The State and State Legitimacy PDF

Revision Help IPI201 1/67 The State and State Legitimacy The Concept of the State: Definition: The state encompasses: ○ Political institutions (e.g., government, judiciary, military) ○ Governing relations between the rulers and the ruled...

Revision Help IPI201 1/67 The State and State Legitimacy The Concept of the State: Definition: The state encompasses: ○ Political institutions (e.g., government, judiciary, military) ○ Governing relations between the rulers and the ruled ○ Laws and policies that regulate society Legitimacy: A crucial condition for state authority. Just because a state has power and laws does not mean it is legitimate. Legitimacy refers to the rightful use of power, where the authority of the state is recognized as just, both by its citizens and in principle. Political legitimacy often leads to political obligation, meaning individuals feel morally or legally bound to obey the state’s laws. Key Point: A state can exist and function without being legitimate. The mere presence of laws or governing bodies does not automatically grant legitimacy. The State and State Legitimacy in Plato and Aristotle’s Political Philosophy Plato’s Ideal State in The Republic - Concept of the Ideal State: Plato’s Republic presents the ideal state, rooted in his theory of forms. The state is organized to reflect the harmony of the universe, especially the form of the Good, which represents the highest reality. - Role of the Ruling Class: A ruling class (philosopher-kings) governs because they are capable of understanding the Good. This ensures that the state functions for the common good, not individual gain. Justice in the State and the Individual - Justice in the State: Plato’s definition of justice revolves around harmony—each class performs its role without interfering with the others. This reflects the harmony seen in nature. - Tripartite State and Soul: Plato draws a parallel between the state and the individual soul: - Producers (appetite) seek wealth and material pleasure.  - Soldiers (spirit) seek honor and protection. - Guardians (reason) seek knowledge and the common good. Just as justice in the soul is achieved when reason governs appetite and spirit, justice in the state is achieved when the guardians lead, the soldiers defend, and the producers provide. The Authority of the Good and the Five Regimes - Authority of the Good: The form of the Good is the ultimate source of authority in the state. Only philosopher-kings, through reason, can grasp the Good and rule justly. - Five Regimes: - Aristocracy: The ideal regime, ruled by wisdom and reason. - Timocracy: Ruled by honor and the warrior class. - Oligarchy: Ruled by wealth and property owners. - Democracy: Ruled by freedom but lacking proper structure. - Tyranny: The worst regime, ruled by the unchecked desires of a single ruler. Key Point: Each regime represents a deviation from the ideal state, where governance shifts from justice and the Good to personal or class interests, leading to the decline of both the state and the individual. Aristotle’s Theory of Best Possible State Human Nature and the Political Community - Humans as “Political Animals”: Aristotle argues that humans naturally seek to live in a political community because it allows them to achieve their highest good—eudaimonia (human flourishing). - The State as Natural: For Aristotle, the state is a natural entity that precedes the individual, just as a body’s parts rely on the whole to function. Individuals achieve their full potential only within the state. Ethics and Politics - Connection between Ethics and Politics: For Aristotle, understanding human nature and the good life (ethics) is essential to organizing the state (politics). The state must be structured to allow individuals to live virtuous lives and achieve flourishing. - Telos (Purpose): Everything in nature, including humans, has a purpose (telos). For humans, this purpose is to live a rational and virtuous life within a political community. - Ethics(the good life-eudaimonia) can only be completed with politics(life in the state) - The State as an Organic Entity: Aristotle’s organic theory posits that the state functions like a living organism. The well-being of the individual is tied to the well-being of the state. Individuals cannot achieve eudaimonia outside of the political community. The Role of Virtue and Wisdom in Governance (Aristotle) Virtue and the Rulers - Virtue: Rulers must embody moral excellence—qualities like justice, courage, and temperance—which guide them to act in the best interest of the community according to reason. - Phronesis (Practical Wisdom): Rulers must have practical wisdom to make ethical decisions that promote the common good. This involves applying moral principles to real-world situations. - Political Techne (The Art of Governance): Rulers must master the craft of governing, which includes understanding laws, institutions, and policies that support the well-being of the state. The Qualities of Just Rulers - Virtue: Ensures that rulers are motivated by the common good, not personal gain, according to reason.. - Phronesis: Enables rulers to navigate complex political challenges and promote well-being. - Political Techne: Allows rulers to implement effective policies that maintain stability and harmony in the state. A just state is governed by rulers who possess these qualities, ensuring that the state serves the common good. When rulers lack virtue, the state becomes corrupt, prioritizing private interests over the public good. Differences Between Plato and Aristotle on the State Plato’s Focus on the Ideal and the Good - Plato: Believes in the existence of a separate realm of forms, particularly the form of the Good, which guides philosopher-kings in ruling the state. Ethics is Politics. Political rule and ethical judgement is identical. Justice and harmony are achieved when the state reflects the order of the forms, with each class performing its proper role under the guidance of reason. Aristotle’s Emphasis on Nature and telos (Teleology) - Aristotle: Rejects Plato’s theory of forms, focusing instead on nature and telos. He argues that the state exists to allow humans to achieve their natural purpose—eudaimonia. The state is a natural entity where individuals can realize their highest good by living virtuous lives. Ethics and politics are intertwined, and the state is necessary for human flourishing. Both philosophers emphasize the need for virtuous, wise leadership to maintain justice and ensure the well-being of the state and its citizens.  Social Contract Traditions in Political Philosophy Introduction to the Social Contract Tradition The social contract tradition in political philosophy is an approach to understanding the origin and legitimacy of political authority. It seeks to explain how individuals transition from a "state of nature" (a hypothetical condition without government) to an organized political society through a social contract—an implicit or explicit agreement among individuals to form a government for mutual benefit. Politics of the Renaissance: Machiavelli’s Science of Government 1. Machiavelli (1469-1527) - Machiavelli was a Renaissance thinker who developed a realistic view of politics, which marked a break from the idealistic, often religiously grounded, political theories of earlier philosophers. - Context: The Italian city-states of the Renaissance were highly competitive and often unstable. This influenced Machiavelli’s focus on power and pragmatism in politics. Key Concepts in Machiavelli's Political Thought: - Human Nature: People are self-interested, and rulers must understand this to effectively manage power. - The Nature of Power: Power is a tool that must be controlled carefully; politics is not about ideals but about what works. - Realism: Politics should be based on real-world circumstances rather than philosophical or religious ideals. - Absence of Moral Concerns: Machiavelli argued that moral principles could often hinder effective governance. For him, the ends justified the means. Political Authority: According to Machiavelli, the purpose of the state is to control power and ensure stability through realistic methods. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) Historical Context - English Civil War (1640s): Hobbes lived during a time of civil unrest and instability in England, which heavily influenced his views on the necessity of a strong government, based on reason, to prevent chaos. - Therefore, Hobbes attempted to construct a full/complete theory of the state that is grounded, rational, legitimate, secured and stable. In order to do so, one must contemplate and takes in account the state of nature, human nature, natural rights, natural laws, and the idea of a social contract. Human Nature - Hobbes began his theory with a scientific view of human nature, heavily influenced by physics. - Humans are equal in their vulnerabilities and freedom, driven by both passions (desires, fears) and reason. State of Nature - In the absence of government, individuals exist in a “state of nature” where there is no authority to enforce laws or protect rights. - Natural Law: There is a moral order or law that exists independently of human institutions, which governs all people. This law governs the state of nature. - Natural Rights: In the state of nature, every individual has certain rights (such as self-preservation) granted by God or nature. These rights must be respected, and no one has the authority to take them away. The Problem of the State of Nature - The laws of nature in the state of nature promote justice, fairness, and treating others well, but human passions like pride and revenge often lead people astray. Without a strong authority to enforce these laws, people act in their own interests for safety. In such cases, agreements and rules become ineffective, and individuals rely on their own strength for protection. As a result, people in the state of nature would live in constant fear and insecurity—what Hobbes famously called a “war of every man against every man.” - Life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Social Contract and Political Authority - The social contract is an agreement among individuals to create a sovereign authority (a government) to enforce laws, protect life, and ensure security. - Political Authority: The power of the sovereign derives from the consent of the people. Individuals transfer their natural rights to the sovereign to maintain order and safety. - The sovereign is the sole holder of political power and has absolute authority to maintain peace and security. - Unlimited Power: The sovereign is not bound by the law and cannot have their power revoked. The sovereign must have absolute authority to prevent a return to the state of nature. - State as an Abstract Entity: The state exists as an abstract concept, distinct from individual rulers. It derives its power from the collective will of the people. - Hobbes’ theory is grounded in reason rather than religious or moral considerations, making it one of the earliest modern political philosophies. John Locke John Locke, in his work Two Treatises of Civil Government (1690), developed a theory of political authority grounded in consent and the protection of natural rights. His ideas on social contract theory built on the notion that the state of nature, while having a law of nature, requires the civil government to remedy its inconveniences and protect individual rights such as life, liberty, and property. State of Nature Locke describes the state of nature as a condition in which individuals are free, equal, and governed by natural law. This law obliges individuals to respect the life, health, liberty, and property of others. Reason, which Locke sees as a fundamental aspect of human nature, teaches that no one should harm another in these areas. - Law of Nature: A moral law inherent to all humans that guides behavior even without formal laws. It emphasizes the equality and independence of individuals. - Equality: Locke’s concept of equality is influenced by Christian theology, where all individuals are seen as equal and independent under God. Social Contract: Locke’s social contract theory is founded on the idea that political authority arises from the consent of the governed. Individuals must willingly leave the state of nature to form a government that will protect their natural rights. - Consent: The legitimacy of political authority stems from the consent of individuals. Without consent, political power lacks moral justification. - Political Authority: Authority is not natural but constructed through agreement. The government’s role is to enforce the law of nature and protect individuals' private rights. - Majority Rule: Once people enter into a social contract, the will of the majority dictates the actions of political power. This is essential for the functioning of a collective political society. Political Authority & Limitations: While Locke’s theory supports government by consent, it does not advocate full democracy. The state Locke envisions is more akin to a constitutional government, where the people’s consent is necessary, but political authority is still exercised through structures like parliaments or assemblies. Locke places significant emphasis on the rule of law and the moral obligations of the government to its citizens. Locke advocates for a limited government whose powers are restricted by law. Government power is to be used for the common good and based entirely on the consent of the people. - Constitutional Government: Political power is bound by laws, and the government must act within the limits established by the people. The government’s moral obligation is to serve the public good, not the rulers' personal interests. - Equality in Government: Locke insists that political authority and common people remain equals under the law. The government exists to serve the people, not to dominate them. Jean-Jacques Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s social contract theory, most notably presented in The Social Contract (1762), addresses the problem of how individuals can join together in a political society while maintaining their freedom and equality. Rousseau's key works, including the Discourse on the Origins of Inequality (1755), critique social, political, and economic development, suggesting that civilization leads to inequality, dependence, and moral corruption. His idea of the "new" social contract aims to restore freedom and legitimacy to political life. State of Nature: Rousseau begins by imagining a pre-political and pre-social condition, which he calls the true state of nature. In this state: Savage Man: Humans are free, equal, and guided by two basic instincts: self-preservation (amour de soi) and pity (compassion). Natural Goodness: Rousseau believes humans are naturally good in the state of nature and have the potential for perfectibility (self-perfection).  Equality and Freedom: In the state of nature, there is no private property, and individuals are entirely free and equal. However, as society develops—through metallurgy, agriculture, and the establishment of private property—inequality emerges, and humans lose their natural liberty. This gradual shift leads to dependence, inequality, and moral corruption. For Rousseau, civilization creates a loss of authenticity and liberty. Social Institutions and Inequality: As humans began to develop social, political, and economic institutions, dependence on others increased, and humans became trapped in the opinions and judgments of others. Rousseau argues that this development fosters inequality and oppression. Moral Corruption: Rousseau critiques the effects of society, claiming that individuals in the social order live through the perceptions of others, losing touch with their natural self and becoming morally corrupt. Key Quote: “Social man lives always outside himself; he knows how to live only in the opinion of others.” Rousseau's New Social Contract: In his work The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau seeks to develop a political solution to the problem of inequality and loss of liberty. He proposes a new form of association that allows individuals to unite in a community while retaining their personal freedom and equality. Social Contract Definition: The social contract, according to Rousseau, is a way to create a legitimate form of political association that defends the person and property of every individual while allowing them to obey only their own will. In doing so, they remain as free as before they entered into the contract. General Will: The core of Rousseau’s social contract is the idea of the general will, which represents the collective interest of the people. Individuals merge their personal will into this collective general will, which represents the common good of the whole society. The Sovereign: Under the social contract, the sovereign is the collective body of the people, unified by their shared interest and dedication to the common good. Rousseau rejects representation, arguing that sovereignty cannot be delegated to representatives or monarchs. Equality and Freedom: Through the social contract, all individuals engage under the same conditions and enjoy the same rights. Rousseau maintains that what individuals lose in natural liberty (freedom to do whatever one wants) is compensated by the gain of civil liberty and equality under the law. Political Legitimacy: Rousseau argues that political legitimacy is rooted in the autonomy of the people. In this system: Autonomy: Individuals remain free because they obey laws they prescribe for themselves through the general will. General Welfare: The common good becomes the ultimate objective of the state, and the force of the public ensures that all individuals comply with the general will. Freedom, Equality, and Autonomy: These are the foundational principles of political legitimacy for Rousseau. A legitimate political system allows individuals to govern themselves through collective decision-making, ensuring freedom and equality for all. Rousseau's Preferred Regime: Rousseau’s ideal political system aligns with his belief in democracy, but not in the conventional sense of representative democracy. Instead, he envisions a direct democracy, where the people directly exercise sovereign power. No Representation: Rousseau famously rejects representative government, stating that the people must govern themselves, without delegating authority to representatives. "Forced to be Free": In his famous paradox, Rousseau asserts that individuals can be "forced to be free" when they are compelled to act in accordance with the general will. He argues that true freedom is found in participation in the collective, where one’s personal interests align with the common good. Democracy: Direct involvement of the people in decision-making. Aristocracy and Monarchy: Rousseau would critique these systems for failing to align with the general will and the principles of freedom and equality.  Political Obligation Political obligation refers to the moral duty or responsibility that individuals have to obey the laws of their state or political community. It explores why citizens should follow laws and support their government and under what conditions they might refuse to do so. Compliance of Law ≠ Obligation of Law There is a difference between complying with the law (acting in accordance with it) and having a moral obligation to obey the law. - Compliance: Following the law because of external reasons, such as fear of punishment. - Obligation: Following the law because you believe, morally, that the law should be obeyed for its own sake, not because of consequences. Political obligation is A Moral Duty to Obey the Law for the Sake of It Being a Valid Law. Political Obligation Implies: - A Moral Duty as a Citizen to Support One’s Government Beyond simply obeying laws, political obligation includes actively supporting the institutions of the state, such as paying taxes or participating in the political process. The moral duty here stems from one’s membership in a political community. - Political Authority If citizens have political obligations, it implies that the government has legitimate authority. - Political Legitimacy Political legitimacy means that the authority of the government is morally justified. It is often the foundation of political obligation: citizens feel they should follow the laws because they believe the government is legitimate and morally right in its actions. - Citizenship As citizens, people are believed to have the obligation to follow the laws and support the state.  Theories of Political Obligation 1. Divine Command This theory claims that political obligation is grounded in religious duty. Individuals are morally required to follow laws that align with divine will or religious commandments. A famous biblical example is: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” This suggests a distinction between duties to the state and duties to religion. 2. Fairness Fairness theory views society as a cooperative enterprise in which individuals work together for mutual benefit. - Fairness in obligation: Everyone benefits from the protections and services provided by the state, so it is fair that each person contributes their share by obeying the laws and fulfilling their obligations. - If others are following the rules, it’s fair to expect you to do the same. 3. Natural Duty This theory bases political obligation on moral principles that arise from our status as moral agents and members of a political community. - As moral agents: We have a duty to promote justice and fairness in society, which can include obeying just laws. - As members of a political community: Citizens owe obligations not just to the state but to each other, since laws help maintain a stable and just society. 4. Agreement/Consent A central idea in modern political philosophy, this theory argues that political obligation arises from agreement or consent between individuals and the state. Because individuals are free, equal, and rational, and the state is an artifact to serve the interest of the people who have come together for this particular purpose. In this case, an underlying issue is instability and political legitimacy. Therefore, the theory of political obligation is crucial to maintain a relationship between the governing body and the governed. By consenting to be governed, they enter into a social contract where they agree to follow the rules in exchange for the protections and benefits provided by the state. In this view, political obligation is voluntary and based on mutual agreement rather than imposed authority. Against Political Obligation? Political Obligation refers to the moral or legal duty of individuals to obey the laws of their state or government. It addresses why and whether citizens are morally bound to follow the rules set by political authorities and the state. However, there are cases where political obligation is irrelevant or rejected. 1. Social Utility Political obligation should serve the greater good of society. If the state's laws or institutions fail to promote social utility or the welfare of its citizens, the obligation to obey diminishes. 2. Anarchism A political philosophy rejecting the legitimacy of any form of state authority. Anarchists argue that all states inherently violate individual autonomy and freedom, thus no one is obligated to obey state laws. a. Political Anarchism – This view holds that states are tools of oppression and violence, and because of this unjust nature, individuals have no political obligation to follow their laws or institutions. b. Philosophical Anarchism – Philosophical anarchists argue that state authority is morally illegitimate, or at least not justified. However, they may still accept living within a state pragmatically, but they claim that individuals are not morally required to obey laws simply because they come from the state. c. Christian Anarchism – This view claims that true Christian ethics conflict with state authority. Since obedience to God's commands should come before any political obligation, a Christian anarchist would argue that loyalty to the state is not a moral necessity. 3. Conscience - Civil Disobedience This concept emphasizes the role of personal conscience in political obligation. Civil disobedience is justified when state laws are morally unjust. Individuals have the right, or even the duty, to refuse to follow laws that violate higher ethical principles. 4. Multiple Principles of Obligation This theory holds that political obligation cannot be based on a single principle. Instead, individuals might have multiple, sometimes conflicting, moral duties (e.g., to family, religion, and the state), which may weaken or override their obligation to obey the law, especially in unjust situations. Tips for answering exam questions: Make sure you answer the question and every questions inside the main question. If you just write what you know, but it does not answer the question, all will go to waste. Do not repeat class content. Do not tell stories. Answer the question. Make your point, THEN use class content to support your answer. Example: Each colour corresponds between the answer and the question(s) as well as the demands from the question. Only when you satisfied the demands of the question, you will gain points. Is there a question in social/political philosophy which is present in either the life of Socrates or the Apology? If yes, what is it? Give a brief explanation and illustrate your answer with at least one example from the text. Answer In The Apology where Socrates gave his defense to the Athenians, there is a question that is central in social and political philosophy: What is the relationship between the individual and the state, particularly regarding the demands of justice and obedience? Socrates grapples with the tension between personal morality and the laws of the state. In The Apology, Socrates famously declares that he would rather obey the divine command to seek wisdom and question injustice than blindly follow the state's laws when they conflict with his moral duty. He refuses to abandon philosophy, even though it led to his trial and eventual death sentence, arguing that moral duty must outweigh fear of punishment. For example, Socrates states: “I shall obey God rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall never cease practicing philosophy” This reflects the broader question of whether individuals must always obey the state or whether they have a duty to resist when the state's actions are unjust. Socrates’ defense suggests that justice transcends the state’s authority.