Political Theory Final Review PDF

Lectures 12 - 26 Test: December 16th Social Contract 12,13 Locke, The Second Treatise of Government ​ Historical context: Whigs (tie kings hands) V Tories (championing absolute rule of king) ○​ Whig’s opposed absolute monarchy through power of purse ​ Prerogative = ability of k...

Lectures 12 - 26 Test: December 16th Social Contract 12,13 Locke, The Second Treatise of Government ​ Historical context: Whigs (tie kings hands) V Tories (championing absolute rule of king) ○​ Whig’s opposed absolute monarchy through power of purse ​ Prerogative = ability of king to take action without permission ​ Robert Filmer, ideolog of Tories, wrote patriarcha, justified absolute power of the king ○​ Locke writes a rebuttal to this ​ Filmers arguments: Great position/Paternal theory: political obligation of children follow from the fact of being born (compares duties of a father to a king) 1)​ Argument from reason: what one gives, one can take away. Father can take away life. 2)​ Argument from fact: fathers have absolute authority over kid 3)​ Argument from revelation: scripture commands children to obey their parents *Property theory: political obligations are a consequence of a pre-existing structure of property ownership inherited from Adam -​ “God vested authority from Adam… current ruler's authority comes from Adam” -​ Property ownership originates from Adam: Filmer claimed that God granted Adam dominion over the earth, making him the original owner of all property. This divine grant established a hierarchical structure of authority and ownership passed down through Adam’s descendants. -​ Political authority derives from property ownership: According to Filmer, kings inherit Adam's authority and ownership of the world, making them the ultimate arbiters of property rights. Political obligations, therefore, stem from the subject’s subordination to this inherited structure of ownership. -​ Monarchy is justified by divine inheritance: Filmer’s theory links property and governance, positing that just as Adam’s heirs inherited his property, monarchs inherit political authority. This inheritance-based structure provides the foundation for political obligations within the kingdom. -​ He argued that Adam was the first father and the first ruler, and all subsequent political authority flows from this original paternal dominion. -​ Monarchs, as heirs of Adam, inherit this paternal authority, and their rule is modeled on the father’s governance of the household. Subjects are like children, owing obedience to the monarch as they would to their father. Locke rebuttal: First Treatise of Government 1)​ Human beings are naturally equal “Personal political equality” 2)​ Human beings are naturally free a)​ Property is the extension of “life and limb” b)​ Just like nobody can have dominion over your life and limb this extends to property - if someone takes your property there must be authorization -​ In the Lockein SON there are scriptural commands to govern you. When you do something to someones “life and limb,” you are controvening Gods will (this applies to equality to) -​ The SON is a state of liberty, not license# can’t go around killing others -​ Thus, you will never be able to give a right to a sovereign you do not have ​ *Categorical (vs hypothetical) imperative: categorical imperative = mandatory, without condition Natural law - comes from God - cant violate life, liberty, property - true even in the SON -​ Not conditional of being under a state/social contract -​ Hypothetical imperative - mandatory only under certain conditions -​ If you join state, state imposes tax, must pay Natural vs state law - know the distinction -​ Contrasts w Hobbes - believed SON does not bound us to any rules 3 (4) rights in the state of nature Key consequences: natural law - all categorical 1)​ Natural right of freedom a)​ The right to inherit the property of ancestors 2)​ Natural executive right to punish 3)​ Exclusive right to seek compensation ​ The position of choice What is the position ppl choose to sign social contract 1.​ Natural freedom 2.​ Natural equality 3.​ The existence of the wicked a.​ Some people don’t fear God. These people won’t respect laws of sovereign if they won’t even be afraid of eternal damnation b.​ In the SON, even though there is this natural law (wrong to kill ppl in SON), some people are “wicked” (aka want to break God's law) → want to join the state to enforce law of God 4.​ Subject to passions a.​ We may sometimes react to a “wicked” action, but we aren’t wicked b.​ Dimitri threw an elbow at someone in subway bc they pushed him by accident 5.​ Interests in life, liberty, property 6.​ Instrumental reason a.​ People can assess through reason it is good for you to sign contract ​ Limited Social Contract ○​ We are not surrendering our rights to the government → we can allow the government only the ability to help bid to God. ○​ We don't have so much to give bc its not ours 3 key q’s: 1)​ If no absolute power then what is the proper power of gov/what should the gov do? 2)​ How are limits on what the government can do enforced? Or, who guards the guardians? Complications: -​ Incomplete info about policy consequence -​ Possibility of tyranny -​ Contempt: 9/11→ after 9/11 gov gained significant power to carry out actions. -​ Circumstances change, we can’t fully grasp -​ In times of national security, gov has hidden actions we do not want to know- some actions may seem unjustified  3)​ What does a theory of property look like? -​ You're here on God's business. Your life and body belongs to God. Gov can only take your property if you consent Locke: limited social contract ​ A two stage contract from state of nature a.​ We wouldn’t choose certain positions based on choice b.​ If gov violates a part, can fire someone without fully going back to SON ​ Commonwealth ​ Hiring the gov- people who are able to judge good for everybody, not just themselves (elected by majority rule) 1.​ Choose to either enter or not enter (choice of consent) 2.​ Majority rule-once you join bound to government rule 2 cases in which gov loses authority: violates natural law (Gods law is supreme) and if the gov violates the trust given to it (must rule according to the rules citizens gave it) ​ Three caveats a.​ Trading away unanimous consent ​ While a social contract often starts with unanimous consent to form a political society, this unanimity doesn't extend to every subsequent decision. Once the social contract is established, decisions can be made by majority or representative bodies, rather than requiring everyone’s agreement. b.​ Govs authority held “on trust” from final authority c.​ The fall of gov does not imply the fall of the commonwealth ​ Content limit: limits to authority of the gov a.​ Limits on authority of the people ​ People can do no wrong, need to limit gov bc they can do wrong b.​ “Letter concerning toleration”-state vs religion ​ If you’re Christian, for your soul to be saved you have to believe in JC, no can make you. You can delegate certain things to gov, but can delegate souls too much power in gov Red line test? ​ Limit on Authority of the government: 3 types of constraints and a fail safe: Constraints: purpose, procedural, structural/institutional 1)​ The purpose constraint a)​ Identifies the specific purpose from which the government is setup and when the government deviates from this purpose - not good 2)​ Procedural constraints a)​ “Where law ends tyranny begins…” b)​ Radical claim = emphasis on law/ruling through law and thinking about fail safe c)​ Rule of law i)​ Fire leader who exercises too much power ii)​ Have an established law that is equal for everyone iii)​ Freedom is the ability to make meaningful predictable choices  iv)​ Requirement of consent for property taking 3)​ Structural/institutional constraints a)​ Legislative supremacy, despite the executives prerogative power i)​ Must anticipate being held accountable, legislative direct to people b)​ No delegation to other bodies i)​ Executive branch may not write rules, they are not elected by the people, and therefore would be giving up popular control A fail-safe: the doctrine of resistance Fail-safe: what to do if gov goings wrong -​ upholds right to revolution -​ Can disobey law if gov disobeys natural law or breaks trust -​ Hobbes thought you always had to obey law unless directly attacked 1.​ People have the right to resist or overthrow a government that violates natural rights 2.​ A doctrine of rights as claim rights a.​ Rights as correlates of duties i.​ Rights imply duties, from natural rights b.​ Jeremy Bentham: natural rights are “nonsense”; natural inalienable rights are “nonsense upon stilts” i.​ Society gives you rights. Once rights enforced, they become real c.​ J.S Mill: public utility as the reason for rights i.​ Protect individual rights because society benefits from growth ii.​ Right based on utility to society, esp overall happiness rights like free speech and liberty essential bc lead to good for ppl 3.​ A historical theory of distributive justice a.​ Robert Nozick: anarchy, state, and utopia(1974) b.​ state’s sole function is to protect individual rights like life, liberty, and property. This mirrors Locke’s resistance to unjust government expansion. 4.​ The doctrine of representation and minimal state a.​ Locke’s doctrine of resistance inspired the American Revolution, with colonists invoking his principles to argue against taxation without representation, a violation of their natural rights 5.​ Economic inequality, and redistribution: political naivete, or moral weakness? a.​ The expectation of sharing is self-deluding or disingenuous b.​ Marx: private property is a cause of social alienation of persons from one another hobbes Locke equality physical/ mental moral law of nature self preserve life,liberty, property-comes from god state of nature SON= state of war SON is state of liberty, not of license  consent consent under threat=consent tacit consent- no explicit consent ​ why leave SON? ○​ Enforcement, protection of law of nature ○​ No neutral judges ​ Labor theory of property ○​ You own things through mixing your labor ○​ You don’t have to ask to appropriate a land, by putting in labor, no longer belongs to community, becomes individual ​ Caveats ○​ Spoilage problem ​ If you take too much of something and let it rot/spoil you’re breaking your right to property (take as much as you want of something that won’t go bad. Also can trade.) ○​ “ enough and as good” ​ There should be enough utilities for everyone you can’t take everything ​ Tacit consent ○​ If you benefit from government, you’re consenting to government James Madison: The Federalist 1787-1788 Fed papers written by Madison, Hamilton, John jay to ratify constitution Worried about factions: a number of citizens United adverse rates of others ​ Leading factor of factions ○​ People will feel strongly about what is right for themselves, and everyone will be different ○​ You want more property than others. Self love and property are main drives. ​ “Violence of factions” ○​ Factions will do things contrary to the rights of others ​ Legislative supremacy: “elective despotism” Pointing to a potential problem in leg power - within 3 part division, legislative can gain too much power bc they write the laws - address this power with separation of powers (chambers) ○​ He argues that proper checks and balances are essential to prevent the concentration of power. No branch, including the legislature, should have unchecked authority. ○​ Madison warns against a scenario where the legislature, unchecked, dominates other branches of government, leading to what he terms "elective despotism." This is as dangerous as monarchical tyranny because it undermines the principle of separation of powers. ○​ Proposal: ​ representative gov (one step further from people) ​ Big republic ​ In big Republic, hard to coordinate to turn something into majority so many different ideas ○​ Proposal II: ​ The system of checks and balances ​ Divide separation of powers so no one faction will reign. other factions will act against encroachment. Ambition against ambition. ​ “Parchment barriers” not strong enough ​ No complete separation of powers  ○​ Proposal III: federalism ​ Both state and federal gov have law making powers ​ Benefits of delegation ○​ The best and the brightest ○​ More consensual politics ​ Need to appeal to a broad range of interest, more encompassing, less exclusive Ai and Democracy 1.​ Kreps and Kriner: Three Threats a.​ To Democratic representation. i.​ Undermining informational value of citizen/interest voice b.​ To democratic accountability. i.​ Disinformation campaigns undermining ballot box accountability c.​ To Democratic trust i.​ Undermining trust in media and in government, civic engagement and political participation 2.​ Mitigation a.​ AI based AI detection tools b.​ AI platform self policing c.​ Digital literacy-more advanced AI i.​ Digital literacy refers to the skills needed to effectively and responsibly use digital tools, evaluate online content, and engage safely in the digital environment. 3.​ Failing safely a.​ State institutions (consistently) failing to i.​ Reflect citizens preferences ii.​ Respect/govern by means of the rule of law ( = failing to protect/ensure equal rights of citizens) iii.​ Electoral control is not effective means of correcting 1.​ Electoral system is corrupt (only some candidate successful) 2.​ “Permanent minority” a.​ Set of people always in minority plus majority doesn’t care for their welfare MLK and Resistance ​ 1929-1968 ​ “ Letter from Birmingham jail” (1963) ​ Emancipation proclamation (1863) ​ Brown v board of Topeka (1954) a.​ “Separate but equal“ not constitutional ​ Civil rights act of 1964, 1968 ​ Steps of nonviolent campaign a.​ Collection of facts to determine whether injustices exist b.​ Negotiation c.​ Self purification d.​ Direct action ​ Nonviolent ​ Doesn’t undermine proper social order  Just Laws unjust laws man-made code that squares with the moral law code out of Harmony with moral laws or the law of God uplifts juman personality distorts the soul, degrades human personality sameness made legal (consistency with rule of difference made legal law) just in application just on its face, unjust in application Summary: Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail," written in April 1963, is a powerful defense of nonviolent resistance to racism and a response to criticism from white clergy who called his actions "unwise and untimely." King addresses several key themes in the letter, articulating why direct action is necessary and just, and why waiting any longer for racial justice is unacceptable. King first explains the interconnectedness of all communities and states, famously stating, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." He argues that African Americans in Birmingham and across the South have endured generations of injustice and that waiting passively only prolongs suffering. He points out that African Americans have been promised civil rights for years, but those promises have not been kept. King also defends breaking laws in certain contexts, distinguishing between "just" and "unjust" laws. He argues that individuals have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, especially when those laws are used to oppress. His peaceful, direct-action protests, like sit-ins and marches, are intended to create a "constructive, nonviolent tension" that forces the community to confront and address racial injustice. Addressing critics who argue that King’s approach incites violence, he stresses that it is not the actions of the protesters but the existing conditions of segregation and inequality that spark violence and unrest. He appeals to the "white moderate," whom he views as a significant obstacle to progress because of their preference for "order" over justice. King expresses disappointment with these moderates, who urge patience rather than standing in solidarity with oppressed communities. King concludes by emphasizing the urgency of the civil rights movement and the moral imperative for justice. His letter is both a justification for his methods and a call to action for others to join the fight against racial injustice. Liberty and Totalitarianism 17,18 JS Mill, On Liberty ​ Conceptual lineage ○​ Historical development of the doctrine of liberty ​ Incidental rights ​ Accountability/consent system ​ Classical utilitarianism  ○​ Gov should act to maximize the general “utility” in the society: ”greatest happiness for the greatest number” ​ Jeremy Bentham ○​ Simple hedonistic utilitarianism ○​ Hedonism: happiness=max(pleasure) and min(pain) ○​ Simple: only quantitative differences between pleasures ​ Fundamental technical problem: ○​ Inter-persons comparability of utilities ○​ Utility members are ​ Meaningfully ordinally intrapersonally: scalable up/down preserving ordinal rankings ​ J.S Mill ○​ 1806-1873 ○​ Son of James mill ○​ “Scientific education” followed by a later humanist catharsis ○​ Perspective on utilitarianism very diff due to experience ○​ Follows Mill Sr up on the ladder of East India Co reforming utilitarianism ○​ Distinguishing between pleasures qualitatively: some are intrinsically superior to others ○​ The epistemic test ​ way of assessing whether beliefs, theories, or statements can be considered knowledge or justified ​ Ordering lexicographically qualitatively diff kinds ​ Lexicographic ordering involves sorting items alphabetically or in a predefined hierarchical order of qualitative categories. ​ Ordering quantitatively within a qualitative kind ​ Within each qualitative category, items are sorted based on a quantitative measure, such as size, frequency, weight, or value. ○​ Pleasures of the intellect are intrinsically superior to the bodily pleasures ○​ Rejecting utility as a measure of subjective satisfaction ​ Prioritizing qualitative over quantitative measures of satisfaction. ​ Advocating for a more human-centered approach to happiness. ​ Recognizing the role of intellectual and moral development in determining the true value of pleasures. ​ Mills “principle of utility” 1.​ Progress as the proxy for utility a.​ Progress is the permanent interest of humanity 2.​ Truth is the vehicle of progress a.​ Something abt this is true, progress made through discovery of true matter 3.​ Arguments for liberty are thus epistemological a.​ Liberty is a means of progress-fighting for things that are true ​ Utilitarianism a.​ Idea that something is the right thing to do when it maximizes utility b.​ Contrast: Hobbes (self pres), Locke (natural law) c.​ Bentham: hedonistic utilitarian ( only pleasure/pain matter to calculation) d.​ Mill:some human interests (intellectual) are superior to others (bodily pleasures) e.​ “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool” ​ Harm principle a.​ Gov can not stop you no matter what, even if being harmful to yourself  b.​ Anti-paternalism: can’t coerce someone in matters that are self regarding; person should decide by themselves (until harm to others) ​ From Harm principle, mill derives several specific liberties a.​ Freedom of opinion ​ More likely to lead to truth in long run ​ Freedom of both right and wrong opinion necessary bc a.​ The dominant opinion might be wrong ​ Silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallible ​ Truth doesn’t always come, may be delayed or never come b.​ Even if dominant opinion is right ​ Important to know why its true ​ Know how to respond to counterarguments c.​ Opinion has partial truth ​ Both majority and minority opinions could have elements of truth ​ Are opinions ever harmful? a.​ You’re not supposed to have a right to be offended ​ Offense ≠ harm ​ Being offended allows you to strengthen your opinions ​ Freedom of action: a.​ None of this means people should be free to act on their opinion b.​ Allows different modes of living, ​ Limits to freedom of speech a.​ Schneck v US: can’t shout “fire” in a theater b.​ Incitation ​ Brandenburg v Ohio ​ Advocacy without specific call for time, plane, and manner of illegal action does not count as incitement ​ Development argument: importance of genius a.​ Geniuses are crucial for progress because they challenge conventions, think independently, and introduce new ideas. b.​ Mill asserts that while most people conform to societal norms, geniuses often resist these norms, offering fresh perspectives that advance human knowledge and culture. ​ Significance of Mills a.​ Vigorous defense of individual liberty ​ Political impact ​ Forms classic liberalism, minimal state interference ​ Philosophical impact ​ Harm Principle, individual autonomy, free thought b.​ Kinds of liberalism ​ Comprehensive moral doctrine vs neutral ​ Neutral=tolerance based perspective (willing to respect diff types of doctrines) ​ Comprehensive=grounded in utilitarianism, concept of individuality and freedom for individual liberty (specific values crucial for a good life) ○​ Harm principle, intellectual and moral development > lower, base pleasure, rational autonomy ​ Chicago principles ○​ Commitment to “freedom of inquiry”  ○​ Cute to bad ideas “lies through open discussing rather than through inhibition” ○​ “It is not proper role of university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive” ○​ “Concerns about civility and mutual respect can never used as justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community” ○​ What university can’t restrict (“narrow expectations”) ​ Substance ​ Violation of law ​ False defamation ​ Genuine threat or harassment ​ Unjustifiable invasions of primary/confidentiality ​ “Or otherwise incompatible with function of university” ​ Time place and manner ​ “It is for individual members of university as an institution (and not for university as formal body), to make (moral/political) judgements for themselves, and act on those judgements not by seeking to suppress speech ​ Critique ○​ Endorsement of CP at the expense of creating unequal burden on diff members of university community ​ May undermine ability of university to fulfill its teaching mission, “which relies on inclusive climate and an expressed atmosphere that can assure all campus members that their voices are valued and heard” ​ Should be beginning of the conversation about free speech, not the end ○​ Sigal Ben Poresh 19 Snyder, On Tyranny ​ What are the methods by which tyranny succeeds, and how best to resist it? ○​ Eliciting open ended obedience and uniformity ○​ Enforcing compliance w an authoritarian party organization and intimidating paramilitaries ○​ Replacing political and legal institutions w leaders or partys will ​ Destroying the rule of law ○​ Relativitizing “truth” ○​ Eliminating private sphere ○​ Minimizing individual humanity and empathy ​ What to do? ○​ Investigate ○​ make eye contact/small talk ○​ Practice corporeal politics ○​ Establish a private life ○​ Listen for dangerous words ○​ Be calm when the unthinkable arrives ○​ Be a patriot ○​ Be as courageous as you can ○​ Contribute to good causes ○​ Learn from peers in other countries ○​ Do not obey in advance ○​ Defend institutions ○​ Beware the one party state  ○​ Take responsibility for face of the world ○​ Remember professional ethics ○​ Be wary of paramilitaries ○​ Stand out ○​ Be kind to our language ○​ Believe in truth “Ur-Facism” ​ 14 features of UR-facism: 1.​ Cult of tradition 2.​ Rejections of modernism 3.​ Action for actions sake 4.​ Rejections of disagreement 5.​ Fear of difference/diversity 6.​ Appeal to frustrated middle class 7.​ Obsession with plot 8.​ Humiliation by and resentment of the ostentatious wealth and force of the enemies 9.​ Anti-pacifism: life is permanent warfare 10.​ Popular elitism a.​ Some people better suited to lead than others 11.​ Cult of heroism 12.​ Machismo (macho) 13.​ Selective populism 14.​ Newspeak a.​ Newspeak reduces the complexity of the language, eliminating words that could convey dissent, nuanced thought, or criticism of the government. Through this simplification, freedom of expression and thought are diminished. (recitation 11/26) Totalitarianism: Abc, bed, cde, def – no traits in common, but can still be seen as the same category -​ Its hard to come up with a strict definition of totalitarianism. It doesnt need to have the 14 traits he defines. Still, this doesn't prevent us from recognizing it. Democratic backsliding: moving away from democracy through democracy (ex. Someone will get elected democratically but use their power to move away from democracy) [Madison tried to prevent this “tyranny of the majority” “Democracy is the worst regime except for all the others” - churchill -​ Majority could be motivated by private interests. Believes in checks and balances, large republic, elections (enlightened ppl) would prevent this] Equality and Justice 20 Rousseau, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (Ideological inspiration for french rev) ​ “The second discourse” ○​ How can we explain the inequality that we find around us? ​ Two kinds of inequality: 1)​ Physical a)​ Beyond our control  b)​ insignificant 2)​ moral/political a)​ “Authorizes by the consent of man” 1st key claim: natural equality -​ Normatively relevant sense of equality -​ Rousseau’s emphasis is on equality as a normative principle, meaning that equality should not merely describe a state of nature but guide how society ought to be structured. -​ Systematic domination -​ Rousseau traces the rise of systematic domination to the advent of private property in the Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men. -​ Property creates distinctions between "haves" and "have-nots," leading to dependency, competition, and exploitation. -​ Naturalness as goodness (asserting that it is a natural condition) -​ Rousseau romanticizes the natural state as one of simplicity, harmony, and authenticity. -​ He asserts that this natural condition is inherently good because it is free from corruption and artificial inequalities. 2nd key claim: “our ills are of our own making” -​ A considered judgement? (thoughtfully assessed in light of competing considerations) -​ A path-dependent series? -​ A path dependent series that has not been subjected to a considered judgement Rousseau's method: philosophical anthropology -​ Not a real history -​ Yet, not blatantly against history -​ Analytical reconstruction (a la social contract) -​ Consistent w intuitions for how people behave, consistent w our normative intuitions for a good starting point Conception of human nature: 1.​ Amour de soi (impulse for self preservation) -​ Vs. amour propre (egoism/artificial) 2.​ pity/compassion a.​ Compassion drive self interest, and aids preservation of human b.​ Compassion drives people to help those in distress, no incentive to resist 3.​ Free will a.​ Animals act on instinct, humans have free will. Humans can deviate from natural rules capacity to act on a judgment. 4.​ Self preservation/perfectability a.​ Self improvement unique to humans, humans always have capacity for growth Nautral individual in the state of nature: -​ Solitary and unsociable -​ Contented (before reason) -​ Few needs -​ Self sufficient -​ Compassionate -​ Neither moral nor immoral Evolution of the state of nature: 1.​ Self love and perfectibility → greater efficiency  2.​ Physical inequality → emergence if some as more effective than others -​ Does not imply uncommon prop yet 3.​ Recognition of greater contribution by unequal and private property distribution Recitation 11/26: Rousseau -​ Hypothetical history of the world -​ Humans lived in isolation → small communities -​ Rousseau is in conversation with Hobbes, telling him “your entire theory relies on the state of nature, but we dont really know how people lived” -​ Hobbes believed that SON = state of war → beleives competitiveness is a part of our nature, while Rousseau thinks it is created by social structures -​ Rousseau believed that “it is hard to distinguish between what is real and what is artificial” -​ Ex. rousseau believed that selfishness is a consequence of the structure we live in -​ Rousseau believed that amour propre (egoism, artificial) leads to comparison/competition. And amour de soi (self preservation) is about fulfilling basic needs. He accuses Hobbes of conflating/equating the two. Hobbes thinks it is our drive for self preservation that leads to competition… -​ compassion/pity (pitie) -​ In civil society we use our own reason/philosophy to justify not getting involved ​ Elizabeth Colbert, “The Psychology of Inequality” ​ The article "The Psychology of Inequality" by Elizabeth Kolbert explores how perceived economic inequality impacts individuals psychologically, often more profoundly than actual material deprivation. Studies cited in the article demonstrate that feeling poor—relative to others—shapes behavior, decision-making, and emotional well-being. For instance: ​ 1. Perceived Inequality: ​ - Research shows that workers dissatisfied with their salaries relative to peers are less content and more likely to seek new jobs, regardless of absolute income levels. ​ - Even wealthy individuals may feel deprived when comparing themselves to even richer people, indicating that status and comparison heavily influence perceptions. ​ 2. Behavioral Consequences: ​ - Feeling disadvantaged can lead to risky decisions, such as gambling, as a response to perceived inequity. ​ - Studies on humans and animals, like capuchin monkeys, reveal an instinctive aversion to unfair treatment, suggesting inequality sensitivity is innate. ​ 3. Health and Well-being: ​ - Perceived social status correlates more strongly with health outcomes than actual income or education, reflecting the deep psychological impact of inequality. ​ Kolbert concludes that addressing inequality may be more about fostering perceptions of fairness and equity than merely increasing wealth. 21 ​ Rousseau, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Marx, “the estranged labor” Lector 12/2 ​ Communism: “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs” ​ The “fallen man”: not consent but “relations of production” ○​ Marx is taking the idea of the “fallen man,” making it a structural account (against western theory) – not a choice ○​ Marx believed that in pre-capitalist societies, humans were more directly connected to their labor and its products. With the rise of capitalism, this connection was severed, leading to alienation, a condition that could be considered analogous to "fallenness." ○​ Argues that estrangement results from “relations of production” inherent in capitalism. It is the economic framework that governs social relations, determining how individuals relate to their work and to each other. ​ TOP: Superstructure: morality, politics, the arts ○​ Marx argued that the economic "base" (the means and relations of production) determines the "superstructure" (political, legal, cultural, and ideological systems). This structural dynamic perpetuates power imbalances and sustains the capitalist system. ​ MID: Distribution of returns on production ○​ Alienation isn't just a personal feeling; it's a structural consequence of the capitalist system, which separates workers from their labor, the product, and their own essence. ​ BOTTOM: Economic basis: relations of production (who owns what; nature of technology used) ○​ Society is divided into classes (e.g., bourgeoisie and proletariat) based on their relationship to the means of production. The structure of capitalism inherently creates conflict and inequality between these classes. The early Marx ​ Human species as species being ○​ Species-being (Gattungswesen) refers to the essence of humanity as a creative, social, and conscious being capable of transforming nature through labor. ​ Totality - individuals are “microcosms” of society as a whole ○​ Failure to internalize totality can lead to various kinds of alienation – part of his criticism of capitalist society ○​ Totality refers to the idea that social, political, and economic structures must be understood as an interconnected whole, rather than as isolated phenomena. ​ Estrangement/alienation from others and work ​ Division of labor vs totality ○​ Marx viewed DOL as alienation ​ Private property is the totalistic estrangement (the estrangement of all human senses) ​ Fetishization of private property - objectifying it, not seeing it in totality ○​ This is bad in a self evident way: failure to reach human telos ○​ Marxist theory describes how capitalism transforms social relationships and labor into relationships between commodities, concealing the true origins of value and reinforcing inequality. Recitation 12/3 ​ Two classes: ○​ Bourgeois → owners of the means of production (exploits proletariats) ○​ proletariat → workers ​ Means of production = land/factory/etc is necessary to do work. If you are a proletariat you must buy food/shelter/etc. If you don't own land you are forced to work for someone else to satisfy your needs.  ​ There is a monopoly on property; fewer land owners, more workers. Thus, land owners can pay their workers less than their value because they have no choice but to accept (they are paid less than what they produce) ​ Alienation of labor: 1)​ From object of labor (the worker who produces the object doesn't own it) 2)​ From the activity of labor (the work itself is mind numbing/boring) 3)​ From species being (human nature/sim to aristotle's “telos”) 4)​ Of man from man (from each other) 22 Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program” ​ Marx is responding to this program (written in Gotha, Germany) written by socialists. He argues it's not radical enough/breaking capitalism ​ “Law of all history” - has a particular view of history as the clash between 2 classes. Believes this constant clash will lead to the next phase of history (determinism); believes capitalism will end (historical materialism) – not too important ​ What is just distribution? ○​ He takes issue with this idea. The Gotha program is supposed to propose a more just alternative to capitalism. (Cant go straight from capitalism to communism) 1st phase: dictatorship of the proletariat -​ To each according to his input 2nd phase: communism - “withering away of the state” -​ To each according to his needs 1)​ Capitalism 2)​ Lassola / Gotha program a)​ Just distribution b)​ To each according to his input “Equal right” - voting rights, bourgeois democracy 3)​ From each according to facilities/abilities 4)​ To each according to his needs First phase: dictatorship of the proletariat Second phase of communism: “withering away of the state” Recitation 12/10: ​ 0) capitalism - worked receive < input -​ Bourgeois democracy 1) socialist/1st stage (Gotha program) → to each accord. To his input “Dictatorship of the proletariat” 2) communism/2nd stage -​ To each accord to his needs -​ From each accord to ability 23, 24, 25  1.​ Rawls, Justice as Fairness 2.​ Rawls theory of justice= work motivated by idea of society as fair system of social cooperation over time from one generation to the next 3.​ Theory of mutual advantage=need to be able to rely on each other. Cooperation for mutual advantage enabling each other to advance ideas of right of good. Theory of social contract= mutual advantage Conditions of justice 1.​ Modern scarcity a.​ Theory of who gets what only meaningful if not enough to go around. But not too much scarcity-no donor party or “free lunch” i.​ Free lunch =something received without cost or effort ii.​ Donor party=group or entity contributing resources for the benefit of others 2.​ Contrary conceptions of good a.​ For me to live a good life, at odds with your good life. Mechanism of distributing justice: ​ Procedural interpretation of justice (not moral) ○​ Have to be acceptable in a way consistent with principle of fair cooperation ​ Must treat all individuals free and equal ​ Not based on comprehensive moral doctrine which isn’t universally applicable ○​ Has to generate rules of distribution in a stable way/ “well ordered” ​ Everyone accepts principles, other ppl believe it is stable Big questions 1.​ What is Justice a.​ Justice as fairness to eliminate relevance of arbitrary distinction b.​ “Reasonable pluralism” of comprehensive moral doctrine is pluralism of doctrines that embrace idea of justice 2.​ Some “overlapping consensus” a.​ Shared intuition b.​ “Fact of reasonable pluralism” yet “overlapping consensus” c.​ Political conception i.​ Politics that are pluralist would be place where we minimize reference to unshared commitments ii.​ Not committed to any doctrine, neutral (doctrines are specific and don’t share values) iii.​ In political space, arguments made are for or against a policy 1.​ Opposed to metaphysical, something you can argue about 3.​ What is the subject of the theory of justice? a.​ “The basic structure of society” i.​ Path dependence of outcomes 1.​ Our outcomes come from other choices which may have not been fair ii.​ Socioeconomic positions affect ideas about life The environment of choice 1.​ Has to be an outcome of free and voluntary decision 2.​ Original position and veil of ignorance  a.​ OP= people come together to decide on rule and structures in society without knowing own position on it b.​ VO= individuals make decisions without knowing personal characteristics like race or gender. Ensuring fairness by removing personal bias. c.​ ‘ 3.​ Pure procedural choice a.​ Theory where everything determined by correctness of procedure b.​ Fairness, determined by process that produces it rather than any predetermined standard for what outcome should be 4.​ Self interest, mutual disinterest a.​ SI= people assumed to be rational and aim secure best outcome b.​ MD = people not concerned with interest of others. Indifferent to each specific outcome focus on fair terms for everyone. Principles of justice 1.​ Equal basic liberties a.​ Equal rights to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible within a similar scheme of liberties for all 2.​ Difference principle a.​ Social and political inequalities must be ​ To the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged ​ Attached to offices and position open to all under conditions of fair opportunity (people have an equal chance to succeed) ○​ Maxmin ​ Maximize minimum outcome-focus on improving worse off ○​ Lexmin ​ Prioritizes worst off, but also hierarchy of other positions. (Lexicographically ordering outcomes) John Harsanyi ​ Totalitarianism view of VO ​ Rational choice behind VO leads to utilitarianism a.​ Emphasis on aggregate welfare, potentially at the expense of individual rights. ​ Rawls must be assuming radical risk version (fear worst case of being worse off) ​ Rawls reformulation a.​ Not a “rational” choice but a kind of stability constraint on the “floor welfare” ​ Importance to be guaranteed stability to a certain level at minimum ​ Instead of framing the choice in purely rational terms (e.g., risk-aversion under the veil of ignorance), the reformulation sees Rawls’ principles as grounded in the practical need for societal stability ​ Societies are stable when all members have a stake in the system and a basic level of welfare (floor welfare) that prevents destabilizing inequality or discontent. b.​ “Publicity” argument ​ Certain principles of justice can’t be publicly justifiable to those who bear significant cost for benefits of others like slaves ​ Problem of legitimacy a.​ The exercise of coercive power must be reasonably acceptable to all citizens ​ Commitment to the reciprocity (only expected to obey rules that benefit all equally) ​ Reasons for pluralism (diversity of beliefs)  a.​ A permanent feature of liberal societies ​ A natural consequence of freedom of thought and expression b.​ “ Burdens of judgment” ​ The evidence bearing on important issues may be complex and conflicting ​ We may weigh competing considerations differently ​ Even conscientious people will often disagree about basic moral issues ​ Moral concepts are vague and indeterminate in ways that will require the exercise of judgment ​ The way that we weigh various considerations will vary, depending on our life experiences ​ Political conception of justice a.​ Targets the “basic structure” ​ Formulated in terms of political values without building on comprehensive ones ​ Drawn from fundamental ideas implicit in public political culture ​ Citizens as free and equal ​ Society as a system of a fair social cooperation b.​ Overlapping consensus ​ “ Citizens have conflicting religious flaws and moral views so they affirm the political conception with different and opposing comprehensive doctrine and so part at least for different reasons” ​ Vs compromise ​ Religious tolerance and modus vivendi ○​ Practical understanding that allows groups to live together despite being different ​ Stability ​ Solving the problem of legitimacy given the fact of reasonable pluralism ​ Reasonable citizens can endorse same principles of justice because they seem fair despite differing foundations ​ A religious person might support equal liberties because they align with divine principles, while a secular person might support them based on human rights. ​ Importantly, this is not a compromise: It’s a principled agreement based on shared political values, not mere bargaining. c.​ Public reason ​ Applies to discourse of judges; government officials and candidates for office; voters when they vote ​ Appeals to comprehensive doctrines fail to treat fellow citizens as free and equal (undermine reciprocity) ​ “ reasonable acceptability” requires that the reasons we offer be such that it is reasonable to expect the others reasonably accept those reasons ​ Theory of Justice criticisms a.​ The leveling down objection ​ Equality achieved when reducing well-being of those better off without improving conditions of worst off ​ Cut off heads of the tallest people b.​ Egalitarian objection ​ G. A Cohen: “ if your egalitarian, how come you’re so rich?” ​ Why allow inqualities even if least advantaged benefit c.​ Libertarian objection  ​ R Nozick: “manna from heaven” ​ Can’t just redistribute things, people have plans for their items ​ Recognize history matters – how just is the sequence of actions of you having ownership of something d.​ The deliberation objection ​ Procedural forms – fairness equals what survives the test of public reasons ​ Moral test – can say laws are wrong morally ​ Rawls assumption of broad agreement overly idealistic. People have deep beliefs, not easily resolved through public liberation. Recitation ​ Liberty versus equality ○​ Locke: LMT you work for something it’s yours ○​ Egalitarian: leads to inequality, redistribute tax rich more ​ Original position = VO ○​ Rousseau: Locke social contract makes poor people consent, who don’t understand they are oppressed ○​ Marx: you might just accept SC to get a job, have to deal with system ○​ Rawls agrees to solve this contract in hypothetical world. Exclude identity features. People in original position, sign a contract. 26 Ta-Nehisi Coates: pro ​ retells history of anti-Black racism in America, especially with regards to property ownership ​ aim of affirmative action? ○​ diversity? - "If so, only tangentially relates to the specific problems of black people" (p.44) ​ the claim is that affirmative action and other kinds of policy addressing race disparity should be primarily understood as addressing a problem of past origin (the history of anti-Black racism central to America), not current issues (eg. a lack of diversity in college campuses) ​ "The reason black people are so far behind now is not because of now (-) It's because of then.” (51) ​ In other words, the claim is that wrongs of the past need to be addressed ​ Coates discusses the payment of reparations that were paid by Germany following the holocaust ​ Relationship to Rawls ○​ Can we decide whether a society is just by looking at distribution of resources now? ○​ Rawls v. Nozick debate ​ Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia critiques Rawls for failing to look at the problem of past injustices ​ Rawls uses difference principle to look at fairness of justice now ​ how you get to a certain distribution matters; not only whether the distribution conforms to some principle (eg. justice as fairness) ​ Nozick: look at way we arrive at distribution, make sure all transactions fair. Need to fix injustice in the past. Slavery is not permissible of free market society ​ Glenn Loury: contra ○​ Bias narrative vs development narrative ​ Bias: interprets various issues in black communities as consequence of discrimination ​ Development narrative: patterns of behavior in black community that explain various issues and differences in performance  ​ Can be explained generally, but can’t say no ability to change. Treating black people as if they have no agency- people can change if they want to ○​ Reparations ​ Payment to black people for wrong doings ​ Thinks would be too costly ○​ As opposed to payment of Japanese, so many black people. Amount of money needed would be too much ​ Would require gov to classify ppl by race ​ Would “commodify obligation” that America has towards black people- I.e allow for the payment to be treated as solving all problems ○​ Affirmative actions ​ By design, leads to a performance problem, and a problem of respect towards those that benefit from it ​ Loury favors efforts towards equal education/ preparation for college rather than admissions