Introduction: Foundations of Political Philosophy PDF

Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy The most important questions of political philosophy: – 1. what is the best form of government? democracy? monarchy? if democracy which kind? liberal? non liberal? which constitution? which laws? – 2. why should we have a government at all? what...

Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy The most important questions of political philosophy: – 1. what is the best form of government? democracy? monarchy? if democracy which kind? liberal? non liberal? which constitution? which laws? – 2. why should we have a government at all? what is its purpose, its end, by which we can evaluate it as good or bad, just or unjust? – 3. is government something natural for human beings? Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy (1) What is the best form of government? – Lorenzetti, Allegory of good and bad government (Siena) Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy (1) What is the best form of government? – i. government has an influence on the life of the citizens – ii. we can choose the form of government – iii. we can know which government is good – iv. it’s all about the virtues of the ruler Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy 1. what is the best form of government? – is good government just a matter of the virtues of the ruler(s)? Aristotle: monarchy – virtuous king ! royalty / vicious king ! tyranny – virtuous few ! aristocracy / vicious few ! oligarchy – virtuous many ! “constitution” / vicious many ! “democracy” modern times: – the constitution itself is fundamental (since we cannot rely too much on the virtues of men) » separation and balance of powers, etc. Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy 2. why should we have a government at all? – Thomas Hobbes imagine a state without any government ! state of constant danger, war of all against all from this “state of nature” we would choose to create a State by abandoning our liberties to an absolute Monarch (the “Leviathan”) Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy 2. why should we have a government at all? – Jean-Jacques Rousseau from the “state of nature”, we would instead create a democratic state by a “social contract” in which we do not abandon our liberty since we (collectively) choose the decisions of the State Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy 2. why should we have a government at all? – common Modern idea: the nature of man is the individual man, independent of any government or society – but is the absence of governement and society really a “state of nature”? Introduction: the foundations of Political Philosophy 3. is government something natural for human beings? – the most fundamental question – an anthropological question (about the nature of human beings) Plan I. Aristotle’s conception of Man as a “Political Animal” II. Contemporary “updates” about the political nature of Human Beings I. Aristotle and the Political Animal Being in a State is the natural state of Man – there is no such thing as a “state of nature” of the individual alone and independent Why? – because of his nature as rational animal Consequence? – the State always has priority since the individual is nothing but a part of the State I. Aristotle and the Political Animal Understanding Human Nature in order to understand the State and society – What is a human being? a living being (like plants) with sensations (like animals) with rationality (unlike other animals) – (NB: not the concept of “personhood”) I. Aristotle and the Political Animal Understanding Human Nature in order to understand the State and society – What is a human being? an animal – (given the kind of animal we are) the first natural community for human beings is the community of man and woman, gathered with the purpose of reproduction and self-subsistence I. Aristotle and the Political Animal Understanding Human Nature in order to understand the State and society – What is a human being? an animal with rationality – rationality gives the capacity to think about abstract questions – in particular the question of the just / unjust actions – the natural community of families gathered with the purpose of determining the just and the unjust is the State (or City, « Polis » in greek) I. Aristotle and the Political Animal Also in Aristotle: – different natures of different human beings… – … some have it in their nature to rule citizens men adults – … others have it in their nature to obey the rules of others slaves women children II. Updating Aristotle Three questions: – (i) are “slaves” and women naturally inferior? – (ii) is the State always prior to the individual? – (iii) does contemporary ethnology confirm the universality of political government? II. Updating Aristotle The problem of slavery and sexism – if the participation in the State is justified by the rational nature (as Aristotle says) – then everyone with the same rational nature should have the same participation – all human beings (of all sexes and races) have the same rationality – therefore Aristotle himself should have ruled out slavery and sexism II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – Collectivism the individual is just a part of the society, and the good of the society is the ultimate good – Individualism the society is built up for the individual, and it cannot do anything that would go against the good of the individual II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – Collectivism primitive societies (ethnology) Aristotle: – “The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest.” » concept of Common Good = the good of the society as society II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – Collectivism XXth century: extreme forms of collectivism – totalitarianisms » fascist » communist » see Arthur Koestler El cero y el infinito (Darkness at noon) II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – Individualism the individual is prior to the society, and the society is created only for the good of the individual – see Hobbes and Rousseau – State of Nature ! social contract because of this, there are fundamental rights of the individual that can never be violated by any society – Human Rights – from the Enlightenment Philosophers to the « Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen » (1789, French Revolution) II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – the Christian response? fundamental importance of the Common Good in Thomas Aquinas’ political philosophy – so a form of Collectivism like Communism? and yet “Society is for man and not viceversa” (Pope Pius XI, encyclical Divini Redemptoris against Atheist Communism, 1937) Trying to avoid both Totalitarianism and Individualism II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – Maritain’s Personalism: an intermediate solution the human being is by Nature a Person with absolute dignity, value in herself, made in God’s image ! the Human Person has absolute Natural Rights that no society can ever violate ! defence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN 1948) by Christian Democrats II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – Maritain’s Personalism: an intermediate solution … but at the same time being a Human Person is being a member of a family, of a nation, etc. ! the flourishing of the « individual » herself requires the membership in a flourishing society ! against liberal individualism II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – Maritain’s Personalism: an intermediate solution the inspiration: Human Being is – an animal with – … rationality – and personhood! (from the Christian notion of Person) II. Updating Aristotle Priority of the State or priority of the individual? – Criticisms by some catholic philosophers against Maritain’s personalist solution « personalism » is just another form of individualism (?) the notion of « Human Rights » is unacceptable and badly conceived, goes against the Common Good II. Updating Aristotle Ethnology and the question of the universality of political government – is it true that always and everywhere human beings are, by their very nature, living in societies with governments? II. Updating Aristotle Ethnology and the question of the universality of political government – What is really universal and natural the « society » of the family the notion of Just and Unjust in relations between human beings actions that are considered unjust and in need of a sanction the necessity for norms and a « system » for applying sanctions – What is not absolutely universal a centralized State playing these roles II. Updating Aristotle Ethnology and the question of the universality of political government – African Political Systems, by Fortes & EvansPritchard (1940): States – the Zulu, the Ngwato, the Bemba, the Banyankole and the Kede vs Stateless Societies – the Logoli, the Tallensi and the Nuer II. Updating Aristotle Ethnology and the question of the universality of political government – Stateless Societies a family system (by lineage) ! family solidarity and tribes norms are traditional and unwritten (« legislative ») the sanctions for norm infringement are applied by the tribe (« judiciary ») the patriarch of the lineage takes any other decisions (« executive ») ! there is no properly political institution, no « State », just the natural structures of family (lineage) II. Updating Aristotle Ethnology and the question of the universality of political government – Stateless Societies limits of stateless societies – cannot be very huge in size (limitations of family recognition ! relatively small tribes) – cannot allow for mobility from one society to another ! a natural tendency to move on to the State model II. Updating Aristotle Ethnology and the question of the universality of political government – States centralized authority, distinct from the family administrative machinery judicial institution … and finally a legislative institution in which the Just and the Unjust is discussed (and not just taken for granted by tradition) Conclusion 1) it is part of the human nature (and universal) to be part of a society … 2) but it is not part of the human nature to be part of a society with a State – this needs to be justified, but seems easily justified by the need to build societies that are (i) larger, (ii) more mobile and (iii) reflective about the Just and the Unjust 3) it is also part of the human nature to be a person with intrinsic dignity – this can justify that there are Human Rights that are prior to any social goods and can never be violated