everyone can be successful prince Hobbes&Locke: there is equality amongst all Hobbes &"We Cant Force Democracy": Hobbes is about creating contract and protection! Just want to be stable and create a situation of normality. It isn't important to have an ultimate goal, cause everyone is different Machiavelli: Just? What is just is what works. Doesn't care about what is just and unjust because there is no qualification for morality General: know comparisons(similar and different) of major thinkers, characteristics of in and an authority. In response to central questions in first part. Can it be limited? Questioned but still respected?
Questions in bold from the beginning and answer for each of the major thinkers in the course. Who is most convincing and why? Which thinker has the best argument ANY of readings including anarchy