Philosophy 024: Big Ideas
Prof. Robert DiSalle (rdisalle@uwo.ca)
Talbot College 408, 519-661-2111 x85763
Office Hours: Monday and Wednesday 11:30-12:30
Course Website:
http://instruct.uwo.ca/philosophy/024/
Freedom, Individuality, Human Rights: Some basic questions
Are humans free by nature, or is freedom a condition made
possible by political institutions?
What are the rights and freedoms of individuals against the will
of social and political groups and institutions?
What is the source of human rights? Do they belong to us
inherently, or are they granted to us by political institutions?
Is individual freedom more important than equality, order, or
political stability?
Two opposing views of human rights:
“Positive” rights: Rights are created by legislative acts of
institutions that have the power to make laws.
“Positivist” view of laws: laws are constructed by political and
social institutions that have the power to enforce them
“Natural” rights: Rights belong to human beings by nature, and
laws made by institutions must respect these rights.
“Natural law,” that there are laws inherent in human nature that
pre-exist and take precedence over laws created by institutions.
The cheap version: “Whatever is not allowed is forbidden,” vs.
“Whatever is not forbidden is allowed.”
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Vindication of Natural Society
(1756)
Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime
and Beautiful (1756)
Conciliation with America (1775)
Reflections on the Revolution in
France (1790)
Burke’s “conservative” view of politics, law, and society:
Sound social and political institutions are not created all at once
by the application of political theories.
Sound institutions evolve gradually out of traditional practices,
and their success over many generations entitles them to respect.
The wisdom acquired in generations of experience is more
reliable than the most profound philosophical reflections of a
particular moment.
Institutions long established should be interfered with only as a
last resort.
Rights are established not by an abstract conception, but by long
practice of adjusting individual claims against the claims of
society.
Burke vs. the French Revolution:
The revolutionaries attempted to eliminate all existing social and
political institutions.
New institutions would be constructed on a purely rational basis,
eliminating all traditional prejudice.
Political order would be based on “the rights of man.”
Burke: Many longstanding institutions embody some
accumulated wisdom, and it is foolish to throw this away.
There is no sound “rational” basis on which to build institutions,
but only practical experience.
The abstract idea of “rights” does not answer the need to balance
the claims of individuals and governments. Only long practice
can accomplish this.
The wisdom of the English constitution, according to Burke:
A gradually-evolved system of balances among the competing
claims of different parts of society: monarchy, nobility,
Parliament, people.
Unlike the French revolution, English revolutions have merely
restored a balance that had been lost.
No new constitution, based on abstract philosophical ideas,
could possibly equal the gradually-evolved perfection of the
British arrangement.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
A System of Logic (1843)
Principles of Political Economy
(1848)
On Liberty (1859)
Utilitarianism (1861).
The Subjection of Women (1869)
Autobiography (1873)
(Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Utilitarianism: Moral judgment of any
action is based on its consequences. (A
form of consequentialism.)
(vs. deontology: actions are to be judged
by their inherent moral value)
“Greatest Happiness”: The best action is
that which produces the greatest amount
of happiness for the greatest number of
people.
The “hedonistic calculus”: Calculation of
the net happiness produced by an action.
The corpse of Bentham, stuffed
and preserved at University
College, London,where he
continues to get stellar annual
performance evaluations
Mill: The Utilitarian conception of “greatest happiness” is
incomplete.
It lacks an adequate conception of what “happiness” is for a
human being.
This is why individual liberty, and individual fulfillment, ought
to be valued independently of the general utility.
At the same time, a utilitarian argument can be given for the
principle of allowing all possible individual freedom and selfexpression. Ultimately it contributes to the greater happiness of
the society at large.
On happiness, from Mill’s Utilitarianism:
“Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any
of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance
of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would
consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an
ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be
selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that
the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot
than they are with theirs….”
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it
is because they only know their own side of the question.
The other party to the comparison knows both sides.”
A pig, in that element in which pigs are alleged to be
uniquely happy
The general Libertarian idea:
Individuals have the right to act freely according to their own
interest and inclination.
The only legitimate restriction is to safeguard the liberty of
others. No one is free to act so as to infringe upon the freedom
of others to do as they please.
The action of government is, ideally, limited to protecting this
freedom from encroachment whenever the interests of different
people are in conflict.
The free expression of ideas is an absolute right.
The utilitarian argument for individual freedom:
The restriction of thought and expression necessarily hinders
the search for truth. Only if all ideas can be freely discussed can
true ideas come to the surface.
The restriction of unusual thought and action by majority
opinion necessarily hinders creative and original action. The
entire society, including the uncreative unimaginative mass,
benefits from the work of the few creative individuals.
“Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom.
Persons of genius are…more individual than any other people-less capable, consequently, of fitting themselves… into any of
the small number of moulds which society provides in order to
save its members the trouble of forming their own character.”
George Orwell (1903-1950)
(real name: Eric Arthur Blair)
The Road to Wigan Pier (1937)
Homage to Catalonia (1938)
Animal Farm (1945)
The English People (1947)
1984 (1949)
Orwell on freedom and thought-control:
Totalitarian societies do not rely only on physical coercion and
punishment.
They need to control thought as well.
In democratic societies, where physical coercion is
unacceptable, thought-control is even more important.
Where governments require the consent of the people to
policies and actions that the people would instinctively oppose,
they typically distort the truth about what they are doing by
distorting the language.
Controlling the language= controlling thought.
Examples of language designed to restrict thought:
Pacification: destruction of villages and dispersal of population
Strategic hamlets: concentration camps for peasants forcibly
removed from their farms and villages
Collateral damage: death and injury inflicted on civilians
Enhanced interrogation techniques: torture
Contractors: private mercenary soldiers
From 1984: O’Brien, the Party official, interrogates Winston
Smith, a man struggling to think for himself.
O’Brien: “Reality is not external. Reality exists in the human
mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can
make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of
the Party, which is collective and immortal…”
“You are a slow learner, Winston,” said O'Brien gently.
“How can I help it?” he blubbered. “How can I help seeing what
is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”
“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they
are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try
harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
Winston Smith on truth: “Freedom is the freedom to say that
two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
Orwell on politics and language:
“Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity
to pure wind.”
“In our time, political language speech and writing are largely
the defense of the indefensible.”