Political Philosophy Exam Notes PDF

**Valid and Invalid Forms of Propositional Logic** **Modus Tollens**: - Structure:If *P* → *Q*.Not *Q*.Therefore, not *P*. - Example: If it rains (*P*), the ground will be wet (*Q*). The ground is not wet. Therefore, it did not rain. **Political Obligation** **Foundational Texts**: -...

**Valid and Invalid Forms of Propositional Logic** **Modus Tollens**: - Structure:If *P* → *Q*.Not *Q*.Therefore, not *P*. - Example: If it rains (*P*), the ground will be wet (*Q*). The ground is not wet. Therefore, it did not rain. **Political Obligation** **Foundational Texts**: - Thomas Hobbes, *Leviathan* (1651): The social contract as a basis for state authority. - John Locke, *Second Treatise of Government* (1689): Consent as the foundation of obligation. Political obligation is the idea that we have content independent reasons to obey the law as set down by the state.If a person has a duty to obey the law, she must do X simply because the law says so. Political obligation implies that we ought to follow the rules and laws of the state, even if we think that disobeying might lead to better consequences, or even if we personally think the law is wrong. E.g. running a red light in the middle of the night at a deserted road crossing. **Key Theories:** Justifications of political obligation: 1. **Consent-based Theory**: - Idea: Citizens consent (explicitly or implicitly) to obey laws for protection and benefits. Citizens can be assumed to have consented to the state's authority.This is generally based on the idea of hypothetical consent. - Hobbes: Obligation arises from fear of the state of nature (chaos without government). - Locke: Consent to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property). Criticism: Hypothetical consent is not the same as literal consent. 2. **Fair Play Principle** (H.L.A. Hart): - If you benefit from societal rules (e.g., infrastructure, security), you owe compliance to those rules. - This was developed by John Rawls into the duty of fair play Criticism: what if we didn't ask for these benefits? 3. **Natural Duty Theory** - We have a natural and moral duty to uphold institutions and ideologies that promote fairness and human rights - Obligation arises from universal duties, like promoting justice, regardless of consent. - Defended by Christopher Heath Wellman - Example: off-duty doctor asks for help at accident scene -we would obey as we have a duty to obey e 1. **Collective Action theories:** - A collective action problem is a situation where individuals are disincentivised from joint action in pursuit of a common goal, despite that goal being in everyone's interests. - It is in everyone's interest to have a functioning healthcare system. This requires everyone to pay their bit. - However, some people will attempt to avoid paying taxes to prop up the NHS and free-ride on others' contribution instead. **Rights (Hohfeldian Incidents)** **Foundational Texts**: - Wesley Hohfeld, *Fundamental Legal Conceptions* (1919). **Hohfeld's Framework:** 1. **Claim Rights**: Correspond to duties. - Example: Right to education implies the state's duty to provide it. 2. **Privilege**: Absence of a duty not to act. - Example: Freedom of speech means no legal restriction on expression. 3. **Powers**: Authority to alter rights/duties. - Example: A parent granting or revoking permissions. 4. **Immunities**: Protection against alteration by others. - Example: Immunity from discrimination based on race. **Significance**: Hohfeld's framework clarifies legal and moral rights, resolving ambiguities in debates on justice and law. **John Stuart Mill's *On Liberty*** **Foundational Text**: - *On Liberty* (1859) **Key Themes**: **Freedom of Expression/Speech:** - Essential for truth and progress. Suppressing dissent harms society. - The truth is strengthened by having it tested and challenged - We might discover the truth through seemingly untrue speech. - Mill believes there should be limits to freedom of speech in accordance with the harm principle e.g shouting 'fire' in a crowded place and risking a stampede. - Hate speech is often a grey area when discussing FOS and liberty (Waldron) **Harm Principle:** - State intervention is only justified to prevent harm to others. - Example: Smoking bans in public areas protect non-smokers. - Feinberg defines harm as a wrongful setback of someone's interests. **Limits of Authority:** Advocates minimal interference in personal liberty unless public good demands it. **John Rawls' Theory of Distributive Justice** **Foundational Text**: - *A Theory of Justice* (1971). Rawls provides a conception of justice called justice as fairness **Original Position:** Thought experiment which makes us consider what the correct policies should be when we are fully unbiased We imagine that we have to decide what the laws and policies of society should be, but we do not know our class, level of wealth, education, or other social characteristics. This puts what Rawls calls 'a veil of ignorance' between the thinker at the original position and the unknown status. Rawls argues that to think this way results in us being fair and impartial **Opportunity:** In terms of distributive justice, Rawls argues that opportunity is what the currency of justice should be and that social positions should be open to all under the principle of fair equality of opportunity. Problems with opportunity: Elizabeth Anderson: thinks that justice (and equality) is about promoting equal relations in a society, not equalising opportunities (Relational Egalitarianism) **Principles:** 1. **Equal Basic Liberties**: Everyone has the same entitlement to a scheme of equal basic liberties. 2. **Difference Principle**: Inequalities are acceptable if they benefit the least advantaged. 3. **Fair Equality of Opportunity**: Ensures no unfair advantage due to birth or social status. Lexical Priority - equal basic liberties before fair equality of opportunity, then difference principle **The Basic Structure** - The subject of justice is social institutions. This is often known as the basic structure characterisation of justice. - By the basic structure, Rawls means the major social, political, and economic institutions such as the constitution, the law, government ministries and departments, the economy, and social institutions. - What this means is that individual actions do not matter directly for Rawlsian justice. - Even if we could bring about more justice by improving our individual behaviours (for example, asking for a lower wage to reduce income inequality), we are not obligated to do so. Cohen's Critique: Cohen argues that the personal is political, and individual actions and ethos must feature in our theory of justice **Main Theories of Distributive Justice** **Currencies:** - Opportunity (John Rawls) - Welfare (Richard Arneson) - Resources (Ronald Dworkin) **Egalitarianism:** Seeks equality in resources, welfare, or opportunity. Having equal amounts of something. Variants: - Fair Equality of opportunity (Rawls). - Luck Egalitarianism - Relational Egalitarianism **Luck Egalitarianism:** - Justice requires that accidents of birth and genetic lottery do not determine how well your life goes. - Justice also demands that where you make decisions that turn out badly, you should bear these burdens in some form. Ronald Dworkin distinguishes between two kinds of bad luck: **Bad Option Luck** -- These are calculated gambles and risks that turn out unfavourable. For example, losing a voluntary gamble. **Bad Brute Luck** -- These are risks that turn out favourably through no calculated gamble or fault on your part. For example, being born into a poor family. Supported by Dworkin, Arneson and Cohen. **Objections to Luck Egalitarianism** Elizabeth Anderson: Harshness objection- too harsh and does not show any compassion to those who make poor choices but rather, is abandoning them Discrimination objection: A woman who decides to have a child while in the workforce. Should she be held responsible for the resultant disadvantage in her career as a result of having a baby? **Relational Egalitarianism:** For Anderson, equality is about social relations: it is about being equal in some sense to those around you. Anderson calls this democratic equality **Prioritarianism:** Prioritarianism is the view that benefits count more the worse off you are. The worse off you are, the greater our imperative to assist you or the greater your claim to something (Parfit). **Issues with prioritarianism:** absolute prioritarian view is we should give all benefits to the worst off until any more benefits would not help them - this is highly demanding and means we can't help anyone else as long as our resources will help the worst-off person. **Sufficientarianism:** Ensures everyone has enough to live a decent life. Sufficientarianism is the view that what matters morally is not that people have equal amounts of something, but that they have enough (Frankfurt) In metaphorical terms, as long as everyone has enough to eat, it doesn't matter that others eat lobsters and caviar while others only get to eat burgers. **Problems:** Pure sufficentarians do not distinguish between those below the threshold of 'enough' so those who are the worst off get the same level of priority as those just below the threshold **Global Justice** **Cosmopolitanism** - Idea that the scope of justice is global - This is supported by Charles Beitz **Cosmopolitanism variants:** David Miller Distinguishes between moral and political cosmopolitanism. Moral Cosmopolitanism: Everyone in the world are part of the same moral community and have equal moral status, regardless of nationality. Political Cosmopolitanism: We should all live under the same political authority and be subject to the same principles of justice everywhere. **Nationalism** The idea that people within a nation have stronger moral and practical obligations to each other compared to those outside the nation due to shared history, culture or identify that binds them together. Nationalists: John Rawls, David Miller and Christopher Heath Wellman. **Immigration** Support for open borders: - Cosmopolitanism generally argues for open borders. - Joseph Carens believes that 'people should normally be free to leave their country of origin and settle in another' and that immigration restictions are unjust. - Sarah Fine argues against Wellman's freedom of association argument as being excluded form a state impact you more significantly than being excluded from someone's house and your freedom of assoiciation si not threatnend by other being arounf you. Against open borders: - Nationalism tends to be more for closed borders. - Christopher Heath Wellman argues in favour of states' rights to restrict immigration on the grounds of freedom of association - have the right to choose who we invite into out house so natiosn should also be bale to choose who they associate with. - David Miller: People have the right to determine their country's culture and character through border control - excpetions as we should not turn away refugees in urgent need. **Multiculturalism** How different cultures can co-exist in same society. All societies have language and customs that will benefit the majority but can disadvantage minority groups. **Justifications:** Equality: egalitarian justification by Kymlicka - we benefit from being able to have and practice a culture **Critiques:** - Okin argues it is bad for women as most minority cultures are disrespectful of women e.g FGM - cultural practices more likely to impact women. - Barry believes that minority groups have to bear the consequences of their own beliefs and practices, if you have an expensive hobby you must bear the costs if you continue to pursue it **Democracy** **Key Texts**: - Ronald Dworkin, *Freedom's Law* (1996). A core definition of democracy is that it is a form of collective decision making in which participants are equal in some form at some essential stage of the decision-making process. **Judicial Review** The idea that the judiciary can overturn democratically enacted legislation on the grounds that they are unconstitutional -- for example, because they breach minorities' rights. Ronald Dworkin is in favour of strong judicial review. Jeremy Waldron opposes strong judicial review. **Dworkin:** - Dworkin argues that judicial review is justified to protect rights and ensure that justice is upheld by democracy. - We cannot use majoritarian democracy to settle questions about rights - We can't just use democracy to decide rules and procedures as it would not always be fair : Life boat problem **Waldron:** - Waldron believes In many cases where we think the Supreme Court got it right, they were merely following the majority opinion. - A society that respects rights generally is more likely to bring about the right outcomes rather than strong judicial review. - There is a loss of independence when our democratic will is overturned by unelected judges. - Judicial reasons to uphold rights can be poorly argued and in constrained by reference to the constitution (E.g Obergefell v Hodges, legalized same-sex marriage as it was argued to be in line with the 14th amendment - all must be treated equally) **Debates**: - **Pro-Judicial Review**: Protects rights and minorities from majority rule. - **Against Judicial Review**: Unelected judges undermine democratic authority.