MISSING ITEM #1:
Lecture on September 21: Introduction: The Gory Details
David Brin, “The Transparent Society,”
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftransparent.html
MISSING ITEM #2: Last Two Chapter of Guess, but here are the first four for now.
Raymond Guess: Public Goods, Private Goods
Chapter 1
Introduction.
This book discusses different modes of exploring the difference between the public and the
private, looking at various time periods to track the development in the notion of public and
private. His main argument is that there is no single clear distinction between public and private
but rather a series of overlapping contrasts and that the distinction between the public and the
private should not be taken to have the significance often attributed to it.
-difference between descriptive version of privacy (things that are private) and a normative
version (things that should be private)
-ambiguous title: different meanings of goods: 1) that which is good, 2) things/objects that have
some use-value, 3)“conceptions of the good”
-hopes that by unraveling the different ideas of public/private he can break the idea of a rigid
distinction, and allow us to approach the topic from a new angle.
-will discuss three concrete instances of human behavior which define different modes of the
public/private distinction
Chapter 2
Shamlessness and the Public World
-Starts with story about Diogenes masturbating in the marketplace, seeks to understand why this
is so offensive.
-1: goes against understood idea of how one is to comport oneself in public places: principle of
“civil inattention” or “disattendability”- basically, in public, you try not to draw attention to
yourself or anyone else.
-violations of this principle tend to fall into two categories: natural features which cannot be
changed (ex: a congenital facial deformity) or social- due to ignorance, failure to understand
social norms, momentary fatigue, voluntary failure to do it, or willfully with the intent to offend.
-2: goes against principle of avoiding making others envious, such as by fulfilling a desire in
public (this is why in some cultures it is impolite to eat in front of people who are not eating)
3: inherently connected with a substance considered disgusting, a category which includes most
substances moving from inside to outside the body. This offense is lessened when alone or with
close friends. (ex: blowing your nose noisily)
-Diogenes trying to attain self-sufficiency, showing that he had no need for public customs.
Should be able to satisfy needs whenever wish. Can overcome conventional aversions to this.
Develop powers, reduce needs to natural ones, no social ones.
-Followers of this were called Cynics- learned to ignore reactions of disgust. Self-sufficiency
w/out altruism.
-How does Socrates compare? (busybody) He violates the first and second principles only.
-Public/private were not named at this time, can compare retroactively.
-two conceptions: public/private space (marketplace v. home), public/private sphere (strangers v.
intimate friends.
Chapter 3
Res Publica
-50 BC, Caesar declared an outlaw, required to go home as a private citizen and stand trial.
Instead, he invaded. Put his own good above the good of Rome (damaged Roman property, etc)
-“Res publica” the entity to which political activity is directed- the mature people as a whole,
generally those able to participate in the army
-ambigious meaning: property of the army, matters of common concern to all Romans, common
good, status quo of power relationships.
-common- things that will effect the group as a group NOT their collective individual good. One
exception to lack of individualism- Peracles funeral speech.
-somewhat circular- the life of a citizen benefited the group and each individual benefited from
the group as well.
-no concept of abstract “state” separate from the people who were physically in power
-priuatus- someone w/out public authority/power. Conceptual grasp of private/public sides to a
person. (Ex: to a politician)
-p 45 “If I don’t cross this river, I’m in trouble; if I do, everyone else is in trouble. Let’s go!”
-common good: can sometimes be construed to mean the stable status quo.
-Public: 1)things that concern/affect everyone. 2) the agencies that have power over certain area
which concern everybody.
Chapter 4
The Spiritual and the Private
-Augustine- focus on self-knowledge through knowledge of God.
-most important: seeing selves as we really are. The state of our souls.
-have privileged access to our own inner selves, but have to work on it.
-inner state is definitive of who we are, subject of final moral evaluation.
-spirituality connected to discipline, disgust. Unlike Diogenes, still have feelings of disgust.
Continue anyway (in helping the poor, sick, etc) Focus not on not having disgust but on
proceeding anyway. Also reject certain social norms/ political world.
-before the Fall, had complete self-control.
-Nietzsche- reactions of disgust due to fact that we are human, state of weakness
-all-redeeming power of love to overcome disgust.
-Private: thoughts are inherently private. Dif than Caesar, Diogenes whose “private” affected,
involved others.
Lecture on September 23 and September 28th (On liberty)
Lecture Outline 9/23/04
J.S. Mill & Liberty I
1 Public/Private distinctions (use Geuss to tie together)
o Regulatory
Some things are purely private, others we regulate
By custom/convention
By law
o
JS Mill is a Liberal view: decrease regulation
Policy: public goods (e.g. education, health)
To what degree should it be publicly funded?
o
The Good Life
controversial)
o Privacy as a right
My right imposes a duty on others
Is there a duty to provide privacy
2 Domestic Realm
o Could say, what takes place in my home is my business
But, need regulations on domestic abuse, child neglect, etc.
What about domestic chores?
3 For the purposes of this course: Liberal =
o 1) All human beings are equal, naturally and morally
o 2) the state should be limited
presumption against coercion
limit the scope of the law
(careful: not an anarchist)
o therefore, suspicious of:
legal moralism: coerce into making a better person
legal perfectionism
legal paternalism: task of state to prevent people from harming themselves
Mill Chapter V: no law vs. poison
4
o Wrote on economics , logic, politics
o Harm Principle = the only justification of state intervention is to prevent harm of
another
Harm could be defined broadly, but Mill tries to give it a precise
definition
5
Would a reasonable person consent?
conservative say about the Harm Principle?
Lecture Outline 9/28/04
J.S. Mill & Liberty II
1) humans are naturally and morally equal
2) presumption against coercion
Social Democrat vs. Economic Libertarian?
Why is liberalism controversial?
5 because it denies inequality
o
6 Individualism is inherently controversial
o Groups have no independent status
o Hostile to ethnic groups
Mill is antagonistic to ascriptive groups
7 hostile to authority of tradition and religion and authority (temporal or spiritual)
Liberalism appeals to rationalism, which denies absolute authority
8 State and society ought to shape and form morally upstanding, good people
9 Want instead to form own character, own form of morality
o Mill
Harm Principle
-does this appeal to the Harm Principle?
Therefore, need to narrowly define “harm” to his own liberal beliefs.
b.1806
1789: French Revolution
1813: Napoleon defeated
1815: Congress of Vienna
return to ancient régime while pressure to move to democracy
burgeoning middle class in England due to Industrial Revolution:
gradual enfranchisement
1832: Great Reform Bill
Mill: concerned about role of religion as limiting individual rights/beliefs
On Liberty
Ch1 Introductory
Ch2 Thought & discussion
Ch3 Individuality
Ch4 Limits of society over individual
Ch5 Applications
Introductory
10 forgoes “abstract right” as it applies to “utility”
11 not going to appeal to natural “rights”
12 against spirit of philosophical inquiry; appeals instead to “UTILITY” or “HAPPINESS”
o Jeremy Bentham: “utilitarianism”
o Negative to transgressor through punishment; positive to society
progressive individual
Not any person’s happiness, but happiness of man as a progressive being (see Ch3)
J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Chapters 1-3
Chapter 1: Introduction
Social liberty: how much power can society hold over individual?
Liberty used to mean protection against the tyranny of political rulers by 1) political
rights or liberties, 2) constitutional body that must OK ruler
Rulers became identified with people and interest was will of nation
Still need to protect individuals from the majority - “tyranny of majority”
Both by laws and by opinion
Likings and dislikings of society or a portion of it create rules
The question is where and how to limit power of society
No absolute rule or principle to test the goodness of actions by government
Harm Principle: “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or
collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Does not apply to children - only to people capable of learning from discussion
Person may cause harm to others by inaction - judged case by case
Liberty of opinion, thought, feeling; Liberty of pursuits, life, plan; Liberty of combination
and freedom to unite voluntarily for peaceful purposes
Tendency in society to infringe on these liberties
True freedom is pursuing one’s own good in own way, not preventing others
Mill’s introduction is very important in that it sets us up for the arguments in the rest of
the essay. Mill stresses the importance of liberty. He discusses the evolution of the term from
tyranny of rulers to the tyranny of the majority, which he says is very important in his modern
age (19th century). The tyranny of the majority means that one influential group or a large group
of people make rules and laws, in politics and in society. The government needs to protect
individual preferences and opinions. Here Mill introduces his harm principle, which I’m sure you
all remember. At the end, he describes three separate areas where liberty should be guaranteed:
opinion and thought, the way you live your life, and in your ability to unite with others.
Chapter 2: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
It is wrong to silence the one person with a dissenting opinion - 2 possibilities
1) the silenced opinion is true: silencing of discussion is assuming infallibility
2) the silenced opinion is false, but important for seeing the actual truth
· we should act on our opinions, even if they may be wrong
· Man is capable of rectifying mistakes by discussion and experience
· Discussion important so man can hear all opinions on a subject
· Usefulness of an opinion is a matter of opinion - no infallible judges
· Infallibility is deciding for others, w/out allowing them to hear diff. opinions
· Socrates and Jesus: opinions silenced, Marcus Aurelius: persecuted Christianity
· to introduce something new, or prove something wrong is great for world
· the belief that truth triumphs over persecution is not a valid argument
· our social intolerance is perhaps worse than ancient punishment for opinions
· people are afraid to voice dissenting opinions
· harm done to those who don’t hear other opinions: mental development cramped
· where opinions aren’t tolerated, no generally high scale of mental activity
· Mill asserts that all historical improvements can be traced to three periods in the history
of Europe when there was this generally high scale of mental activity
· people ought to be able to defend their opinions
· should be able to defend against opposing opinions in their most persuasive form
· if opinions are not discussed, their meaning is lost
· Christians believe a set of guidelines, but they never actually act upon them
· people live by truisms and proverbs: their meanings will be further understood with
discussion of pros and cons
· well-being of mankind can be measured by the number of doctrines still disputed
3) a third possibility is that the dissenting opinion contains part of the truth, and is
needed in order to gain the whole truth included in both opinions
· every opinion that contains some part of the truth should be considered precious
· truth is reconciling and combining opposites: so they must be discussed
· denounces Christianity as a doctrine of passive obedience
· Christian doctrines were only meant to contain part of the truth
Summary of four reasons why we can’t silence people’s opinions:
1) it may be true - to deny is to assume our own infallibility
2) may contain a part of the truth - only by combining both opinions will we find
the whole truth
3) if the majority opinion is actually the truth, it must be contested and discussed
so people will have a full understanding of it
4) if the opinion is not discussed, it will lose meaning and become an assumed
truth not really understood by the people
· finally, it is more important to restrict the prevailing opinion from using
vituperative language than the contrary opinion
The most important thing to take from this chapter is the importance of never silencing
any individual. Mill believes that everyone, even the one dissenting opinion, should be heard. I
have summarized the four reasons for this above, which are also very stressed throughout the
chapter. Mill spends a lot of time talking about Christianity in this chapter, which, if you think is
more important than I thought, you could look at more closely. Also important is the issue of
infallibility. Mill stresses that all humans are fallible.
Chapter 3: Of Individuality, as one of the elements of Well-Being
· should actions be as free as opinions?
· people should be punished for actions that harm, or are a nuisance, to others
· different ways of living should be permitted - humans are fallible
· individuality is essential for human progress
· society does not respect individuality as essential
· majority thinks their ways should be good enough for everyone
· we should not accept customs without discussion
· very important to make choices - use all human faculties
· “one whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character”
· Mill fears that society is killing individual desires and impulses
· moves on to discuss how people who practice individuality help others in society
· people may learn something from the dissenters in the society
· people should value originality and not treat it as mediocrity
· 19th century society diminishes individual and encourages mediocrity
· a good society should make it possible for everyone to follow their own pattern
· diversity shows us the best traits of all kinds of people
· conformity keeps people from learning from each other
In this chapter Mill stresses the importance of being an individual and maintaining
originality. He fears that people are all becoming the same, and discusses how important it is to
live life the way you feel is the best. He talks again about how the non-conformists can teach
others in many ways, and how people should not simply follow the traditions of society.
Accepting customs without discussing them and hearing other options harms society, according
to Mill. The best societies have an atmosphere of freedom, where everyone feels comfortable
living the way they want to live.
J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Chapters 4, 5
In Chapter four, Mill attempts to reconcile his encouragement of individuality and his
emphasis on community. Mill rejects the idea of a social contract, but does say that everyone
owes society certain conduct in return for protection. This includes not injuring the rights of
others and defending the society (like fighting in the army) if need be. People who don’t perform
these two duties may be punished by the government, and people who hurt fellow citizens but do
not trample upon their rights may be punished by public opinion.
Mill urges that this is not a doctrine of “selfish indifference,” but that people should be
constantly “stimulating each other” to be wise and see right from wrong. But Mill still feels that
no one should be compelled to act a certain way, because each man knows himself better than
anyone else knows him and should therefore be allowed to decide what to do with his life. It is
better for man to make mistakes than to be forced to follow someone else’s conception of the
right. Mill argues that we have the right to avoid and warn friends about someone who
displeases us. We do not, however, have the right to make his life uncomfortable or direct anger
and resentment at him. We should want to make people with “odious” characters (who aren’t
actively harming society, but offend us with their wickedness) better, and if we can’t actively
seek to improve them we should at least leave them alone.
Here Mill attempts to make the distinction between what only concerns a person’s life
and what concerns others. He argues that although no man is an isolated being, and our actions
that are harmful to ourselves affect others (just by being a bad example, for instance); if a man is
not violating a specific duty to society or directly hurting someone he should be granted the
liberty to follow his own desires. Mill uses the example of drunkenness. No man should be
arrested for drinking but a policeman should be arrested for being drunk on duty, because he is
not fulfilling his duty to society not because drinking is bad. Mill also argues that if society
doesn’t let its members make their own choices, they will grow up to be like children, incapable
of thinking for themselves. Mill then goes into detailed examples to further prove his point
including the prohibition of alcohol, Sabbatarian legislation (can’t work on Sundays), and
polygamy. He examines both sides of each argument and comes to the conclusion that society
should let men act in what way they choose so long as they are not actively hurting members of
society.
Chapter 5
Mill seeks to clarify his argument using specific examples. He begins by restating his two
main points. First, that a person is not accountable to society for his actions which only concern
himself and second, that if a person’s actions are harmful to the interests of others, that person
may be punished by society. Mill clarifies his second point by saying that sometimes a person
harms someone else when he pursues a legitimate object, such as a job, and wins out over that
person. This is ok, though, because mankind benefits from the competition. Mill then turns on
the subject of crime, and its prevention. How far is society justified in infringing on people’s
rights to prevent crime? Mill thinks this power is easily abused and must be checked, as in the
sale of poisons which should be permitted because poison is not only used for killing. Taking
down information about the buyer of poisons (in case it is later used for murder) is a way to
prevent crime without infringing on the buyer’s liberty. Because “liberty consists in doing what
one desires” it is permissible to grab a man walking over an unsafe bridge so that he does not
hurt himself. One may assume that he did not want to die. However, if he still wants to go over
the bridge after he’s been warned, he must be permitted because that is what he desires. Mill also
says that although drunkenness should not be legally prohibited, people who have been proven
violent when drunk may be prohibited from alcohol. He also very vaguely mentions “offenses
against decency” (exhibitionists?) which may be legally prevented. This would contradict Prof.
Morgan’s theory that in a Millian world we could all run around naked and smoke pot all the
time.
Next Mill gets into a complicated argument about people who counsel others to do bad
things. Is this still an independent act, only affecting the person? Mill concludes that everyone
has a right to give advice (however bad), but that the State may intervene when individuals seek
to promote and profit from behavior deemed bad or injurious to the State. For example, gambling
houses and pimps can be legally prosecuted, but not gamblers or prostitutes, because they are
promoting an evil for society whereas the others are just the victims. Mill seems to acknowledge
that this is a somewhat lame argument, a “moral anomaly,” but that the State needs to be able to
discourage institutions that profit from others’ vices. Mill then discusses society’s power to
discourage vices through excess taxation of “bad” goods, which he rejects as a step away from
banning the vices themselves, which would be an infringement on liberty.
Mill looks at mutual agreements among individuals, and discounts cases where one
individual would wish to sell himself into slavery. Because the point of liberty is to ensure
freedom, abdicating one’s freedom is not covered by the rules of liberty.
Mill asserts that sometimes people harm others while thinking it part of their “liberty”,
especially in family matters. Mill thinks that the State should require all children to be educated
and tested by an exam, and that people who can’t provide for children shouldn’t be allowed to
procreate. This why Prof Morgan calls Mill a “tricky character.” He says that there’s no “good
life,” but now he’s trying to create his own, liberal conception of the good life and convince us of
it.
Finally, Mill gives arguments against government intervention. First, Mill argues that the
government will not be as effective as individuals who are personally involved with the issue.
Secondly, when people are left to their own devices they develop mentally and exercise their
judgment. Thirdly, Mill objects against any unnecessary addition to the government’s power. He
offers decentralization as an antidote to an all-powerful bureaucracy that would stifle citizens’
liberty and individuality. Mill ends the chapter and book with the assertion that a government is
only as good as its citizens, and citizens who can grow and develop under their freedom will be
more useful and beneficial to the society.
Lecture on September 30 and October 5th (porn & free speech)
9/30 Mill (final lecture), Pornography
Miscellaneous
Pornography - Look at the CBS documentary on violent porno, flip around the links on the
websites
Free Speech - U.S. has robust defense of free speech compared to other countries... look at the
links and decide what arguments there are for both sides
In Berlin, our professor saw people skinny-dipping, smoking dope… and he thought what would
Mill think of that?
Well, Mill believes what you consent to you cannot be harmed (“volenti non fit injuria”) Thomas
Pooley wrote anti-Christian remarks (test for how closely we’re reading)
Important sentences:
1. The individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the
interests of no person but himself.
2. For such actions affecting the interests of others, the individual is accountable and may be
subjected to either social or legal punishment.
a. note that Mill separates social and legal
b. Mill rests his argument solely on utilitarian grounds, or specifically the utility of man
as a progressive being (how much we believe a theory often depends on how much
we agree with their view of what it means to be a progressive being)
a. Two ways to analyze: spot contradictions (boring way), or look for the heart
of the argument
1
What does it mean to be free?
o When someone can choose to follow our own conception of good (objective)
o (holy subject)? Ask about the other meaning
2
More on what Mill believes makes a progressive being
o Choice is crucial to Mill - he believes we learn through choosing (even though our
parents are better at choosing our spouses, he believes that we should do it
because it’s educative; Mill speaks highly of originality, eccentricity, those who
choose a different path, heretics
Conservatives believe it’s too idealistic to try to come up with your own
path, way to live from the ground up, and it’s good to follow tradition,
religions
What point is this?
o Good anecdote: Mill handed out birth control because he believed lower class
families needed to have less children
o Mill likes abrasion, stirring things up, arguing people off points
o Mill found those who rely solely on faith troubling
3
1
What is this? Utilitarianism? What’s #1?
o 2. Judge an act on its morality solely based on its consequences
o 3. When looking at consequences look solely at utility or happiness
2
Consequentialist morality - slap one guy’s face, but if it pulls everyone else in line, then it’s
worth it
3
No reason to silence someone... two arguments
o fallibility - Mill thinks we can never know the truth, so we should never believe
we have wholly grasped truth or we will never progress
o discursive exchange - even if they are wrong, we will benefit from arguing with
them, devil’s advocates are good, conformity bad
10/5 Legal Moralism, the other side to Mill
1 Example: Texas vs. Lawrence - Supreme Court struck down statute prohibiting homosexual
sex
o The fact that the governing majority in a state has traditionally viewed a practice
as immoral, is not justification for upholding a statute
o It’s ok to have a statute that prevents harm to others, but not just because it’s
immoral
2 Wolfendon Report in 1963: It’s not the duty of the law to concern itself with immorality as
such.
o Opened original debate on law and morality, while Texas v Lawrence reopened
it… what do people look to when they debate? Mill’s On Liberty.
3 Don’t forget, Mill is in support of restricting the power of the majority
(to pass statutes governing morality for example). Possible liberty-protecting constraints:
o No law can be passed that diminishes the happiness of the average citizen
o No law can be passed that constrains anyone’s rights
o No law can be passed unless it prevents harm to others
Key here though is what’s harm?
To be more objective, Mill points to harmed interests in so far as man is a
progressive being instead of feelings
o No law can be enacted unless it prevents one person from harming another’s
interest in acting as a progressive being
Read passage on being a progressive being, they treat their character as a
work of art
4 Debates:
o Should bum fights be banned? What about duels? Lap dancing? Violent
pornography? Child pornography? Or sex with/eating dead bodies? Good
Samaritan law?
5 Three arguments for legal moralism:
o True morality - There is such a thing as true objective morality (Mill’s argument
against is that we should constantly question ourselves, need devil’s advocate)
o Collective identity - All societies have a sense of themselves as a distinctive way
of life, plus a shared identity and tradition that ought to be expressed in law
(Mill’s argument is that these statutes would restrict, also that there’s no such
o
thing as a collective identity or that any individual’s rights trumps the collective
identity)
Social disintegration - A society that does not reflect its shared, collective
morality in its law will collapse; it’s necessary for social integration (Mill would
society is not that fragile)
Case #1 Pornography
See “pornography” on links on homepage
Pornography as Defamation and Discrimination, Catherine MacKinnon
Related issues:
1 Mill, Harm Principle
o Individualism, toleration
o Definition of “harm”
o Volenti maxim (that to which you consent, you cannot be harmed)
2 Legal moralism v. liberalism
o Greatest good of man (objective morality?)
o Constructive injury
o Power of state
Brief Summary:
2 The courts see pornography as defamation and place it under the protection of free speech.
MacKinnon argues that porn is not defamation but discrimination and should be
legislated as such.
Summary:
3 Defamation v. discrimination
o Defamation is an idea, discrimination is an act
o Some defamation is protected by First Amendment, discrimination is not
o Example: cross burning – even thought it’s pure expression, it’s not protected by
the first Amendment because it inflicts harm through its meaning as an act which
promotes racial inequality through its message and impact, engendering terror and
effectuating segregation
o Defamation applies to individuals, group defamation addresses harm to group
reputation, discrimination to group status and treatment
o Group defamation can actually be seen as a specific kind of discriminatory
practice, a verbal form inequality takes
4 Porn has characteristics of group defamation
o Porn harms women
Callously dehumanized, horribly brutalized, and sometimes killed
Verbal, visual, and physical atrocities are committed, demeaning an entire
group because of a condition of birth
o Porn makes the victimization of women socially acceptable
Women have always been victimized
Disenfranchised
Underpaid
Raped, battered, sexually harassed, sexually abused, forced into
motherhood and prostitution, depersonalized, denigrated and
objectified
Porn has central role in actualizing this system of subordination (the
following is mostly taken from evidence from a hearing held by the
Minneapolis City Council when a pornography ordinance supported by
MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin was introduced)
Conditions of its production
o Women are bound, battered, tortured, harassed, raped, and
sometimes killed
o The result is a consumer product, consumed by males
Effects on women
o Break self-esteem
o Train into sexual submission
o Intimidate out of jobs
o Blackmail
o Coerced into porn
o It is women who have the fewest choices who are in porn
most
Research shows
o Increases in the rate of reported rape and increases in the
consumption figures of an index of major men’s
entertainment magazines
o Exposure to violent porn increases men’s punishing
behavior towards women in the lab
5 Porn is better described as discrimination
o Porn is an act, not a form of speech
Porn is at once a concrete practice and an ideological statement
Concrete practices are discriminatory
Ideological statements are defamatory
Both porn and hate literature are hateful; both propagate invidious group
stereotypes; both promote and often instigate violence; both dehumanize.
But porn, because it is also an industry, because its dynamic is sexual, and
because the camera requires live fodder, not only springs from abuse and
lead to abuse; it is abuse
o Ex. Porn, like lynching, is the convergence of expression and a message (suppose
pictures of lynchings were sold just as porn is)
The issue here is not whether the acts of lynching are formally illegal or
not
The issue is that given the fact that someone must be lynched to make a
picture of a lynching, what is more important, the picture or the person? If
it takes a lynching to show a lynching, what is the social difference, really,
between seeing a lynching and seeing a picture of one?
6 Porn should thus be prosecuted under the constitutional guarantee of equality
o 14th Amendment
o
o
Dworkin and MacKinnon designed a law that recognized porn as a practice of sex
discrimination
Four practices are actionable
Coercion into porn
Forcing porn on a person
Assault due to specific porn
Trafficking in porn
Porn is not a prognostication or representation of second class citizenship
acted out elsewhere, but an integral dynamic in it, and hence a civil rights
violation
Example of where the courts went wrong: American Booksellers Association v.
Hudnut
Found that an ordinance against porn violated First Amendment
What the court missed is both that acts speak and that speech acts
“free speech” on links on homepage: articles under US, Crossburning, and
Holland
TOPIC: FREE SPEECH LINKS
US
NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)
-Illinois Supreme Court denies stay of injunction prohibiting petitioners from marching, walking,
or parading in the uniform of the National Socialist Party of America or displaying the swastika
or any other hatred-promoting symbol
- this is merely an expression of Free Speech
- protected by First Amendment
Cross Burning
Article in Philadelphia Inquirer 12/12/2002
- Clarence Thomas denounces cross-burning for its link to "100 years of lynchings in the South"
- Supreme Court considers whether cross-burning is a form of constitutionally safeguarded act of
free speech
- "It is unlike any symbol in our society. It was intended to cause fear and terrorize a population"
- Clarence Thomas
- In VA vs. Black, law strikes down cross-burning prohibition, citing it as unconstitutional
- it's a free form of expression, like flag-burning
- Scalia likens cross-burning to carrying a firearm because both are *threatening* acts
- in 1992, Supreme Court struck down Minnesota statute criminalizing the erection of symbols
which "arouse anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or
gender"
Article in Massachusetts News 12/17/2002
- Boston Globe slammed for berating Thomas' objection to VA law protecting cross-burning
Holland
Article in UK Guardian, 1/29/2003
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dutch MP, criticized by Dutch Muslim community for calling prophet
Mohammed a "perverse tyrant"
- MP for the VVD Liberal party in the Netherlands
- Somali-born immigrant
- claims Mohammed reminds her of "megalomaniac leaders in the Middle East" like Saddam and
Osama
- Amsterdam public prosecutor's office initiates official investigation into her outburst to
determine whether she's guilty of inciting "hatred against Muslims"
- "As a member of parliament and as someone involved in promoting integration she should not
be making these remarks" - Ali's critic Yassin Hartog, spokesman for Islam and Citizenship
- Ali claims to be "champion of Muslim women's rights" previously criticized for accusing
orthodox Muslim men of domestic violence against women, incest, and child abuse
- Ali accused of being blasphemous, has received death threats
MISSING ITEM #3: “Free speech” on links on homepage: articles under Germany, Saudi, and
Egypt
MISSING ITEM #4: Lecture October 7
Thucydides, “Pericles’ Funeral Oration”
This piece is about what distinguishes Athenians from their neighbors.
It addresses the sanctity of the public sphere and a respect for fellow
citizens, given both legally and through "unwritten laws." They are
"unconstrained in private business," but a "spirit of reverence
pervades our public acts."
"Equal justice to all" is conferred in private disputes, but the
ultimate act of merit lies in engaging in the public sphere.
It's an interesting conception of public and private that differs from
those established by Augustine, Mill et al.
Plato, Apology; Crito (See Links)
Apology
Socrates’ Defense
1 Socrates is in court and is being accused by two groups.
2 First class of accusers say, “Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches
into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause;
and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others." Why do they say this?:
o Socrates explains how he acquired such an evil name: His friend, Chaerephon,
went to Delphi and asked the oracle if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. She
said no, and Socrates, not believing this, wanted to discover how this could be.
Socrates went to a politician, who was reputed to be wiser than he. However,
upon talking to him, Socrates decided that the politician was not really wise and
told him so. He talked to the poets and artisans, discovering the same thing and
acquiring enemies along the way. He found that just because these people were
good at writing poetry, etc. did not mean they were wise, and because he knew
that he knew nothing, he was wiser and better off then them.
o
Socrates’ interpretation of the oracle: Because Socrates knows nothing and he is
the wisest man, other people know even less, and only God is wise.
o
Young men of society imitate Socrates and begin to question what people know.
When people who thought they know something learn that they know nothing,
they get angry with Socrates instead of trying to improve themselves.
3 Second class of accusers (led by Meletus) say, “Socrates is a doer of evil, and corrupter
of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, and has other new divinities
of his own.” Why do they say this?:
o
Meletus accuses Socrates of teaching people not to acknowledge the gods which
the state acknowledges and accuses him of being an atheist.
o
Socrates denies this and claims that he is being accused of it because he has many
enemies.
4 Socrates says that what he really does is “nothing but go about persuading you all, old
and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and
chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul.” He says that virtue is the
highest good.
5 Socrates says that he is a gift from God who has been given to the people to arouse their
thoughts, persuade them, and reproach them so that they can achieve greater virtue.
6 If he has such good advice, why doesn’t he advise the state directly through a political
office? Any politician who is really struggling for the right, Socrates says, will not live
very long because soon enough he will disagree with others and will need to follow the
course of action he believes to be virtuous even though the majority does not agree with
him.
7 Says that he will not beg the court to save his life because he has justice on his side and
that a court should judge based on facts and not make decisions according to its pleasure.
Socrates’ Proposal for his Sentence
1 First refuses to propose a penalty for himself because he is innocent
2 Says that he would agree to give all his money if he had any because money means
nothing to him. Finally he proposes a small token sum -30 minae
Socrates’ Comments on his Sentence
1 Says that the reason he is being put to death is that he did not come before the court
weeping and wailing. But he would rather die than behave in this manner and live. He
will suffer the penalty of death but his accusers will suffer the penalty of villainy and
wrong.
2 Prophesizes that after his sentence a greater punishment will afflict those who have
condemned him. When he is gone there will be other men who fill his shoes. He tells his
condemners that instead of killing those who criticize them, they should be improving
themselves.
3 Says that he does not mind dying because it is either a dreamless sleep or a journey to
another place
Crito
1 Crito goes to see Socrates in prison and urges him to escape. He is worried about losing
a friend. However, he says that the greater danger is that people will think that he could
have saved Socrates if he had been willing to give money but chose not to. Socrates
replies that good men will know that this is not true. Crito replies that the opinion of the
many is important, which can be seen from Socrates’ case. Socrates says that instead of
listening to the many, we should listen to those who have an understanding of what is just
and what is unjust. He says that a good life not life in general should be valued and a
good life is one that is honorable.
2 He argues that by escaping the prison he deserts the principles he had acknowledged to
be right. He says that a state in which decisions of the law have no power cannot subsist.
He believes that violence to one’s country is worse than violence to one’s parents.
Someone who lives in a state has signed an implied contract to do as the state commands.
Lecture on October 12 and Oct 14th (Aristotle)
Lecture October 12th: VERSION 1
[John Kerry on abortion: according to him, life begins at conception, but he thinks it wrong to
legislate on the basis of faith and morality].
J.S. Mill referred to his friend George Groat as a “Greek-intoxicated man” - to some extent, so
was Mill...
The Greeks:
10 present us with a different world that they wrote philosophical literature on
o enormously influential on Western civilization/intellectual history
11 rich literature of disagreement on organizing political communities (Plato, Aristotle,
Epicurus, etc.)
o this literature disappeared until the 12th/13th centuries and was rediscovered via
the Arab world
12 what is it to lead a happy/good life? (prevalent question in most political texts)
o Liberal Conception:
autonomous choice (via rational reflection)
individuality/eccentrism
choices must be structured around concept of individuality
Millian concept of “character as a work of art”
disagreement (value relativism and/or skepticism)
o For the Greeks (first three categories exaggerated in importance):
warrior ethic (cf. Sparta, young men living in barracks since teenage years,
mentorships with older men)
Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC)
the best life ended with a glorious death - Spartan mothers would
say: “come back with your shield or on it!”
Pericles (leader of the Athenians, expressed Athenian ideologies in
Thucydidean funeral oration)
bodily pleasure (no inhibitions there...)
Men, Martini and Mozart... (Wein, Weib und Gesang)
highest form of good: philosophical knowledge (this is particularly
characteristic of the Platonic ideal in which the highest form of love, for
example, was contemplative and not physical, cf. Plato’s Phaedrus and
Symposium)
Socrates attacked the warrior ethic (cf. his refusal to vote to
execute group of generals during Peloponnesian war)
Socrates also disliked the bodily pleasure idea (excess is
discouraged in Platonic philosophy) and excessive value of money
important to remember that Socrates/Plato represent a minority
view
CITIZENSHIP!!! (in Athens in particular, public activity superseded the
private - Athenian citizens were full-time statesmen)
max number 10,000 Athenian citizens out of 100,000
citizenship - part of ruling/being ruled (Aristotle)
13 Socrates:
o Homeric Age of Heroes: 1300-900 BC (Trojan War around 1200)
o Socrates: b. 469 d. 399
o Plato: b. 428 d. 347
o Aristotle b. 384 d.322
14 404 BC: Athens garrisoned by Sparta after loss of Peloponnesian War, 30 tyrants set up
by Spartan government in Athens until 403 (Socrates may have been one of them!)
15 403 BC: a fragile ‘democracy’ returns under the sons of people involved with the 30
tyrants
o hence, Socrates seemed to be such a threat to the fragile order, in the minds of
these people???
16 399 BC: Socrates self-defense (Apology) actually written by Plato, his student (Socrates
never actually wrote anything - we only know about his dicta from Plato, in whose
dialogues he is a frequent participant; Socrates is in many aspects a Platonic creation, but
the Apology is believed to be the most authentic of his speeches)
o Socrates was tried for:
corrupting the youth and preaching Sophism (practice of making weaker
argument the stronger - cf. Aristophanes mordant satire of Socrates and
the Sophists in the Clouds) although Socrates did not associate with the
Sophists and never accepted money for his teachings
refusing to worship state gods
o Socrates accused by : Meletos, Anythos, Lycan
17 Was Socrates justly condemned?
18 Is his argument in the Apology consistent to what he says in Crito about submitting to the
Athenian authorities?
19 Mill liked Socrates for his opposition of public opinion, and believed that the Athenians
destroyed their greatest citizen...
Lecture October 12th: VERSION 2
This accompanies the handout from class:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~mr50/Handouts/Greeks%20Handout.pdf
We study the Greeks for two reasons:
1) The Greeks, with their rich literature an history, provide us with a window into a
different world.
2) This world has been enormously influential in the development of Western society.
The Greeks provide us four classical conceptions of “the good life,” as a life devoted to:
1) the warrior-ethic (remember Perecles’ funeral oration)
2) knowledge, philosophy
3) citizenship
4) bodily pleasures (Wine, Women and Song; Men, Martini, and Mozart)
Just for contrast, some modern conceptions (not mutually exclusive) of the good life are:
1 suburban pleasures
2 the vocational life
3 the spiritual/religious life
The liberal conception of the good life as:
4 a life autonomously chosen.
5 a life toward the end of individuality (i.e. viewing your own character as a work of
art).
6 a life where disagreement is valued.
Some Greek History:
Homer’s Greece: 1300-900 B.C.
The Peloponesian war, which Athens loses: 431-404 B.C.
Athens is ruled by Spartan rulers briefly: 403 B.C.
Athenian democracy returns: 403 B.C.
Socrates is put to the death: 399 (Note that democracy was not a stable institution then)
Plato: 428-347
Aristotle: 384-322
Think about whether there is any contradiction between Crito and the Apology.
Other notes from the lecture:
The charges against Socrates, put forth by Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, were:
7 Impiety
8 Corruption of youth
In Crito, Socrates offers us two ways of thinking about death. Note that neither is bad.
1) a dreamless sleep
2) migration of the soul
A final thought, and Plato’s final thought in the Apology: “The hour of departure has arrived,
and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.”
Lecture: October 12: “Augustine part 2?”
This accompanies the handout from class:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~mr50/Handouts/Augustine.pdf
Reminder that there are four ways to think about the public and private:
1) Regulatory measures (legal, custom, etc.)
2) Exemplary measures (“the good life”)
3) Public vs. Private Goods: schools, airports, etc.
4) Privacy as a right
There are six major political teachings of Christianity:
1) Love thy neighbor as thyself.
2) Universalism.
3) Romans 13: “The powers that be are ordained by God”
4) Challenge or modification to (3): Matthew 22: 21: “Render therefore unto Caesar the
things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
5) Dualism: City of men (fallen, sinful) vs. City of God (for those who practice (1) and
have faith in God, and are granted God’s grace). The dualistic idea was inherited
from Plato.
6) Emphasis on the sin of lust. “The flesh, the body, they are tainted with sin.”
Augustine of Hippo (in present day Algeria): Some brief background:
1 Lived 354-430 A.D.
2 Had a Christian mother, Monica, who he loved dearly. His non-Christian father
would beat his mother.
3 He was attracted to Manichaen teachings of radical dualism and the battle between
good and evil.
4 Also strongly attracted to Christian teachings in younger years, although he did not
become Christian until his thirties.
5 He was in love with a concubine during his younger years, and this brought him a lot
of angst because of the conflict between his lust, and his desire to be Christian (he
wrote: “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet!”)
6 Wrote Confessions and City of God.
7 City of God was written just shortly after the sack of Rome in 410, to defend
Christianity to the Romans, who were blaming the religion for their troubles.
Augustine and value monism:
The Romans were offended by Christian doctrine in part because they considered it
intolerant. The Romans were polytheists, and Christians rejected all but one god. The romans’
problem with this was more than simply having to convert. They thought that the whole (value
monist) claim that one idea was right and all others were wrong was intolerant. In this respect,
Christianity and Millian liberalism are the same. The alternative view is known as value
pluralism.
Augustine and political theory:
Although he does not look much like a political thinker, Augustine was a realist. He saw
politics as a world of conflict and disagreement, which can never be remedied due to man’s
sinful nature.
Augustine and the centrality of justice:
This was also a very big theme. Rome is flawed, he said, because of its lack of justice.
He gave the example of the Pirate and the Emperor (City of God IV, 4) where the only difference
between the two was position. Augustine also disapproved of Roman excesses such as
prostitution, and big banquates.
Augustine and the exemplary life:
Before we had Mill, with individuality, Socrates, with philosophy, Aristotle, with civic
activity. Add to that Augustine, with a life devoted to Christ.
Lecture 10/14: Version 1
1. Aristotle is different from Mill: believes in legal/state perfectionism
- believes that it is the duty of the State to form the character of its citizens, to fashion
them into good or excellent people
2. Aristotle discusses the following questions (*only books mentioned in lecture are included):
Books 1&2 deal with issues of shame in the ancient world:
1. What should we legally prohibit?
2. What do we designate via norms and conventions?
Book 4. policy dimension: addresses the issue of the government position vs. self
provision: should the government be responsible for providing health care, education etc.
Book 8. What constitutes the highest good?
-citizenship?
-knowledge? - “the unexamined life is not worth living”
3. Aristotle is a biologist, which influences the way he structures his arguments
-uses functionalism
-thinks of politics as “metaphysical biology”
A. For Aristotle everything in the Universe has a distinctive purpose/function, and he
categorizes everything with respect to how it fulfills that function.
(e.g. the purpose of a knife is to cut, thus you can distinguish between good knife
and bad knife)
B. This way of thinking is more controversial when applied to humans and societies.
what is the function of humans beings and states?
-reproduction? - no, because that does not set us apart from animals, it’s
not a specie-specific function.
-to lead a full life? no:
C. Speech is the function of humans, which separates it from all other species.
-has to be a particular type of speech, which distinguishes between just and unjust.
-the goal of a community/State is to best secure that function
4. In a broader sense all Western societies today are liberal, in that they recognize that people are
moral and natural equals.
-Aristotle did not think that to be the case when analyzing the status of slaves.
-differentiates between physis (nature) and nomos (convention)
-“we have slaves. Are they slaves by nature or convention?” Decides that slaves
are naturally slaves.
-all that humans do has to be natural
5. Aristotle makes no distinction between morality and politics
-they have the same task: the formation of excellent citizens.
-is the charge of the State to make citizens good and obey the law.
-according to Aristotle, laws are educative.
Aristotle, Politics, Book 1 &3
Aristotle Politics Book 1
Aristotle believed that governments differed in kind and not just by the number of
subjects there are in each. He defined one who can "foresee by the exercise of mind" is by
nature a master, while someone who uses their body to make what the "master or lord" foresees
come true is by nature a subject and slave. The family is created by nature for the supply of
man's everyday needs. And when several families come together with a greater aim than to
supply daily needs than it becomes a village. A state is created when several villages come
together to form a self-sufficing community. A state exists for the sake of the "good life."
Therefore a state is "natural" and man by nature is a political animal. Those who are without a
state are bad people.
A man is the greatest political animal more so than bees or other animals because they
were gifted with the ability of speech. This power of speech is intended to decide what is good
and what is evil. The state by nature comes before the family or the individual because the
whole is always more important than a part. If the body of a human was destroyed then the hand
and foot would be of no use, therefore the state must come before individual needs. Man if
perfected is the best of animals but when separated from law it is the worse because it is the most
dangerous.
In a household there are three different kind of relationships. The marriage relation
between man and wife, the procreative relation between parent and child, and the relationship
between man and servant.
A servant is a kind of instrument, because a slave is by definition a man who is by nature
not his own man, therefore he is a possession and an instrument of action. "For that some should
rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth,
some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." In the perfect state the soul rules over the
body. But he who can understand but not have rational thoughts are by nature slaves. Slaves are
made strong for servile work while freemen are made upright and useful for political life. But
there are two types of slavery. A slave by nature and a slave by law. A slave by law occurs
when their nation is captured and as spoils of war, the captives become slaves. There are also
two types of nobility, the absolute and the relative. The nobility is noble everywhere, not only in
their own country, but the barbarians are noble only at home-this is relative compared to the
nobility of the absolute. Therefore because master and slave have the same objective when this
relationship is natural they are friends with a common interest, but when this relationship is by
law then it is forced and the reverse is true.
Each person has their own science. The science of the slave is the knowledge of carrying
out menial tasks like cooking. While the science of the master is the knowledge of how to use
slaves.
The amount of property needed for the good life is limited. There are two uses for
everything we possess. One use is the use it was made for, like a knife to cut, while the second
as a bartery object. The second use is not natural. The art of exchange arises from the
circumstance that some have too little and some have too much. Therefore retail trade is not a
natural part of the art of getting wealth, because if it had been so, men would stop trading when
they had enough. Preliminary bartering with the exchange of essential items is not contrary to
what is natural because it satisfies man's natural wants. But with the discovery of money retail
trade came into use. This is unnatural.
So, is wealth getting a part of the management of a household? Yes and no. Natural
wealth getting is but retail trade is not. People tend to keep on wanting to gain wealth because it
seems bodily pleasures depends on property, therefore there are some people who uses every
quality they possess like courage in the art of getting more wealth. This is unnatural. While the
natural part of managing a household with the art of wealth getting is to provide food, therefore
there should be a limit to wealth getting. Because retail trade is usury gain our of money and not
the natural object of it is very unnatural . And the term interest, or the birth of money from
money, is the most unnatural.
The duty of the manager of the household is to order the things that nature supplies. The
useful parts of wealth-getting is the knowledge of livestock and husbandry or exchange and
commerce, such as the provision of a ship, conveyance of goods, and exposure for sale. Then
comes the cutting of timber and mining, then usury, and finally service for hire. The worst
occupations are ones where the body is most deteriorated and when there is the least need for
excellence.
A philosopher is capable of gaining wealth as well. The story of Thales who is a
philosopher but was also very poor and was laughed at by others, but he knew that a good
harvest was coming in so by using the art of monopoly he became very rich.
Males are by nature fitter for command than women. Rule of father over his children is
royal because it is ruled by love. A king is the natural superior of his subjects but he should be
of the same kin or kind as them, just like father to son. He questions whether women, children,
and slaves have virtues. He concludes that all have should just that they are present in different
degrees. Slaves have no deliberative faculty while women have faculty but without authority,
and children has immature faculties. Virtue consists of the mode to speak. Therefore, "silence is
a woman's glory." Slaves only have the virtue that will prevent him from failing in duty through
cowardice and lack of self-control. Therefore because women and children are part of the whole
of the state, they must be trained by education with "an eye to the constitution."
Book III
A state is composed of citizens. Definition of a citizen is "He who has the power to take
part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that
state." The other definition, that of whether one's parents were citizens, doesn't work because
first inhabitant's parents could not have been citizens. A good man doesn't necessary be the same
as a good citizen, because in the state a good citizen is one who does his part of the whole well.
A good citizen should know how to govern others as well as obey others- this is a virtue of a
citizen. Therefore the virtue of a good man and a good citizen are different but sometimes
overlaps.
When there are too many citizens then the first to go are the children of male o r female
slaves, then those whose mothers only are citizens and then those whose fathers and mothers are
both citizens. There are some states where the good man is also the good citizen in these states
not every citizen who is a good man, but only the "statesman and those who have or may have,
alone or in conjunction with others, the conduct of public affairs."
What is the purpose of the state and how many different kinds of governments are there?
Men have a desire to live together and for the sake of mere life do mankind meet together and
maintain the political community.
In the perfectly equal state, citizens think they should hold office in turns. But today
when the sake of advantage is gained through public revenues from office, men want to be
always in office. Therefore governments who regard the common interest is the principles of
justice are true forms while those where the interest of the rulers is the only regard are defective
and perverted forms of government because they are despotic whereas a natural state should be a
community of freemen. Of the perverted governments we see tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.
For tyranny is a kind of monarchy where the interest of the monarch only is considered, the
oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy, and democracy has the interest of the poor in
mind; none of these have the common good of all in mind. Whenever men rule by reason of
wealth this is oligarchy because there will always be fewer wealthy people then poor people,
while when it is rules by the poor it will be democracy cause there will always be more poor
people.
"The state exists for the sake of "a good life" and not for the sake of life only" the state is
a community of families and aggregations of families in well-being, for the sake of a perfect and
self-sufficing life. It would seem like it would make sense that the best man rules. But no, it
would still be more oligarchical, for the number who are dishonored are even more. For when
many ordinary people are put together they are more likely to be better than the few good. But
what of those who have no riches and have no personal merit? There is a danger to not let them
share in the state because when too many poor people are excluded from office there will be
many enemies. The only way to escape this is to give them "deliberative and judicial functions."
The election of magistrates and the calling of them to account should not be entrusted to the
many. Laws must be adapted to the constitution. "True forms of government will of necessity
have just laws, and perverted forms of government will have unjust laws. Because of rivalry for
office is based on the possession of elements which are part of state, wealth becomes an
important factor. And therefore the noble or rich may with good reason claim office, because
they have the ability to contribute more financially. they have a greater share of land and land is
the common element of the state therefore they have a greater claim. Plus they are more
trustworthy in contracts. "For the noble are citizens in a truer sense than the ignoble."
If however there is one person whose virtue is so pre-eminent so that nobody is anywhere
near comparison, he can no longer be regarded as part of the state and should be ostracized.
There are no laws to govern them they are themselves a law.
There are four types of royalty. The first is the monarchy in the heroic ages where they
ruled over voluntary subjects but this was limited to certain functions. The kind was a general
and a judge and had control of religion. the second was the of the barbarians where it was
hereditary despotic in accordance with law. the third is the power of the dictator or the elective
tyranny. the fourth is that of the generalship which is hereditary and perpetual. The fifth is like
that of the household.
The king must have such power that is greater than any individual but not as great as that
of the people. There are three true forms of government. The best must be administered by the
best in which is one man, or a while family, or many persons excelling all others in virtue. And
rulers are fit to fule and others to be ruled.
Aristotle, Politics, Books 7 & 8
Book Seven
I.
Chapter One
1
2
3
4
5
Aristotle begins saying that in order to determine the best form of government,
one has to first determine the best form of life (develop a definition of “the good
life”)
There are 3 different kinds of goods that are necessary to man: external goods
(wealth), goods of the body (health), and goods of the soul (wisdom, virtue). Men
tend to differ about the degree or relative superiority of each good.
Virtue and wisdom are required for an individual or a state to do right.
Aristotle says the goods of the soul are the most important because they are ends
in themselves, while the other two are merely a means to this end.
The best life, both for individuals and states, is the life of virtue.
II.
Chapter Two
This chapter poses the question of whether the happiness of the individual is the
same or different than the happiness of the state.
Aristotle faces another quandary when he tries to define the ideal civic life. Is it
that of a statesman or that of a philosopher
III.
Chapter Three
Arguments that the life of the statesman is best:
i. “He who does nothing cannot do well.”
ii.
Virtuous activity is identical with happiness.
iii.
Governing in a city of freeborn men is a high-minded activity, and
an active life of politics is preferable to an inactive life.
1 Arguments for the life of a philosopher:
i.
Governing others full-time is not fulfilling, and a life of philosophical
contemplation is far from inactive.
ii.
One’s thoughts are the authors of one’s deeds, so thought is intimately
linked with action.
2 Aristotle ultimately concludes that political life is merely a means to the end of
philosophical speculation because it helps to maintain the conditions that make
the speculative life possible.
IV.
Chapter Four
1 Concerns the population of a state.
Need to consider the number and character of the citizens.
A great city should not be confounded with a populous one; all cities which have
a reputation for good government have a limit of population.
i. The limit is easily ascertained by experience.
V.
Chapter Five
The territory should be self-sufficient - to have all things and want nothing.
The location of the state should be difficult for the enemy to access, but also allow
for the easy egress of the inhabitants.
i. The land should also be able to be taken in at a single view; a country that
is easily seen can be easily protected.
The city should be well situated in regard to both the sea and the land.
i. Makes it easier to protect.
ii.
Ports allow for more trade.
VI.
Chapter Six
There is some controversy over the benefits of being close to the sea. Some say
that it allows for the introduction of strangers (merchants, sailors, etc)
Aristotle maintains that the pros outweigh the cons.
i. The coastal location increases safety and ensures the abundance of
necessities.
In war, the army/navy can easily be relieved from land or sea.
The possession of a moderate naval force is advantageous to a city.
VII.
Chapter Seven
1 Aristotle displays his Greek arrogance when he describes the characters of foreign
people.
o Those who live in a cold climate or Europe are full of spirit but lack
intelligence.
o The natives of Asia are the opposite: intelligent and skillful, but in want
of spirit.
o He claims the Hellenic race is intermediate in character, therefore making
it the best-governed of any nation. He even goes so far as to make the
claim that if the city-states could band together as one, they’d be able to
rule the world.
2
VIII.
Chapter Eight
Aristotle says that a state is a community of equals aiming at the best life possible,
where happiness is the highest good, being a realization and perfect practice of
virtue.
Aristotle draws a distinction between the necessary parts to the city (such as
slaves) and the important parts of the city.
Next, he gives a list of the integral parts of the state.
i. There must be food.
ii.
There must be arts.
iii.
There must be arms.
iv.
There must be a certain amount of revenue.
v.
There must be a care of religion, also known as worship.
vi.
There must be a power of deciding what is for the public interest
and what is just (judicial system).
IX.
Chapter Nine
1 Next, he discusses which occupations shall go to which people/
2 Citizens must not be mechanics or tradesmen because it is not noble. They also
shouldn’t be husbandmen because they need leisure to develop virtue.
3
So Aristotle basically decides that the young men (who are citizens) will be the
warriors and protect the state. When they reach their prime age they should
become statesmen. The oldest men eventually become the priests.
X.
Chapter Ten
Aristotle says that the land should belong only to citizens. He is against the idea
of common land and says that people can share if the owner consents to it.
The expense of religious worship should be a public charge. To cover this, it is
necessary to divide the land into 2 parts, which each will be subdivided.
i. The public land.
Some is appropriated to the service of the gods.
The rest is used to defray the cost of common meals
ii.
The private land
Part is near the border, part is near the city.
Each citizen will have a lot in each place so to make things fair.
Aristotle also makes a comment about slaves at the end of this chapter. He says
that husbandmen should be slaves taken from among men who are not all of the
same race and not spirited.
XI.
Chapter Eleven
The city’s situation should be fortunate in 4 things:
i. Health - cities which lie towards the east tend to be the healthiest.
ii.
Site of the city should be convenient for political administration
and for war.
iii.
There should be a natural abundance of springs and fountains.
iv.
The whole town should not be arranged in straight lines, only
certain quarters and regions should be. These regions should be placed
irregularly in clumps to make it hard for the enemy to navigate the city.
Next he makes a case for city walls. He says the strongest wall will be the truest
soldierly precaution. He also says that the city should take care to make the walls
ornamental.
XII.
Chapter Twelve
The walls should be divided by guardhouses and towers are suitable intervals.
The places of worship should be built in spots that can be seen far and wide and
give due elevation to virtue.
Below such a spot, there should be established an agora. Only citizens are
allowed to enter - no tradesmen or husbandmen or any such person.
There should also be a traders’ agora, distinct and separate from the
aforementioned agora.
XIII.
Chapter Thirteen
There are two things in which all well-being consists:
i. The choice of a right end and aim of action.
ii.
The discovery of the actions where are means towards it.
Basically, next he says that if the citizens build strong characters, many laws
would be unnecessary.
Virtue and goodness in the state are not a matter of chance by the result of
knowledge and purpose.
There are 3 things which make men good and virtuous:
i. Nature
ii.
Habit
iii.
Rational principle
XIV. Chapter Fourteen
All the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed.
A person must first be a subject and then be a ruler.
i. He who would command must first learn to obey.
The soul of man is divided into 2 parts:
i. One part has a rational principle in itself. Aka Reason
This can also be divided into 2 parts: a practical and a speculative
principle.
a. The practical part is important, but the speculative principle
is the ultimate end in itself.
ii.
The other part lacks a rational principle, but it able to obey such a
principle. Aka feelings, passions, etc.
The military should only be used for means of security.
He then points out some problems with military states, saying they do not know
how to live in times of peaces and often fall when they have acquired their
empires.
He doesn’t want the state to be too greedy - only obtain empire for the good over
the governed and only seek to be masters over those who deserve to be slaves.
XV.
Chapter Fifteen
Important virtues:
i. Courage and endurance are important for business.
ii.
Philosophy is important for leisure.
iii.
Temperance and justice are important for both.
Next he basically says that as leisure becomes more important, the need for justice,
philosophy, and temperance increases.
XVI. Chapter Sixteen
In this chapter he discusses marriage and the regulations that should be placed
upon it by the state.
He says that women should marry at age 18 and men at age 37.
i. This way the men are in the prime of their lives and will be reaching the
end of their life expectancies when their sons reach the same age.
People generally limit marriage to winter and north winds are more favorable than
southerly winds.
Next he says that the life of an athlete is not suitable for a citizen; it puts too much
stress on the body.
Women who are with child should be careful of themselves, exercising their
bodies and keeping their minds quiet.
In accordance with the concept of a population limit, Aristotle supposts the use of
abortion to regulate population size. He also makes the bold statement that no
deformed child shall be allowed to live.
He also says that men should stop having children when they reach the age of
fifty.
Adultery is to be held as disgraceful and the punishment in proportion to the
offense.
XVII. Chapter Seventeen
Next he talks about the treatment of children.
Concerning the earliest stage of their lives:
i. Food which has the most milk in it is best and the less wine the better.
ii.
It is a good idea to accustom children to the cold.
The next period lasts until the child reaches the age of 5.
i. No demand of study or labor should be made.
ii.
Let kids scream and cry because it strengthens them.
iii.
Keep them away from indecent speech and vulgar stories.
Important to control what they are exposed to because people tend to always like
best whatever comes first.
BOOK EIGHT
I.
Chapter One
a. Neglect of education does harm to the constitution.
b. Education should be public.
II.
Chapter Two
c. Children should only be taught such kinds of knowledge that will be useful to
them without vulgarizing them.
III.
Chapter Three
d. There are 4 customary branches of education:
i. Reading and writing
1. useful for money-making, household management, acquisition of
knowledge
ii.
Gymnastic exercises
1. gives health and strength
iii.
Music
1. used for intellectual enjoyment of leisure.
iv.
Drawing
1. useful for a more correct judgment of works of artists
e. He wavers over the importance of learning music but there’s much more details
about that in the following chapters.
IV.
Chapter Four
f. Men ought not to labor at the same time with their minds and with their bodies.
V.
Chapter Five
g. In this chapter he really overanalyzes the role of music in children’s education.
He gives 3 arguments for the teaching of music:
i. Amusement and relaxation in times of leisure
1. it’s ok if its just innocent pleasure
ii.
Improvement of the moral character
1. melodies contain an imitation of character.
iii.
Cultivation of the mind
1. gives student a deeper appreciation for music and deeper
understanding
VI.
Chapter Six
h. Children should be taught music in a way to become not only critics but
performers.
i. Students of music must stop short of the arts which are practiced in professional
contests.
j. They shouldn’t play the flute or the instruments like the harp because they are
professional instruments.
VII.
Chapter Seven
k. There are 3 different types of melodies:
i. Ethical melodies
1. used most often in education
ii.
Melodies of action
1. really only to be listened to in performances, the same goes for
passionate melodies.
iii.
Passionate or inspiring melodies
1. used for purgation - puts people into a religious frenzy
iv.
All men agree that Dorian music is the gravest and manliest,
therefore the youth should be taught it.
Lecture on October 19 and Oct 21st (Mill overview & Augustine)
Oct 19 lecture: Version 1
1. What is religion?
1 universal feature of human society
2 ideal spiritual world vested with values, etc. above material world
3 several conceptions of ideal spiritual world
2. Why religion?
3 Max Weber proposed an answer: people have psychological difficulty in dealing with the
gap between reality and merit (i.e. the questions “Why do bad things happen to good
people and why do good things happen to bad people?)
4 religion provides ‘theodicy’ or story that resolves the gap
5 Theodicy differs with religion.
6 Three religions provide particularly convincing thedicies:
o Zoroastrism or Zoroastrianism (religion founded in Persia in the 6th Century BC)
universe a constant struggle between forces of light and forces of darkness ,
whatever happens is the result of the struggle
o Buddhism the material world is not the only world, we will be reborn.
Whatever we do in the material world will be reflected in our rebirths.
o Christianity the ideal world has Heaven and Hell. Good people are reborn in
Heaven while bad people will confined to Hell.
3. Augustine (4th Century AD)
7 Tried to persuade the Romans to Christianity
8 Wrote City of God at the time when the Roman Empire was sacked by barbarians and the
Romans blamed this on the adoption of Christianity as the national religion of their
empire. Augustine tried to defend Christianity
4. Why should we study Augustine?
9 The world we live in is shaped by Christianity. To understand society today we must
trace back to the origin to understand the Christian background of society.
5. Nature of the Good Life … different variations
10 Modern suburban pleasures, vocational success, religious/spiritual life (for some)
11 JS Mill individuality, originality, living life as a piece of artwork
12 Greeks public life, citizenship (being ruled by others and ruling others)
6. Christianity and Biblical text
13 Bible written when Christians were a persecuted minority so Bible full of what you
should do for the majority.
14 Interesting text from the Bible on handout
o Romans 13:1 - 13-14:
Quietistic: “powers that be are ordained by God” sends message not to
rebel against non-Christian rulers.
Controversial aspect: church used this to suppress rebellion against Adolf
Hitler during WW II.
o Matthew 22:17:
Less quietistic: “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto
God what is God’s” means give to earthly ruler what he deserves and give
to God what He deserves. BUT God is more important than earthly ruler
so your duty to God is more important than your duty to the earthly ruler.
If there is a conflict, your duty to God comes first.
15 Christian scale of values different from Jews and Romans
o
Romans 13:1 - 13-14.
Doctrine of love (love thy neighbor as thyself) suggest that love is equal
BUT this conflict with the idea that some people are born inferior
16 Early Christians thought that God was about to appear for salvation
17 Christians had deep-seated antagonism to the flesh which is different from the Roman
world where “lust and lasciviousness” are not seen as evils.
7. History of Christianity
18 began as small sect in Roman Empire that are persecuted
19 Emperor Nero (664 AD upwards) persecution of Christians for two and a half centuries
20 219 AD: Christianity became the official religion of Rome
o 312 AD: conversion of Constantine to Christianity
21 Christianity had most powerful theodicy:
o Appealed to slaves and misfortunate people
o Appealed to the successful (those who do well think they deserve what they had
as reward of God)
22 16th - 17th Centuries: disruption of Europe from religious wars between the different sects
of Christianity.
23 17th Century: enlightenment (intellectual movement generally antagonistic to Christianity
e.g. JS Mill. Think Christianity as an evil creed)
24 Mill seemed to think he can put his doctrine of man as progressive beings in place of
Christianity
25 19th Century: Christianity seen as obstacle to progressive society and as education spread
Christianity would have disappeared.
26 Most liberals today think Mill is unduly hostile to tradition, ethnicity and religion
8. Classical and Christian Concepts of the Good of the Public Realm
27 Greeks think politics is more important than rituals
o Aristotle life in well-ordered polis is the Good Life. Highest good is citizenship.
o Christians notion of duality world (City of Man and City of God). City of Man
is flawed and second best to City of God.
o Classical human beings are not equal
o Christians human beings are natural equals
28 American Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
All liberals tread on the success of Christianity.
Oct 19 Version 2
Religion: Universal feature of humanity. Material world alongside an ideal
spiritual world.
*
Why is this dual conception common?
*
Max Weber: "the psychological diffculty humans have with the gap
between destiny and merit"
*
Need a theodicy that spans this gap: Why do good people die early and
bad people live?
*
Different religions have different theodicys. Weber said 3 successful
religions have good ones:
*
Zoroastrians - Star wars: battle between good and evil that we can't
see.
*
Indian Religions - This material world is not only one: we will be
reborn and this life determines next life.
*
Christianity - ideal world with heaven and hell
*
Christianity has convincing Theodicy
*
Augustines "city of God" is an effort to persuade Romans of benefits of
Christianity after sack of Rome because Romans are persecuting them
*
Why Augustine and Christianity? Deals with two issues:
*
Christianity and the good life: Spiritual and religious good life.
Different view of good than Greeks and Mill
*
Christianity and limits of the law
*
Should you permit heresy?
*
Christianity is the basic factor in our laws today. Can't divest law
today from it.
*
Keep in mind that when Christian texts were written they were in the
minority and so they deal with issues of minority rights as compared to
majority.
*
Romans 13 says that powers that be are ordained by God. Don't rebel,
Christians use this text not to rebel against Hitler in holocaust though.
*
Matthew 22: When push comes to shove, obey God and not Caesar. Also
says that political law and holy law is different.
*
Christian scale of values
*
Breaks with Romans and Greeks because of "Love your neighbor as
yourself". Romans and Greeks had slaves but Christians are all equal.
*
Millianarian belief that God is around the corner
*
Deep-seated antagonism to the sins of the flesh. "Lust and
assiduousness"
*
Early history
*
Rapidity of growth from small sect to Majority (50 - 100 Ad to 390 Ad)
Christians persecuted by Romans in 64 AD - 390 AD. But asumed as official
religion in 64 AD.
*
Key event is conversion of Constantine in 312 AD
*
Max Weber thinks their theodicy is most powerful
*
Nietzche says it's a "slave religion" for people who couldn't handle
slings and arrows of fortune.
*
Weber says Christianity is popular with slaves and such but so is it
with the wealthy and privileged (like emperor Constantine). They like to think
they've deserved their wealth and done good to get rich and happy.
*
16th and 17th Centuries: Massive religious wars and so intellectuals
think that Christianity wont work in a stable system. 18th Century
enlightenment and Mills quote on handout. Mill thinks his doctrine of liberty
can replace christianity; but this doesn't pan out. Enlightenments thougt that
as society progresses, they wouldn't need christianity to align them or on which
to construct society. Also thought that christianity would erode itself because
of its contradiction.
*
Comparison between classical and christian conceptions of the good and
the public real.
*
Greeks think politics is more important that Christians
*
Highest good is Polis citizen
*
Christian city of Man is less than city of God. Their good life is
beyond material and fallen world.
*
Greeks and romans don't think men are natural and equal (Christians
do). Mill even assumes that all are equal. This idea is from Christianity.
Oct 21 Version 1
1. Basic features of Mill:
29 objective conception of happiness:
o Harm Principle (HP) won’t work if happiness ideals vary with individuals
o Prof. Morgan doesn’t buy this argument of objective happiness. He doesn’t buy
Mill’s argument that some societies are more backwards than others or that some
religions are inferior to others.
30 Mill supports universalism but he imbeds it in the “progressive development of society”
so he doesn’t think that all societies value freedom that he does and concedes that there
are societies that do not value freedom. He calls these societies “backward” or “barbaric”
societies.
2. Levels of arguments for freedom (the three ways Mill thinks of freedom)
31 Freedom as wholly subjective measure is freedom up to you?
32 Freedom as autonomous choice freedom must be chosen and there must be diverse
range of options so if you are inculcated with a particular tradition you tend to choose
that one so you’re not free.
**Note: Mill thinks that freedom is educative, but freedom comes once economic
prosperity is guaranteed.
33 Freedom as achievement of a progressive being stresses making choices that will form
certain character (important feature of individualism)
3. What is wrong with legal-moralism?
34 Legal Moralism is the use of criminal law to protect or enhance public morals
35 Pro:
o Prevent absolute evils (assume there are such things as absolute evils)
o Essential to maintain social cohesion. Liberals that stress individualism threaten
social order.
36 Under the Harm Principle, there are certain things you want to criminalize BUT you want
to limit what things we want to criminalize cos punishment has costs. (Some anti-US say
US is not free cos the high incarceration rate)
37 To criminalize something means we, as a society, are prepared to lock some people up
and take away their freedom.
38 Liberals prepared to put up with certain nasty behaviors in order to preserve freedom.
4. What counts as harm?
39 Mill lied. HP not “one simple principle”
40 Mill wants to use HP to draw boundary between the limits of
o Criminal law how far criminal law can reach
o How far societal sanctions can reach
41 Distinctions:
o Self regarding vs. other regarding actions
Law shouldn’t concern self-regarding actions
Criminalizing something only when activity affects us. Problem is this is
too broad. Mill tries to define this by giving examples e.g. gambling,
drunkenness, etc.
o Actions that affect others and actions that affect the interests of others
Only works when there’s objective account of human well-being,
otherwise HP won’t work.
42 Mill worried about new society that may restrict freedom more than the old one.
43 Mill wants “interests of man as a progressive being” to be the new standard.
5. HP and Mill’s Consequentialism (Chpt 5)
44 Difference between fundamental moral/ human/ natural rights and legal rights
o Mill doesn’t think there are fundamental rights. He relies only on utility.
Consequences decide whether the act is right or wrong [consequentialist]
(For Mill, consequences = measured in terms of happiness)
Appeal to utility or happiness
45 Mill agrees with Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living.
46 Happiness is an objective standard happiness of man who is an educated, progressive
being.
6. Criminalizing Violent Pornography. Before violent pornography can be criminalized based
on the HP, these questions must be answered.
47 Who is harmed? The participants? Comsumers? Women? Society?
48 What standard of causality is needed to ban violent pornography?
49 Volenti maxim what to do if people are willing?
50 Expressive harms
Oct 21: Version 2
Mill: A Recap and PAper Guide:
- Happiness should be subjective and not objective, says Morgan
+ We as Americans like to think that we think relatively and don't make millian
judgments re: backward societies and backward religions
+ But Morgan Says: See National Security Strategy. It makes an objective
MIllian judgement. A universal committment to freedom and equality. Says
that, falsly, perople everywhere desire freedom and accept these values.
+ A Millian form of universalism, though, is embedded in progressive advancement
of man. He doesn't believe that all people are equal NOW. He calls these
societies backwards. Mill is not that different from us.
- Millian freedom as subjective.
+ So is it a freedom to not educate your female children and marry them to
cousins? But this is TOO subjective. Can't deprive others of their freedom.
- Freedom as autonomous choice.
+ Cant be fully free if youre brainwashed or inculcated w/tradition. But how
many options have to be available to you to make you free? Educative choice
from freedom.
- Freedom as achievement of autonomous being
+ Stresses romantic value of choices for character building. Not being a dull,
faceless, being.
- What's wrong with legal moralism?
+ Prevents absolute evils
+ Essential to maintain public morality and cohesion
+ But, proponents of teh harm principle limiit what we criminalize b/c
criminalizing creates costs. US is not free because of incarceration rates.
Millian liberal thinks that incarceration can only be for an egregious offense
to others.
- What counts as harm?
+ "One simple principle" is not really simple; quite complex
+ Two purposes for the harm principle 1) Boundaries around criminal law 2)
boundaries around social sanction
+ Self regarding and other regarding actions: no criminal law, these laws mean
this (self-regarding actions) has to affect others
+ Distinction between actions that affect others negatively and actions that
affect others interests. This is objective. Mill worries about interests.
What about interests of a reasonable man? No, interests of a man concieved as
a progressive being.
- Mill's Consequentialism; Utility for happiness
+ Happiness for mill argues for "unexamined life is not worth living." Also,
some utilities and types of happiness can be ranked.
- Criminalizing violent pornography
+ Who is harmed? Establish this. Can a millian recognize harm to society and
its difference from harm to individuals?
+ Problem of causality and lack of correlation b/w crimes and viewing violent
pornography.
+ Volenti Maxim
+ Expressive harms: might not cause crime but expresses subconscious things.
+ Legal Moralism
Augustine, City of God: Book 1(Preface, ch1,16,18)& Book 2 (ch2-4) Version 1
Book I
Preface
Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.) immediately declares that his aim is the defense of
Christianity. In lecture, Glynn discussed that City of God was written to persuade the Romans to
embrace and defend Christianity just after the Gothic invasion. Augustine lived at a key time in
the Roman Empire because it was falling apart. In 420 C.E., the Goths invaded Rome, and
shortly before the invasion, the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. So, the Romans were
blaming the invasion on the Christians. In the preface, Augustine also preaches the importance
of humility over pride, but carefully points out that it is God’s prerogative to resist the proud and
embrace the humble, not man’s. He believes that men have foolishly taken this power upon
themselves, and, as a result, the city of man “is itself dominated by that very lust of domination”
(5).
Chapter 1
Augustine chastises the enemies of Christianity in Rome for blaming their misfortunes and the
Gothic invasion on Christianity because the Christian sacred buildings offered shelter to Romans
of all religions during the sack of the city. Also, Augustine claims that the “Barbarians” spared
many of the Romans out of respect for Christ and for the sacred Christian buildings. Many
Romans claimed to be Christian during the invasion just to seek protection, and Augustine
reprimands those same people for then speaking out against Christ after the immediate danger
has passed. He also points out that the enemies of Christianity mistakenly “attribute their
deliverance to their own destiny” (6). God may use war as a way of chastising the corrupt
morals of man, but He also is responsible for all the good that comes along.
Chapter 16
Those who use stories of rape as an attack against the Christian faith, do not understand that the
violation of a woman’s chastity cannot harm her character, as long as it is against her will.
However, he does mention that a feeling of shame may come along with such a violation because,
if any pleasure is experienced, the mind may have subconsciously consented. With this
explanation, Augustine makes it clear that he is trying to offer consolation to members of the
Christian faith, not to those who oppose it. Although this chapter does not talk about consent
directly or in general, it does inversely relate to Mill’s Volenti Maxim: that to which you consent,
you cannot be harmed.
Chapter 18
This chapter highlights the separation between mind and body, and specifies that purity is a
virtue of the mind. Therefore, someone who with a pure mind has no deciding power over what
happens to his body, but does have a power of will (the mind) to consent or not to consent.
“Therefore while the mind’s resolve endures, which gives the body its claim to chastity, the
violence of another’s lust cannot take away the chastity which is preserved by unwavering selfcontrol” (28). He specifies that a woman who has been violated against her will should not
commit suicide.
Book II
Chapter 2
Augustine summarizes his arguments made in Book I:
1. The Gothic invasion was not the fault of the Christians. Instead of blaming the
Christians and chastising them for their monotheism, the enemies of Christianity
should be grateful to Christ for being able to use sacred buildings as a shelter from the
war.
2. He laid out the question: why is it that good things happen to bad people and bad
things happen to good people? He has yet to directly answer this.
3. Women who were violated against their will should understand that they continue to
be pure because their minds are pure. They should not be ashamed of being alive.
4. Rome is falling apart primarily because of the collapse of morality, not because of
that of the material (burning houses, etc.).
Chapter 3
Augustine claims that well-educated enemies of Christianity who are aware of historical facts act
ignorant of the truth in order to incite the illiterate majority against the Christians. He then says
that he will address the catastrophes that befell the Roman Empire before it adopted Christianity
and before the incarnation of Christ. He basically ends by saying, “well, how do care to explain
those instances in terms of your gods?”
Chapter 4
Augustine argues that the pagan gods (before Christianity) did not do anything to prevent the
degeneration of their worshipers’ moralities. The gods should have offered their worshipers with
some sort of instructions of how to live a good life by confronting and punishing the evil and
rewarding the good. Augustine admits to going to performances as child where people would act
as the gods (supposedly in order to honor them), but says that these “sacred” performances blur
the line between good and bad and make a mockery of religion. “If these were sacred rites, what
is meant by sacrilege? If this is purification, what is meant by pollution?” (52)
Augustine, City of God: Book 1(Preface, ch1,16,18)& Book 2 (ch2-4) Version 2
Book 1:
Chapter 1”the enemies of Christianity were spared by the barbarians at the sack of Rome, out of
respect for Christ.”
In the sack of Rome by the barbarians, both Christian and pagan fugitives found refuge in sacred
Christian sanctuaries and basilicas. The “barbarians” spared their lives out of respect for Christ,
but now those same people whose lives were saved blame their misfortune on Christianity, rather
than being grateful for their survival, or recognizing it accurately as God’s punishment to correct
their corrupt morals. Instead these people rise up, ungrateful and impious as enemies against the
City of God.
Chapter 16”Violation of chastity, withouth the will’s consent, cannot pollute character.”
Although enemies often think that they can doom virtuous Christian virgins, nuns, and other
women by raping them, rape does not merit blame as long as the “consecrated will” of the person
remains pure and resistant. Though the body is an instrument of the will, if violation of the body
can’t be avoided except by sinning, then the person is blameless.
Chapter 18: “the question of violence from others, and the lust of others suffered by an unwilling
mind in a ravished body.”
You can’t be polluted by another’s lust because purity is a virtue of the mind, not a physical
quality. A man cannot lose purity if he body is used to someone else’s purpose. Chastity can be
maintained by self-control even if the body is abused, or virginity destroyed by accident. Bodily
chastity is lost when mental chastity is lost, and when mental chastity is kept, so is bodily
chastity. So a raped woman should not kill herself, especially not before it has been committed.
Book 2:
Chapter 2 “summary of matters treated in Book 1”
In Book I , started to write about the City of God, and to respond to several issues:
1) Some hold Christianity responsible for the terrible wars, and the sack of Rome because
Christianity prohibits sacrifices to demons; in fact, however, they should be grateful to Christ ,
because the barbarians showed mercy, and let people take refuge in holy places for His sake.
2) Some ask: Why did these blessings ( of being allowed to survive) extend to the faithless, and
why did believers suffer under human disasters as well? He reassured raped women that they
should not be ashamed.
3) Rome corrupted and debased by the descendants of the founders. “ Rome was more hideous
when it stood than when it fell”
4) In Book II will talk about the disasters Rome has undergone since it’s foundation.
Chapter 3 “A study of history will show what clamaities befell the Romans when they
worshipped the pagan gods before Christianity displaced them.”
The ignorant automatically blame the Christians, but the well-educated know the facts but ignore
them, in order to ignite the hatred of the masses, and fight against rapidly-spreading
Christianity.(i.e. wanted paganism restored) But Rome suffered many disasters before Christ’s
time, and the so-called Roman gods let them happen.
Chapter 4”Pagan gods had no moral teaching for their worshippers; in fact pagan rites were full
of obscenities.”
These gods did not give their worshippers laws to lead them to good lives, and didn’t prevent
moral degeneration as a true God should. Counterargument is that man should be allowed to act
by free will; but gods should have guided their followers, and proclaimed “instructions for a
good life,” including punishments and rewards. But they didn’t. As a young man, he used to
attend sacrilegious shows and festivals, such as that for the gods and goddesses. If these were
true gods, then the worshippers should have been ashamed of their obscene entertainments and
rites. Only some one who refused to acknowledge that his gods were actually demons would
follow them.
Augustine, City of God Book 2 (ch14, 19-21, 28) Version 1
14. Plato excluded poets from his well-regulated state; which proves him superior to the gods
who chose to be honored by theatrical shows.
Augustine thinks it inconsistent that Roman law should demean actors for acting out obscenities
that dishonor the gods, while the poets who write them, though forbidden to sully the reputations
of any citizen, are honored.
Plato considered poets to be enemies of the truth, and should be banished from the city.
He feared that the obscene plays dedicated to the gods would mislead citizens, though he failed
to persuade the Greeks against this writing and the Romans from acting them out.
Some people (pagans) such as Labeo thought Plato should be considered a demi-god/some other
divinity for his opposition to these “monstrous obscenities”.
It is obvious that the Roman people couldn’t get a code of conduct from their gods because they
far surpassed the morality of their gods. Though the gods demanded displays of obscenities in
their honor, the Romans stripped the actors of any civil honors; the gods wanted representations
of their behavior, but the Romans forbade playwrights from damaging the reputations of any
citizen.
How could the gods make laws to prevent moral corruption when they make such behavior
familiar to people through theatre as either their own acts or resembling their own acts. Kindles
depraved desires by giving them diving authority.
19. The corruption of the Roman commonwealth before Christ abolished the worship of the
gods.
Roman republic: “height of excellence” -> “depths of depravity” after fall of Carthage.
He claims it would have been better had the Roman gods said nothing on modesty and conduct,
while instead they encouraged indecent, shameful practices.
The Roman gods gives no injunctions against greed and indulgence, while the Christian
teachings do. Yet the Romans do not blame their gods for the immorality of the times, but the
Christian religion for “humiliations” to their self esteem.
If the Romans had listened to the Christian teachings on justice and morality, the empire would
not have fallen.
If everyone listened to the words of God and followed a just and virtuous life, then everyone
would live in happiness and glory. However, since only some do, they have to endure this
corruption, and maybe through endurance they’ll win a place in heaven.
20. The kind of felicity the opponents of Christianity wish to enjoy, and the morality by which
they wish to live.
The Romans enjoy the corruption of their state.
As long as the state lasts, is materially prosperous, victorious in war or have peace, they care
only about getting rich in order to live in extravagance + to keep the weak under control. Let the
poor court the rich and the rich abuse the poor. Let people praise not those who protect their
interests but give them pleasure. Let no duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. etc.
In such a state, laws would only punish offenses against others or their property and not those
against the person.
People would be able to do anything they wanted with anyone who’d willingly join him (ex.
public prostitutes, luxury houses for debauchery day and night)
Thus anyone who opposes this happiness should thus be kicked out/killed.
And true gods should thus preserve such a state of happiness, which means protecting the people
from the threat of wars, disease, and other disasters.
This kind of place is disgraceful, so unlike what the Roman Empire should be and was, more like
the palace of Sardanaplaus.
21. Cicero’s judgment on the Roman commonwealth
For those who don’t care about the corruption of the Roman republic, only its existence, here is
the argument of Cicero, Rome is so immoral that the state has already perished, the republic is
gone.
Scipio, Roman general at Carthage, a mouthpiece to express concern about the doom of Rome
through corruption.
Scipio - where reason is used to regulate matters of state, a state of harmony can be established
between the different classes which provide the strongest bond and security for all, but however
can absolutely not be maintained without justice.
Sidetracked onto the topic of justice:
Philius -inevitable that there be some injustice in every government, that “government entails
injustice”, advocates “injustice for justice” injustice more useful.
Laelius - defends justice, that without it, country can’t be governed, can’t exist.
Scipio returns to the topic of the republic:
Definition of commonwealth - “weal of the community”; community - “an association united by
a common sense of right and a community of interest”
Thus Scipio shows the importance of definitions in arguments.
Commonwealth necessitates the existence of a “sound + just” government.
When any kind of injustice (tyranny) is practiced (by king, nobles or the people), by deduction
from the definitions, the commonwealth is not only corrupt, but ceases to exist.
These words of warning from Cicero were spoken well before the coming of Christ, why did the
Roman gods do nothing to correct the problem?
Even according to the words of Cicero, Rome was never a republic in the sense that it never had
true justice, though Augustine concedes it was a form of republic, because true justice can only
be found under the rule of Christ.
28. The wholesomeness of the Christian religion.
Augustine defends the ability of Christianity to save people from sin. The wicked complain and
deny this only because they’re too taken up by evil. They resent the people who go to church,
where they learn how they should live a good life in order to enjoy eternal bliss in heaven. Some
people go to church with the intention of ridicule, only to “have a sudden change of heart” or to
feel “suppressed by fear or shame” because there’s nothing “degrading or disreputable” about it;
it’s where the commandments of God is related, thanks and prayers are given.
Augustine, City of God Book 2 (ch14, 19-21, 28) Version 2
Book II Chap 14: “Plato excluded poets from his well-regulated state; which proves him
superior to the gods who chose to be honoured by theatrical shows.”
Plato banished poets from his rational ideal of a perfect commonwealth, because poets
were “enemies of truth” and were derogatory towards the gods. Romans followed Plato’s views
in a watered down sense, not allowing poets to slander or attack the gods.
Book II Chap 19: “The corruption of the Roman commonwealth before Christ abolished
the worship of the gods.”
After the destruction of Carthage and before Christ’s coming, in Roman society “the
degradation of traditional morality ceased to be a gradual decline and became a torrential
downhill rush.” If the Romans had listened to Christian teachings on justice and morality, the
Romans would still be around.
Book II Chap 20: “The kind of felicity the opponents of Christianity wish to enjoy, and the
morality by which they wish to live”
What concerns opponents of Christianity is to “get richer all the time.” They believe it’s
ok for the poor to serve the rich to get enough to eat, and for the rich to keep a crowd of the poor
around to feed their pride. Their kings are interested in the docility of their subjects rather than
their morality. Their laws punish offences against another’s property, not offence against
personal character. They believe “No one should be brought to trial except for an offence, or
threat of offence, against another’s property, house, or person; but anyone should be free to do as
he likes about his own, or with his own, or with others if they concent.”
Prositutes for all, luxurious imposing houses, gluttony and debauchery, and indulging in
any pleasure is good. For these people, the true gods are those who get and preserve these
indulgences for people.
Book II Chap 21: “Cicero’s judgement on the Roman commonwealth”
Historians think that the Roman state has sunk to the depths of depravity, but Cicero
thinks it has “utterly perished, that the republic is completely extinct.” Defines “the community”
as “an association united by a common sense of right and a community of interest.” The
“commonwealth,” defined as “the weal of the community,” only exists where there is a sound
and just government. From this definition, the commonwealth ceases to exist when it the people
descend into depravity.
Book II Chap 28: “The wholesomeness of the Christian Religion”
Some come to church to scoff at the teachings of Christianity, all their insolence is
quickly either abandoned or suppressed. They find nothing degrading or disreputable set before
them, for “there the commandments of the true God are made known, his marvellous works are
related.”
Augustine, City of God Book 4(ch1-4, 15, 18); Book 5 (ch9, 10) Version 1
Augustine, City of God
Book 4 (Chapters 1-4, 15, 18); Book 5 (Chapters 9, 10)
Book 4 Chapters 1-4
Chapters 1-4 of Book 4 sum the conclusions of Books 2 and 3 in a simple assertion. First, that
Christianity was not the cause of Rome’s decline. Second, that to the contrary, God assisted
growth of the Roman state in many cases. Augustine denies that Christianity shares blame for
Rome’s decline because even before Christianity Rome experienced great disasters and even
after Christianity Rom experiences great successes. In doing so, Augustine points out the unfair
nature of the City of Man. He accepts that bad things will happen to good people and good
things will happen to bad people. To align this with a moral rule, he suggests that virtuous
people should see obstacles as “tests of virtue” while immoral people should see successes as
signs of God’s mercy. “The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a
slave, and not the slave of a single man, but - what is far worse - the slave of as many masters as
he has vices.”
Book 4 Chapter 15
In this chapter Augustine answers the question, “Can good men consistently desire to extend
their dominion?” His answer is a qualified yes. He contends that in an ideal world man would
live at peace with his neighbor and a panoply of small kingdoms would exist. However, if man’s
neighbors are wicked than it is better to rule them than to be ruled by them and be subject to their
immorality. “To make war and to extend the realm by crushing other peoples, is good fortune in
the eyes of the wicked; to the good, it is stern necessity.”
Book 4 Chapter 18
A semantic argument showing the contradictory logic behind Rome’s separation of the Goddess
of Fortune and the Goddess of Felicity. Minimally important.
Book 5 Chapters 9 and 10
These chapters contest Cicero’s stoic assertion that the conceptual existence of foreknowledge is
mutually exclusive to man’s free will. Cicero’s argument follows that foreknowledge
necessarily requires knowledge of the causal order of things, which in turn requires the order of
said things. Confused yet? Thus, man can have no free will because the order of things is prearranged. Cicero goes on further to assert that foreknowledge does not exist, thus allowing the
existence of free will. Augustine counters this argument by suggesting that foreknowledge and
free-will can coexist. His argument follows: “Now if there is for God a fixed order of all causes,
it does not follow that nothing depends on our free choice. Our wills themselves are in the order
of causes, which is, for God, fixed, and is contained in his foreknowledge, since human acts of
will are the causes of human activities. Therefore he who had prescience of the causes of all
events certainly could not be ignorant of our decisions, which he foreknows as the causes of our
actions.” No, it doesn’t make sense to me either. Go ask a priest.
Augustine, City of God Book 4(ch1-4, 15, 18); Book 5 (ch9, 10) Version 1
Ch. 1-4
The basic argument is that the fall of Rome resulted from God's mercy to
admonish the people about their sinfulness and was not mean as a punishment.
The virtue of possessing little but living with a clear conscience is
extolled in relation to the limitations to expanding a country's dominion
because of "ruthless ambition". Justice is discussed as the thing that
distinguishes kingdoms from criminal gangs.
Ch. 15
To make war and to extend the realm by crushing other peoples, is good
fortune in the eyes of the wicked
Ch.18
Discusses the unjustified worship of the goddesses Felicitas and Fortuna,
especially that of Fortuna who can either be identified with Felicitas or
with an evil force. The question is, "how can she be good if she comes,
without discrimination, to good and bad? What is the point of worshipping
her if she is so blind that she blunders into people at random. and attaches
herself to those who disregard her?"
Book V
Ch. 9
Criticizes Cicero's claim that foreknowledge and free will can not co-exist
because: "our wills have only as much power as God has willed and foreknown;
God, whose foreknowledge is infallible, has foreknown the strength of our
wills and their achievements, and it is for that reason that their future
strength is completely determined and their future achievements utterly
assured."
Ch. 10
"The fact that God foreknew that a man would sin does not make a man sinl on
the contrary, it cannot be doubted that it is the man himself who sins just
because he whose prescience cannot be mistaken has foreseen that the man
himself would sin. A man dos not sin unless he wills to sin and if he had
willed not to sin, then God would have foreseen that refusal."
Augustine, City of God Book 8 (ch3, 4, 8-14) Version 1
CITY OF GOD-BOOK 8
Ch. 3: Socrates was the first person to guide philosophy towards the regulation of morality.
Leads to question of Highest Good-the necessary condition of human happiness
Ch. 4: Plato divided philosophy into three branches: moral philosophy, which dictates actions,
natural philosophy, devoted to speculation, and rational philosophy, which distinguishes truth
from falsehood.
Chs. 8-11: Summum Bonum = ultimate good/The Good Life. Augustine believes it is not found
in the enjoyment of the body or the enjoyment of the mind, as many believe, but in the
enjoyment of God. According to Augustine, Plato agrees. Augustine says “the true philosopher is
the lover of God.” These philosophers are called Platonists, and are superior to all other kinds of
philosophers.
Ch. 12-14: Despite his “enlightened” way of thinking, Plato still thought it right to worship
multiple gods. Plato believed that all gods are good; it is impossible to have an evil god.
Augustine finds it problematic that Platonists believe this but refuse to entertain opposing views.
They argue that gods are the most exalted of beings, men are the least, and there are demons that
occupy a position above man but still below the gods, but Augustine feels that they are
hypocritical and inconsistent in granting the demons some power but denying them the status of
the gods.
Augustine, City of God Book 8 (ch3, 4, 8-14) Version 2
Chapter 3 the teaching of Socrates:
Socrates is the first to have redirected philosophy to the correction and regulation of morality.
However, it seems to Augustine that it cannot be with certainly whether Socrates did this because
he was wearied of obscure and uncertain things, and so wished to direct his mind to the
discovery of something manifest and certain, which was necessary in order to the obtaining of a
blessed life.
Socrates saw that the causes of things were sought for by them,--which causes he believed to be
ultimately reducible to nothing else than the will of the one true and supreme God,--and on this
account he thought they could only be comprehended by a purified mind
Socrates left very many disciples of his philosophy, who vied with one another in desire for
proficiency in handling those moral questions which concern the chief good, the possession of
which can make a man blessed; and because, in the disputations of Socrates, where he raises all
manner of questions, makes assertions, and then demolishes them, it did not evidently appear
what he held to be the chief good. But so diverse were the opinions held by those followers of
Socrates concerning this final good, that some placed the chief good in pleasure, others in virtue.
Chapter 4 Plato the chief disciple of Socrates
Plato was the one who shone with a glory which far excelled that of the others, and who not
unjustly eclipsed them all. An Athenian of honorable parentage, he learned from the Egyptians
and then from the Italians where he mastered, all the Italic philosophy which was then in vogue.
And, as he had a peculiar affection for his master Socrates, he made him the speaker in all his
dialogues.
Socrates is said to have excelled in the active part of that study, while Pythagoras gave more
attention to its contemplative part, on which he brought to bear all the force of his great intellect.
To Plato is given the praise of having perfected philosophy by combining both parts into one. He
then divides it into three parts: moral, natural, and rational.
Chapter 8 The Platonists’ superiority in moral philosophy
The remaining part of philosophy is morals and the question concerning the chief good, that
which will leave us nothing further to seek in order to be blessed, if only we make all our actions
refer to it, and seek it not for the sake of something else, but for its own sake. Therefore it is
called the end, because we wish other things on account of it, but itself only for its own sake.
Aristotle emphasizes the enjoyment of God, not as the mind does the body or itself, or as one
friend enjoys another, but as the eye enjoys light. It certainly follows that the student of wisdom,
that is, the philosopher, will then become blessed when he shall have begun to enjoy God. The
true and highest good, according to Plato, is God, and therefore he would call him a philosopher
who loves God; for philosophy is directed to the obtaining of the blessed life, and he who loves
God is blessed in the enjoyment of God.
Chapter 9 the philosophy that approximates most nearly to Christianity
Concerns the supremacy of God, in that He is both the maker of all created things, the light by
which things are known, and the good in reference to which things are to be done.
Chapter 10 Christianity and philosophy
The Christian man knows to be on his guard against philosophers in their errors. It has also been
said that most philosophers did not rightly worship God Himself, because they paid divine
honors, which are due to Him alone, to other things also to which they ought not to have paid
them. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted
beasts.
Some philosophers do try and discover the right mode of learning and of living, these, by
knowing God, have found where resides the cause by which the universe has been constituted,
and the light by which truth is to be discovered, and the fountain at which felicity is to be drunk.
All philosophers, then, who have had these thoughts concerning God, whether Platonists or
others, agree with us
Chapter 11 How Plato may have acquired the insight which brought him to Christianity
Plato had conceptions concerning God, in which he recognizes considerable agreement with the
truth of Christianity. Augustine disproves that Plato went to Egypt he had heard the prophet
Jeremiah because Plato was born about a hundred years after the time in which Jeremiah
prophesied.
As to Plato's saying that the philosopher is a lover of God, the most striking thing in this
connection is the answer which was given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the
words of God were conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked what was the name of that
God who was commanding him to go and deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer
was given. Augustine believes that this originated with Plato as he says “I know not whether this
sentiment is anywhere to be found in the books of those who were before Plato, unless in that
book where it is said, "I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, who is sent me
unto you."
Chapter 12 Despite true concept of one God, the Platonists countenance polytheism
Augustine questions the Platonists and whether sacred rites are to be performed to one God, or to
many. Finds that the Platonists and also Plato himself, thought that sacred rites ought to be
performed in honor of many gods.
Chapter 13 By Plato’s definition all the gods are morally good
Augustine asks Platonists to what gods they think that sacred rites are to be performed, to the
good or to the bad, or to both the good and the bad? He states the opinion of Plato affirming that
all the gods are good, and that there is not one of the gods bad. For if they are not good, neither
are they gods. Augustine refutes this by saying the power of these gods proves that they exist,
but their liking such things proves that they are bad.
Chapter 14 The notion of three kinds of rational souls; in the gods of heaven, in the demons
in the air, in men on earth
There is, say the Platonists, a threefold division of all animals endowed with a rational soul,
namely, into gods, men, and demons. The gods occupy the loftiest region, men the lowest, the
demons the middle region. For the abode of the gods is heaven, that of men the earth, that of the
demons the air. As the dignity of their regions is diverse, so also is that of their natures; therefore
the gods are better than men and demons. Men have been placed below the gods and demons,
both in respect of the order of the regions they inhabit, and the difference of their merits. The
demons, therefore, who hold the middle place, as they are inferior to the gods, than whom they
inhabit a lower region, so they are superior to men, than whom they inhabit a loftier one. For
they have immortality of body in common with the gods, but passions of the mind in common
with men.
Lecture on October 26 and following reading: Augustine, City of God:
Book 12 (ch 27-28)
Augustine, Book XII
Chapter 27
Augustine says that believing that 1) Platonists should stop threatening punishment of our souls
with our bodies, or that 2) Platonists should stop telling Christians to worship their own Gods are
inaccurate assumptions. Augustine backs up this theory by pointing out that God does not have
our souls return to earth, and further dispels Plato’s notions by saying that God gave our bodies
as a gift to us, and could therefore not be a punishment.
The important thing to note from this chapter is that Augustine is looking to break apart Plato’s
logic and disregard him as a thinker.
Chapter 28
Augustine argues that God rightfully made everything on Earth, and that because he made
everything, what he did first was most important. Hence the union between a man and a woman
must be extremely important, because that was one of the first things that he did.
After discussing this, Augustine starts to make reference to his idea of Two Cities, and ends the
book by pointing out God has done everything with a purpose, even if we don’t know what that
purpose is, so that the creation of man must be important for the Two Cities idea.
Moral Reasoning 50 – lecture, Oct 26, 2004
public and private
The Political Teachings of Christianity—six!
1)Love thy neighbor as thyself
2)universalism
-everyone equal
3)Romans 13: powers that be are ordained by god
-quietistic, but...
-somewhat undercut by-->
4)render unto Caeser that which is Caeser’s, render unto God that which is God
5)Dualism—the city of God v. the city of Man
-Christian doctrine inherited from Plato
-heavenly realm one of permanent unchanging truths,
-whereas earthly realm, empirical realm of the senses, had less metaphysical
importance
-City of God—where we achieve everlasting salvation
-only for those who are granted God’s grace
-three things to do to get there:
1) love thy neighbor
2) have faith in the redemptive power of the Christian god
-faith is not reason-->to Greeks, reason a defining characteristic of
humans
3) God’s grace
-you’ll never know if you made it—Christians are an anxious
people
6)emphasis on the sin of lust—the body is tainted!
-notion that the body is devalued
-physical pleasures to be frowned upon
-discrepancy between soul and flesh
-Augustine of Hippo—354-430 C.E.
-a key time of the Roman Empire
-in the 420s Rome is sacked by the Goths—a Christian heretic
-“City of God” – a text to protect Christianity against accusation it caused fall of Rome
-pagans (Romans, Jews, etc.) all
-Christian mother—Monica, with whom he was very close
-non-Christian father, who beat Monica—Aug didn’t like him
-Augustine a brilliant rhetoriacin
-under Monica’s influence of Christian teaching
-particularly attracted to Christian sect: Manicheism—two forces, light v. dark
-Aug also attracted to pleasures of the body
-Confessions: Aug has experienced sexual pleasure
-in love with a prostitute/concubine, would not give her up
-Oh Lord, Save Me! But not yet.
-no conversion until mid-30s—becomes very devout
-then accepted
why did the Romans dislike the Christians
-1) C disliked the polytheism
-2) C could not accept other religions—insisted, No God but Ours
-Mill has been criticized as Christian in its intolerance-both Liberality and C rest on exclusiounary monotheism that claims they have the truth
-inconcsistent with diversty and stability
Is there something intolerant premised upon the idea of one superior god or one superior value?
-Christians might say this is the truth—we’re wright, you’re wrong—nothing intolerant
about that.
Value pluralists versus value monists.
-Romans and Christians value monists.
C:
-to claim that the Roman state was immortal was a form of idolatry
-Augustine and followers viewed state as second best
-rejected Greek view that life in the polis is central component of exemplary life
-life on earth in general and political activity were little more than necessary evils
-man’s sinful nature—man a flawed being
-part of that nature—man can never know himsefl, has limited knoweldge over
his own state
-complete rejection of the greek belief in the habitual formation of an excellent
character guided by reason
-Aristotle: what’s involved in forming an ethical character.
-question: agreement between C and G reeks—how far can human beings exercise rational
control over their own environment?
-i.e., can man take charge of the processes of progress or improvement?
-liberals like J.S. Mill—yes! humans indiv. and colletively can shape the society
to build a better world—belief in man’s perfectablility
-v. christian/realist view that sinful nature makes these hopes flawed
-conservatives
-->classic realist: Henry Kissinger, emphaizer of excessive fine conducting an army aganst teh
Romans who think that roman empire is itself the highestuse of its lack of justice which any
decent state needs. l
-constant attack on the Roman sscal
-trying
Augustine, City of God: Book 14(Chaps 1-2, 16-28)
Augustine, “City of God”
Book XIV, Ch 1-2, 16-28
Ch 1
➔ God intended human race to be united by likeness and maintain ties of kinship: “bond of
peace”
➔ first two beings were disobedient, and man's nature suffered change for the worse
➔ human nature is bondage to sin and inevitable death
➔ grace of God delivers some people from inevitable death
➔ two cities of men exist on earth, which encompasses everyone
➔ those that live by standard of flesh
➔ those that live by standard of spirit
➔ each of these cities desires and lives under a different kind of peace
Ch 2
➔ Epicurean philosophers of ancient times live by rule of the flesh; they teach that pleasure is
the highest Good
➔ but ancient Stoics also live by the rule of the flesh; they teach that harmony with nature is the
highest Good
➔ “the rule of the flesh” is implied to be “the rule of man” by Augustine
➔ “the flesh” refers to those things that are condemned in the Bible-sensual pleasure:
fornication, lust, drunkenness, but also deficits of the mind: enmity, jealousy, envy,
idolatry
Ch 16
➔ Lust is disturbing, combines the mental faculty with the physical craving
➔ At climax of pleasure, mental alertness is extinct and overwhelmed
➔ Speaks of honor and holiness for one's “bodily instrument” not using it in “sickness of desire”
➔ Instruments should be servants of mind; should act in “the bidding of the will”, not out of lust
➔ Quite often, lust is divided against itself and fails to arouse the body while fooling the mind
Ch 17
➔ Nakedness has become disgraceful because these covered up areas are controlled by lust itself
(this only happened after man's sin in the Garden)
➔ Flesh gives proof of man's disobedience by disobedience itself
➔ Adam and Eve were given sight, but failed to see the blessings of grace before them. After
their sin, they were self-conscious and embarrassed of their nakedness
➔ After their sin, they were able to see figuratively-what they given up, and what they had
succumbed to
➔ Ignorance would've provided a greater bliss
➔ They should have trusted in God and obeyed Him
➔ Insubordination of the flesh followed, which became always an evidence of disobedience
➔ Concealing the private areas has become deep-rooted, even in unconnected regions
Ch 18
➔ Sexual intercourse seeks privacy and fornication is shameful
➔ Fornication is called a depravity to even those who are depraved themselves
➔ Even conjugal intercourse between and husband and wife seeks privacy
➔ This is in contrast to the teachings of one Roman author who writes thaty “all right actions
desire to be set in the full daylight”
➔ Everyone knows what happens between a man and a wife, and the ceremony is building up to
that moment, but when the act is being performed: not even the children who are the byproducts of such an act are permitted to view it
➔ Sex is accompanied by a feeling of shame that seeks closed doors and privacy
Ch 19
➔ Platonists acknowledged that anger and lust were perverted elements in man's character,
because they are undisciplined and irrational
➔ No justice in man's soul if the rational element is not in control
➔ These passions are brought under control by those that live disciplined, devout lives
➔ Coercion and struggle with these passions is required
➔ Anger is a bit different from lust in that it requires the will to co-operate
➔ Genital organs, on the other hand, are completely under the sway of lust, and this embarrasses
us
Ch 20
➔ The Cynics opined that one should not be ashamed of practicing the lawful sexual act in
public
➔ It is truly a mistaken idea to believe that men should make it their “ambition to resemble
dogs”
➔ Cynics do not take this notion to the level of Diogenes, because in doing so they would be
overwhelmed by a disgusted public
➔ In sin, the sexual organs are not under the control of the will and are only under the control of
lust
Ch 21
➔ Having children is mistakenly associated with the lustful act
➔ Because Adam and Eve had children after leaving the Garden, some Christians believe that
the practice of lustful intercourse is necessary to multiply, as God commanded
Ch 22
➔ Augustine believes that the commandment to “increase and multiply” is a gift of marriage
➔ Man and woman become one flesh upon marriage
Ch 23
➔ Absurd to believe that procreation came out of lustful feelings
➔ Original intention for genital organs was to be controlled by will-not so hard to believe
Ch 24
➔ The body is a servant to some people in a remarkable fashion beyond the normal limitations
of nature
➔ leads one to believe that the private organs could have been a servant of the will, as
everything else became
Ch 25
➔ No man is happy unless he is righteous
➔ No man can live the life exactly as he wants to
➔ Upon dying, if one is righteous, a better life after death awaits
➔ Life is only truly happy when it lasts forever
Ch 26
➔ True joy flows perpetually from God
➔ True paradise invokes strong emotions: love from a pure heart, good conscience, unlimited
faith
➔ Love and mutual respect; harmony of body, mind and soul
➔ Sexual organs brought to activation by the will when it is the right time to conceive
Ch 27
➔ God did not compel anyone not to sin, and foresaw that man would fall
➔ Eventually man would be lifted up again by God's grace
➔ Showed the differences between individual's self-confidence and God's divine protection
➔ God wanted to show the magnitude of evil and the magnitude of his own grace
Ch 28
➔ Earthly city was created by self-love with contempt for God
➔ Heavenly City was created by the love of God and contempt for self
➔ Wise men in earthly city live by men's standards and pursue goods of the body and of their
own mind
➔ Prideful, they became foolish and served idols
➔ Heavenly City, to be wise is to be devoted and righteous
Augustine, City of God: Book 15 (ch4, 8) & Book 22 (ch 1, 24, 30) Version 1
City of God
Book 15 Chapter 4- Conflict and Peace in the Earthly City
The main points of this chapter
1 The earthly city is not everlasting
2 Since the goods of the earthly city “cause frustrations”, those who pursue these goods
become divided by wars and are doomed to death
3 However, peace can be one of gains of war, and peace is undoubtedly a gift of God. So
there can be a good purpose to war.
4 So the distinction is that war leads to misery when we value early goods above Heavenly
goods. When we forget about the “City on high,” we increase our wrtchedness.
Book 15 Chapter 8- The reason why Cain founded a city among the first beginnings of the
human race
This chapter is trying to validate the history of the scripture since at times it seems highly
improbable (specifically with reference to Cain founding a city despite there only being 4 me in
existence at this time)
4 The purpose of the scripture is to foretell God’s story (namely Adam
people of God). The other society of man is mentioned only enough to contrast Men of
God.
5 The important thing to remember then is that the scripture is not complete, and just
because the scripture doesn’t mention something, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen for the
human kingdom
6 For example, “And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch”
does not mean that Enoch was Cain’s first son. He could have had many other sons.
7 Also, since the Scripture points out people lived very long during this time period (the
shortest-lived person was 753 years), it is likely that many cities were founded during this
time that the Scripture doesn’t mention.
8 All this basically means is that we shouldn’t disqualify the Scripture because it seems
historically inaccurate based solely on what it does say.
Book 22 Chapter 1- The creation of angels and men
Book 22 deals with the eternal bliss of the City of God.
9 Note that the eternal here does not refer to a perpetuity of generations, but eternal in the
sense that everyone in that city never dies.
10 God created free choice (both in angels and men) because he believed that it was greater
power and goodness to bring good out of evil then to exclude the existence of evil.
11 Those who sin (both angels and men) are punished and face everlasting misery. Those
men who follow God’s Law will take the place of fallen angles, thus ensuring that the
Heavenly City will always have its full population.
Book 22 Chapter 24- The good things of which this life is full, even though it is subject to
condemnation
We are punished for sin by being in the corrupted state of mankind. However, God in his
goodness filled this misery with many blessings, this chapter examines those blessings.
- The blessing conferred before sin, “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.”
- The good of propagation
- The good of conformation (the identity of species). In other words, god gives us form.
He then goes on to talk about how great and impressive the work of the Almighty is because of
all his creations.
12 Man’s mind and knowledge
13 Man’s perfectly formed body
14 Nature and all its blessings.
The most amazing thing is that all these blessings were given to the condemned man. Thus, for
the favored man (the City of God), the blessings must be unimaginably great!
Book 22 Chapter 30- The eternal felicity of the City of God in its perpetual Sabbath
This chapter just describes how great the City of God will be.
15 Form will be perfect, virtue will be of the highest order (God himself), there will be no
envy, etc.
16 Note that there will be no evil or sin, but that there will also be freedom of choice This
choice is the “inability to sin.”
17 Also, evil will exist in the sense that a doctor knows about diseases without experiencing
them himself. So we’ll have knowledge without experience. This knowledge is
important because it helps us put the glory of the Lord in context.
18 Finally, Augustine says that there are 7 epochs in history, where in the 7th God will come
for us. Currently, we are in the 6th, but it is not our place to know how long this will last.
Augustine, City of God: Book 15 (ch4, 8) & Book 22 (ch 1, 24, 30) Version 2
Book 15
Chapter 4: Conflict and peace in the earthly city
The earthly city will not be everlasting. The earthly city is often divided against itself by wars,
but these wars are unrewarding since any section of the city that may emerge victorious at one
point will not be permanently capable of maintaining this position. The earthly city desires peace
and uses war to achieve this goal. When victory goes to those fighting for the more just cause,
the resulting peace is joyous. However, if man becomes too consumed with material goods and
worldly victory and neglects those “goods which belong to the City on high”, misery will result.
Chapter 8: The reason why Cain founded a city among the first beginnings of the human race
The people of God, descending from the line of Abraham, were to be kept distinct from all other
nations, since it was from them that the City of God would emerge. Other societies were
mentioned briefly, but God wanted to distinguish the City of God from any other. On one side
the generations of men who lived by human standards existed and on the other side, the
generations of the sons of God. The two generations intertwined during the flood. Noah and his
wife were the only ones worthy of salvation. Enoch, son of Cain, is the namesake of the city of
God. People lived till old age, helping to explain the terrific proliferation of cities.
City of God: Book 22 - Chapter 1, 24, 30
CHAPT 1: The creation of angels and men
In this first chapter, Augustine describes the City of God. It is truly eternal; citizens will be given
an immortality that the angels have. Augustine assures that God will keep this promise of eternal
bliss saying that God has always done that which he has promised and more - God gave man
intelligence and the power to free choice to follow God. Even with the threat of evil, God left
this power to choose in place believing that it was an act of even greater power and goodness to
bring good out of the presence of evil. Moreover, Augustine discusses how the presence of the
sin shows that man’s nature was intended for good because this defect is wretched because it
does not enjoy God. Finally, Augustine says that from moral men, God is gathering great people
to fill the spots of the fallen angels and restore their numbers.
CHAPT 24: The good things of which this life is full, even though it is subject to condemnation
In this chapter, Augustine discusses how our present lives should be miserable because of the sin.
Yet, Augustine says that instead, it is a life filled with blessings. Instead of just a life of original
evil - our sin and God’s judgment, we also have original good - propagation and conformation,
with all the blessings of God, to ensure that we can still increase, multiply and fill the earth. This
good of propagation enables man to create other humans. The gift of conformation helps to
identify our species. Ours is an existence that comes from a unique combination of immaterial
dominating and mixing with the material. God gives man his mind with the capacity to know
and learn and therefore, a capacity for the good life, to attain eternal happiness. God also gives
to man a rational nature and virtues and the powers of mind and reason to help satisfy man’s
aims, even if they are superfluous or could be harmful. It is from these powers that man can
progress (invent, draw, produce). The natural abilities of the human mind are the primary
ornament of mortal life and can help to attain eternal life. The physical body shows the goodness
of God with a rational design, aesthetic and harmonious beauty, and occasional function (upright
posture, hands for writing, tongue for speech). The internal body is arranged in a system of
harmony (Augustine criticizes anatomists as ruthless and does not believe that they can ever
understand the internal workings). In the combination of visible and the invisible body,
Augustine comments that the body has a design that indicates the greater importance of dignity
than utility - in the eternal life, the uses of the body are unnecessary. Augustine also discusses
the blessing given to man of the beauty and utility of the natural creation. He asks us to consider
all these wonderful consolations that man was given for sinning as a sign of the even greater
blessings to be given in the spirit of the kingdom.
CHAPT 30: The eternal felicity of the City of God in its perpetual Sabbath
This chapter delineates the transformative effects of the restoration to be exacted upon attaining
the City of God. Initially, St. Augustine begins abstractly and continues to use the metaphor of
the body and its limbs to give an overview of the contrast between what we now are and will
know. He states that instead of the constrained function and bodily decay will be a newfound
harmony and beauty to the spirit and the body given by the spirit above and an appreciation of
this beauty. Then St. Augustine goes into more specifics talking about the sincerity and truth that
will come: true glory, true honor, true peace, true distinctions between individuals. This latter
point seems the most important, as brought up in section. Augustine is saying that even in the
City of God, some people are superior to others. Yet even with this ranking, the inferior will be
content with what they have and all ranks of individuals can live together harmoniously.
Augustine goes into more details about what will be restored, namely, the freedom of the will to
choose and withhold from sinning, because the latter was lost by Adam. Then, Augustine talks
about the type of intellectual knowledge of evil that will be attained in the City of God - an
awareness of evil so that its absence can be appreciated, but not a sensory remembrance of the
experience. He ends the chapter discussing how we will become the seventh day (Sabbath) and
shall have the leisure for eternity to recognize the Lord as the giver of our good works, perfected
by his grace.
Augustine, City of God: Book 19 (ch. 4-8, 12-15) Version 1
Book 19
Chapter 4: The Christian view of the Supreme Good and the Supreme Evil, contrasted with that
of the philosophers who found the Supreme Good in themselves
City of God sees the Ultimate Good as eternal life and the Ultimate Evil as eternal death. In
order to achieve eternal life, we must live rightly. We must have God’s help in having faith.
Philosophers, on the other hand, have surmised that we can find extreme good and evil here on
earth. These men are foolish. Wise men are not protected in any way from physical or mental
maladies. The Apostle says that “the desires of the flesh oppose the spirit” as the “desires of the
spirit oppose the flesh”. We can not be free of the desires of the flesh in our present life. Though
prudence teaches us not to consent to evil and self-control causes us not to consent, evil still
exists. In a just order of nature, both the body and the soul are subordinated to God.
Chapter 5: Social Life; its value and its dangers
Being social, in the sense that the saints were social, was important in helping the City to
advance and reach its goals. Mankind admits that sociability brings problems with it sometimes
(e.g: family, kids, marital problems). History of mankind is full of stories of wrongs, enmities,
suspicions and war. Man can get very upset when he feels the hurt of a traitorous friend. Man
worries thus that the home is no longer a safe-haven from wrongdoing. The larger the city, the
more filled with civil lawsuits and criminal trials, even if it is free of civil war.
1 “A man’s enemies are those of his own household.”
Chapter 6: The mistakes of human judgment, when the truth is hidden
Men who pronounce judgments on other men are wrong b/c they cannot possibly see into the
consciences of those on whom they pronounce sentence. Man who is wrongly accused suffers
b/c he has to bear the weight of people casting doubt on his innocence. It is man’s duty to be a
judge sometimes, casting him into a position of wrongfully accusing an innocent. The innocent
may confess b/c they cannot tolerate the torture any longer.
Chapter 7: Human society divided by differences of language. The misery of war, even when just
After the household and city comes the world, which the philosophers view as the third level of
human society. If men do not share the same tongue, they can no unite in fellowship.
2 “The wise man will wage just wars.”
A man who does not experience grief at the evils of war is pitiable b/c he has lost all human
feeling.
Chapter 8: The friendship of good men can never be carefree, because of this life’s dangers
The more friends we have and the more dispersed they are, the more worry we feel about their
own well-being as well as the chance that they might turn against us at some point. This kind of
back-stabbing brings much grief with it. We would rather hear of the physical death of a friend
who is dear to us than the figurative death of the soul of someone who used to be a friend.
3 “when good men die who are our friends we rejoice for them; and though their death
brings us sadness, we find our surer consolation in this, that they have been spared those
evils by which in this life even good men are crushed or corrupted”
Chapter 12
1 Peace is the instinctive aim of all creatures, and is even the ultimate purpose of war.
There is no man who does not wish for peace
2 Even when men wish a present state of peace to be disturbed, they do not do so because
they hate peace, but because they desire the present state of peace to be exchanged for
one that better suits their wishes
3 All men desire to be at peace with their own people, while wishing to impose their will
upon those people’s lives.
4 For ever when they wage war on others, their wish is to make those opponents their own
people, if they can – to subject them, and to impose on them their own conditions of
peace
5 Even the most savage beasts, safeguard their own species by a kind of peace, by coition,
by begetting and bearing young, by cherishing then and rearing them; even though most
of them are not gregarious but solitary
6 Pride is a perverted imitation of God. For pride hates a fellowship of equality under God,
and seeks to impose its own dominion on fellow men, in place of God’s rule This means
that is hates the just peace of God, and loves its own peace of injustice.
7 A man who has learnt to prefer right to wrong and the rightly ordered to the perverted,
sees that the peace of the unjust, compared with the peace of the just, is not worthy even
of the name of peace
Chapter 13
1 The peace of the universe maintained through all disturbances by a law of nature: the
individual attains, by God’s ordinance, to the state he has deserved by his free choice
2 The peace of body and soul is the duly ordered life and health of a living creature; peace
between mortal man and God is an ordered obedience, in faith, in subjection to an
everlasting law; peace between men is an ordered agreement of mind with mind; the
peace of a home is the ordered agreement among those who live together about diving
and obeying orders
3 The peace of the Heavenly City is a perfectly ordered perfectly harmonious fellowship of
the enjoyment of God
4 The peace of the whole universe is the tranquility of order- and order is the arrangement
of things equal and unequal in a pattern which assigns to each its proper position
5 There exists a nature in which there is no evil, in which, no evil can exist; but there
cannot exist a nature in which there is no good. Not even the nature of the Devil is evil, in
so far as it is a nature; it is perversion that makes it evil
6 God then, created all things in supreme wisdom and ordered them in perfect justice; and
in establishing the mortal race of mankind as the greatest ornament of earthly things, he
has given to mankind certain good things suitable for this life
7 Every mortal who uses aright such goods, goods designed to serve the peace of mortal
men, shall receive goods greater in degree and superior in kind, the peace of immortality,
and the glory and honor appropriate to it in a life which is eternal for the enjoyment of
God and of one’s neighbor in God
Chapter 14
1 The order and law, earthly or heavenly, by which government serves the interests of
human society
2 All man’s use of temporal things is related to the enjoyment of earthly peace in the
earthly city; whereas in the Heavenly city it is related to the enjoyment of eternal peace
3 The peace of an ordered life and of health promote that peace which is a mutual concord
between body and soul
4 In man there is a rational soul in which he may order his life and his moral standards but
he needs divine direction which he may obey in resolution and divine assistance that he
may obey it freely to prevent him from falling victim to some fatal error (weakness of the
human mind)
5 God teaches two chief precepts, love of God and love of neighbor; and in them man finds
three objects for his love: God, himself, and his neighbor; and a man who loves God is
not wrong in loving himself
6 It follows that he will be concerned also that his neighbor should love God, since he is
told to love his neighbor as he loves himself
7 Man will be at peace, as far as lies in him, with all men, in that peace among men, that
ordered harmony; and the basis of this order is the observance of two rules: first, to do no
harm to anyone, and, secondly, to help everyone whenever possible
8 Those who give orders do not do so out of lust for domination but from a dutiful concern
for the interests of others, not with pride in taking precedence over others, but with
compassion in taking care of others
Chapter 15
1 Man’s natural freedom; and the slavery caused by sin
2 God did not wish the rational being, made in his own image, to have dominion over any
but irrational creatures, not man over man, but man over the beasts
3 The condition of slavery is justly imposed on the sinner not because of his nature, but
because of his misdeed
4 Even when a sinner fights a just war it is fought in defense of his sin that the other side is
contending; and victory, even when the victory falls with the wicked, is a humiliation
visited on the conquered by divine judgment, either to correct or to punish their sins
5 The first cause of slavery, then, is sin, whereby man was subjected to man in the
condition of bondage; and this can only happen by the judgment of God, with whom
there is no injustice, and who knows how to allot different punishments according to the
deserts of the offenders- “Everyone who commits sin is sin’s slave”
6 It is a happier lot to be a slave to man than to be slave to lust
7 Though many devout men are slaves to unrighteous masters, yet the masters they serve
are not themselves free men; “for when a man is conquered by another he is also bound
as a slave to his conqueror”
8 If slaves cannot be set free by their masters, they themselves may thus make their slavery,
in a sense, free, by serving not with the slyness of fear, but with the fidelity of affection,
until all injustice disappears and all human lordship and power is annihilated, and God is
all in all
Augustine, City of God: Book 19 (ch. 4-8, 12-15) Version 2
(bold highlights themes from the class)
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE SUPREME GOOD AND THE SUPREME EVIL,
CONTRASTED WITH THAT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS WHO FOUND THE
SUPREME GOOD IN THEMSELVES - ETERNAL LIFE IS THE SUPREME
GOOD, AND ETERNAL DEATH IS THE SUPREME EVIL, AND THAT TO
ACHIEVE ONE AND ESCAPE THE OTHER, WE MUST LIVE RIGHTLY.
TWO THE OF THE HIGHEST RANKED GOODS OF THE MIND ARE
SENSATION AND UNDERSTANDING, B/C THEY LEAD TO APPREHENSION
AND AWARENESS OF THE TRUTH. WE CAN NEVER ATTAIN THAT
WHICH WE SEEK WHILE ON EARTH, ONLY IN HEAVEN. BUT WE DO
NOT DESPAIR/COMMIT SUICIDE, B/C WE ARE OUR OWN BEST FRIEND,
AND THUS SHOULD NOT SEEK DEATH. THOSE DELUDED PHILOSOPHERS
WHO BELIEVE THEY CAN FIND COMPLETE HAPPINESS DO SO FALSELY
AND IT IS A REFLECTION OF THEIR ARROGANCE.
5 Social life; its value and its dangers - social life is important - how would the first city
have started, and saints succeeded without being social. Yet there is danger in teachers
hidden under the pretense of loyalty, or under name of kinship
6 The mistakes of human judgement, when the truth is hidden - humans cannot make
final judgments (esp in terms of death sentences) because we cannot see everything.
The biggest wrong is to sentence an innocent man to death in ignorance in an attempt to
protect the innocent.
7 Human society divided by differences of language. The misery of war, even when just man requires a common language to communicate and form bonds. Without a common
language, cannot be united, and that’s why wars start.
8 The friendship of good men can never be carefree, because of this life’s dangers - all
men must be wary of those who only pretend to be good friends.
12 Peace is the instinctive aim of all creatures, and is even the ultimate purpose of war how much more strongly is a human being drawn by the laws of his nature, to enter
upon a fellowship with all his fellow-men and to keep peace with them… for even
the wicked when they go to war do so to defend the peace of their own people, and
desire to make all men their own people, if they can, so that all men and all things
might together be subservient to one master
13 The peace of the universe maintained through all disturbances by a law of nature: the
individual attains, by God’s ordinance, to the state he has deserved by his free choice
19 4
- the peace of the whole universe is the tranquility of order - and order is the
arrangement of things equal and unequal in a pattern which assigns to each its proper
position; there is peace without any war, but no war without some degree of peace
14 The order and law, earthly or heavenly, by which government serves the interests of
human society - while on earth, man should enjoy earthly peace in the earthly city.
There is Peace of the Body and Peace of the Soul. Together the two form happiness.
God teaches us to love him, ourself, and our neighbors, so the government should
rule with compassion for others.
15 Man’s natural freedom; and the slavery caused by sin - God intended the rational
being to have dominion only over irrational beings. The condition of slavery is
justly imposed on the sinner. Bondage can only happen by the judgement of God.
Yet, slavery as punishment as ordained by the law is justified for the preservation of the
law of nature (peace). If nothing had been done to disturb the peace, there would
have been nothing to require the discipline of slavery as punishment.
MISSING ITEM #5: Augustine, City of God: Book 19 (ch. 15-28)
Lecture on October 28 & Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan: Introduction, Chapters, 6, 8, 10
Lecture Summary:
October 28 Lecture: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
1 What happened in Europe between 430 and 1650?
o Collapse of the Roman Empire
9th century AD, Scandinavians were raping and pillaging
o Feudalism
11th century
hierarchical order, the kind empowered nobles and aristocrats to take
charge of certain designated territories. Nobles then passed out land to
vassals, serfs were at the bottom of the hierarchy.
o St. Thomas Aquinas -Aristotelian Christianity
He reconstitutes Christian teaching on the basis of Aristotle
Western Europe has lost site of Aristotle, until the Muslims come back
and are in control of most of Spain
He revalues reason
He lays a different stress on the importance of the city of man, it’s more
important for him than it was for Augustine).
In the time of Augustine, they all expected that Christ would reappear
soon. 1200 years later, it doesn’t look like this is going to happen, and the
city of man becomes more important.
City of man could habituate people into the right sort of sentiment, into
being good Christians. Today’s Catholic church is based on the teaching
of Thomas Aquinas.
o
Reformation: Luther and Calvin
Luther and Calvin reacted against the Catholic church, against the
authority of the pope. They established a Protestant religion, man had a
more direct route to God. The text of the Bible was something individuals
could interpret themselves. It was more democratic, in a way.
o Rise of popular sovereignty
Descending theory of authority, example-divine right of kings
From the 13th century on, people start believing in an ascending theory of
political authority. The power of the king ascends from the people, this is
also called popular sovereignty. This is consistent with having a king, but
he derives his legitimacy from the people. (So it’s not really democracy).
o Religious Wars 1550-1650
If the 9th century was the worst, the 2nd worst was this period.
Civil wars fought between different religious groups.
Proposition 1: The laws of god trump the laws of man.
Proposition 2: We have direct access to the laws of god.
So these could be a problem if citizens don’t follow their kings.
People with these sorts of beliefs caused havoc.
How do you establish stable order, given this disagreement over religion
and the relative authorities of God and man? Hobbes is the one who
attempted to answer this question.
2 Thomas Hobbes-the first modern political theorist. After long reign of Queen Elizabeth,
the Stewarts inherited the monarchy. James I believed in the DRoK, and he tried to
institute Catholicism. Charles I tries the same thing. Puritans and others rebel against
Charles I after a Civil War, in 1649 Charles I is executed by the Puritans. The puritans
are in power for 11 years. When Charles I is executed, the charge against him is that he
was a tyrant, traitor, murdered, enemy of the commonwealth of England. A reassertion of
the power of the people, he also rules according to his will and infringed on rights of
citizens. Charles II also takes power. Hobbes is living through all of this, and he had to
frequently flee England because his texts were controversial. The Puritans and the kings
saw Hobbes as a threat. Hobbes hates Aristotle, thinks that readers of Aristotle are a
threat to public order. He also can’t stand Thomas Aquinas.
o Aristotelian Christianity-Hobbes destroys this.
He objects for philosophical and political reasons. He doesn’t believe than
man is by nature a political animal. He thinks man is naturally asocial,
man’s natural state is to be at war with each other, so powerful entities
were required to maintain peace by threatening to kill people who disobey.
(Quote A) (chapter 13)
Hobbes thinks that in the absence of authority, people will be selfish and
destructive. (Quote B)
o Divine Right of Kings
o Church-state separation
2 B-Hobbes’ view of what society would be like without an authority
3 “nasty, brutish, and short”. Security is the most important thing.
4 Man has 2 faculties:
o
o
Ability to calculate means and ends. Humans are rational.
There is a commonality among human beings-humans fear violent death more
than anything else.
o Hobbes builds a political theory on the basis of these two premises. He’s so great
because he can derive a substantive argument from premises that are easier to
accept. No one can dispute those two premises.
5 Hobbes has no place in his theory for God, since different religions disagree. Once God is
invoked, you’ll get nowhere since there is not religious consensus.
6 Hobbes is the first “modern” political theorist because he doesn’t call on god to verify
himself.
7 A warrior class wouldn’t agree with the second premise. Christian martyrs also wouldn’t
agree with the second premise. How does he take those 2 groups out of his theory? He
makes an effort to persuade us that violent death is still, in fact, the worst thing that can
happen to us. He says, if you grant me that assumption, I’ll show you a stable order.
8 If you accept his premises, is there anywhere in his chain of reasoning where he goes
wrong?
9 Hobbes is influenced by Euclid.
10 Hobbes State of Nature
o Our lives would be nasty, brutish, and short.
o The right of nature
We have one right:: the right to self-defense. People decide the scope of
this right. People decide when they’re under attack or at risk for attack.
A feature is also that everyone is able of killing everyone else. No person
can rest safe and secure.
o The laws of nature
Man is equipped with certain precepts of reason. We are naturally
constituted in such a way that we have rational faculties to get us out of
this mess.
Law that instructs us that if everyone is willing to give up their own right of nature to
obey a common authority, we should go along with it. This is the social contract. Everyone chips
in. We will give up our right to protect ourselves if everyone is willing to obey the state.
Political context: b. 1588. dies 1679. Civil war in England. Queen Elizabeth (Protestant) dies
and leaves no heir. King of Scotland, James (Catholic) takes throne. Believes in Divine Right of
kings. Is controversial b/c Catholics follow a foreign leader (the pope).
Leviathan published 1651 almost is censored.
Style: Hobbes likes to define things in “funny” ways.
Most imp. Info in bold. Pay particular attention to state of narure and law of nature. Civil
society to ensure security from the war of the state of nature. Golden rule in the law of nature is
treat others as you want to be treated.
Leviathan Introduction:
1 Historical background (see lecture notes)
2 Hobbes denies the relevance of a conventional concept of a benevolent God to any
philosophical enquiry.
3 Since material objects cannot move themselves, our changing inner mental life must be
the result of a chain of material causation stretching back an indefinite distance, and
involving both internal bodily processes such as the circulation of the blood, and external
events such as the impact of light on our eyes. We can , however, have confidence in the
truth of only propositions which relate to the final perceptions, since we have direct
acquaintance only with them, the rest of a natural science must remain hypothetical.
the traditional notion of free will is absurd, it was quite impossible to have realistic ethics
4 Hobbes believed that the correct understanding and application of his philosophy would
transform human life.
5 Men, on Hobbes’ account, were to abandon the state of nature by renouncing the right to
all things-that is, in effect, renouncing their own private right of judgment about what
conduced to their preservation, except in such obvious and extreme cases that there could
be no disagreement about the necessary means.
6 The way in which we renounce individual judgment, according to Hobbes, is that we
enter into a contractual relationship with our fellow men and erect a sovereign whose
judgments we will henceforth count as our own.
7 Hobbes’ ideal citizen would, like the wise man of much ancient philosophy, have come a
man without belief and passion, accepting the laws of his sovereign as the only “measure
of Good and Evil actions”
8 A majority vote among the inhabitants of the state of nature would be necessary to create
any sovereign other than a democratic society.
9 It makes sense to say that sovereignty can lie with a people even when they do not
directly exercise it.
10 A sovereign is only to enforce on his subjects those things which be believed necessary
for their preservation.
11 Hobbes’ theory liberates men from unnecessary fear.
Chapter 6: Of the Interiour Beginnings of Voluntary Motions, commonly called the Passions.
And the Speeches by which they are expressed.
1 Voluntary motion and speaking require imagination first and foremost.
2 The beginnings of motion are called endeavor. If it endeavor is toward something, it is
called appetite or desire, if it is from something, it is called aversion.
3 That which men desire, they are also said to love, and to have those things, for which
they have aversion.
4 The things which we neither desire nor hate, we have contempt for.
5 Man calls things he desires good, things he hates evil, and things for which he shows
contempt vile and inconsiderable.
6 Good has three kinds: good in the promise, good in effect, good in the means.
7 The appearance of a motion results in either delight or trouble of mind.
8 Pleasure is the appearance of good, and molestation or displeasure the appearance of a
sense of evil.
9
10
11
12
13
Appetite, with an opinion of attaining is hope (w/o opinion, despair)
Aversion, hurt fear
Hope of avoiding hurt: aversion vs. hope of avoiding hope by resistance: courage
Constant despair is diffidence of our selves
Anger for hurt done to another, when we conceive the same to be done by another,
indignation
14 Desire of good to another is benevolence etc. If to all man, good nature.
15 Covetousnesse: desire of riches, signifies blame
16 Desire of office: ambition
17 Love of persons for society: kindness
18 Fear-of invisible power, feigned by the mind, imagined from public tales, religion not
allowed, superstition, when the power is imagined, true religion.
19 Fear without understanding why is panic.
20 Joy, glory, confidence
21 Grief, dejection of mind
22 Vain-glory, sudden glory
23 Grief also shame, blushing, pity
24 Every deliberation is then said to end, when that whereof they deliberate, is either done,
or thought impossible, because till then we retain the liberty of doing according to our
appetite or aversion.
25 Will is the last appetite in deliberating.
26 The forms of speech by which the men signify their opinion of the good is praise, and
they magnify its power and greatness.
Leviathan Summaries: Chapters 8 and 10
Chapter 8
Virtue is subjective; intellectual virtue concerns abilities of the mind and is praised and coveted
by all men. Virtue (also referred to as wit) can be either natural or acquired. Natural wit
develops through usage and experience without influence of culture or instruction. Men who
observe similarities between themselves and others are said to have good wit or fancy; men who
observe differences between themselves and others are said to have good judgment or discretion.
Fancy emphasizes pleasure, while judgment emphasizes truth. Prudence results from experience
and memory of the consequences of experience; prudence allows one to make wise and informed
decisions. Craft is crooked wisdom, prudence combined with unjust and dishonest actions.
Acquired wit is gained through instruction. The desire for power is the difference between the
two types of wits. When one has no or few passions, he is dull. When one has apathetic passions
towards every thing, he is giddy and distracted. When one has passions stronger or more
vehement than is common, he is mad. Madness can result either from pride or dejection Pride
leads to anger, which in excess becomes rage and fury. Dejection causes irrational fears, or
melancholy. Those who suffer from madness are called madmen. Another sort of madness is
insignificant speech: obscure, incomprehensible, or absurd speech or writing.
Chapter 10 Version 1
A man’s power is his ability to secure “some future apparent good” and is either original or
instrumental. Power is a man’s capacity to fulfill his own desires and objectives. Natural power
is the prominence of the body and mind’s faculties and capabilities. Instrumental power is that
which is acquired through natural power or by fortune, and is a means to acquire more power in
the form of riches, reputation, friends, or good luck. The more power one has, the more power
he can gain. The greatest power is the power of many united as one, i.e. a commonwealth or
league of factions. The value, or worth of a man is determined by how much others are willing
to pay for use of his power. Thus, a man’s value is dependent on the need and judgment of
another. A highly valued man is an honored man, while a man of little worth is dishonored.
Dignity is the public worth of a man, the value society places on him. Possessions or actions are
honorable when they are signs of power. Whether possessions or actions are just or unjust, they
are honorable so long as they are great because great possessions and actions imply power.
One’s coat of arms gives him honor because it is a sign of high class. Likewise, one’s title is
honorable when it is duke, count, baron, etc.; such a title represents the value the commonwealth
placed on the man. Worthiness is different from a man’s worth, and would be better termed
fitness or aptitude; one is worthy of a position or a gift when he is best fitted for that position or
gift. For instance, a man is worthy of being a judge when he has the qualities best suited for that
career, the qualities that career requires. Worthiness takes priority over rights: a man who is
worthy of a position should win the position over a man who merely deserves it.
Chapter 10 Version 2: Of Power, Worth, Dignity, Honour and Worthinesse
Part 1: Power. Defines: man’s present means to obtain some future apparent Good. Power can
be original (natural) or Instrumental.
Natural: of Body and Mind. Ex. Strength and liberality.
Instrumental: power you can get from your natural powers. Ex. Riches, friends.
Greatest powers is those powers of many men united in one man. Ex. The commonwealth or a
man with servants.
Hobbes then makes a long list of how powers can be made greater through the combination of
two or more powers.
Part 2: worth (or value) of men is equal to the price that would be given for the use of his power.
Not absolute, depends on judgment of another. Worth manifests itself in honouring or
dishonoring because this is judgment of others.
Part 3: Dignity is this measure of honour as displayed by a man’s titles or distinctions.
Part 4: Hobbes explains how men are honored or dishonored.
Part 5: Honor boils down to whatever possession, action or quality is an argument for power.
Part 6: to be honored by none is dishonorable. Justice does not matter in judgment of honor b/c
honor is only the opinion of power.
Part 7: coats of arms honorable if they have privileges. Displayed in gentry which comes from
the Germans.
Part 8: titles of honour ex. Duke etc. is title of power given by the commonwealth.
Part 9: worthiness=fitness=aptitude is particular ability
Chapter 11: On the differences of Manners
Part 1: define. Matters that concern living in peace and unity. Isn’t one ultimate utmost aim or
greatest good so mind cannot be at rest. Happiness is progress of desire from one thing to the
other. Differences in definition of happiness come from diff. In passions and knowledge of the
causes which cause the effect.
Part 2: Restless desire of power in all men. Ensures the keeping of his power.
Part 3: Love of contention from competition. Fight for riches etc. (which ensure power) so wars.
Part 4: Civil obedience from love of ease. Obey a power other than ones own to get leisure and
sensual delight. For this must labour.
Part 5: Give up power also from fear of death or wounds.
Part 6: give up power also to pursue love of Arts.
Part 7: happiness from love of virtue and praise.
Part 8: hate, from difficulty of not accepting great benefits. Makes one dependent and hateful to
the one on which one depends.
Part 9: hate from consciousness of deserving to be hated. Hurting others with your power more
than you need to makes you not like them b/c you are defensive.
Part 10: promptness to hurt from fear. Seek aid of society b/c fear giving up life and liberty.
Part 11: promptness to hurt from distrust of one’s own wit. Hurt for protection. Preventative
banding together.
Part 12: vain undertaking of glory. Men who are willing to engage in a losing battle to save their
honor stupid b/c will lose their lives.
Part 13: Ambition from high opinion of one’s abilities.
Part 14: not being able to make up your mind b/c caught up in small matters wastes your ability.
Not efficient use of time and ability.
Part 15: trusting others b/c bad judge of wisdom. Eloquence gets others to stupidly work for you
and give up their freedom. But sometimes this is just the way things go without a value
judgement on it.
Part 16: ignorance of natural causes makes him rely on authority of other.
Part 17: not understanding words makes you too trusting and makes others manipulate you.
Don’t see the error in the non-sense. Mix up opinion and heresy.
Part 18: stick to customs when ignorant of the nature of right and wrong. Nature of right and
wrong can be defined in right, equity, law and justice which = reason. When unsure of right and
wrong, people use precedents.
Part 19: adherence to private men from ignorance of the causes of peace. Means that you blame
the direct cause that is most visible. Men blame the salesperson for high prices when not under
his control.
Part 20: believing b/c ignore nature.
Part 21: curiosity to know from care of future time. Knowing how things work help to prepare
for the unfortellable future.
Part 22: religion comes from this as well. Need to know causes makes men think up the cause of
all things and ultimately leads to a singular god eternal. They can’t “see” him but know he is
there from what he produces.
People who don’t make the structured reasonable inquiry to the causes of things just conclude
that gods (powers invisible) did it. Fear of things invisible makes religions.
Chapter 12 of religion
Part 1: can safely say that only humans have religion because no other animal exhibits religion.
Part 2: religion comes from knowing causes of one’s good and evil fortunes.
Part 3: religion comes from wanting to know the beginnings of things, the beginning of all
causes.
Part 4: men know cause and effect so they seek to explain them. When they are invisible, they
believe a higher autority or pin it on god.
Part 5: the natural cause of religion is the anxiety (fear) of the time to come (future which may
hold bad fortune).
Part 6: fear of future makes humans fear the power of invisible things (gods). This is because the
gods, they determine, cause all things, good or bad, because they are an eternal source of cause
and are not made to happen by anything before them.
Part 7: men think that the gods are incorporeal spirits.
Part 8: men don’t know the way that the gods affect anything. They can only find patterns.
Part 9: men honor the gods like they honor men.
Part 10: all extraordinary events attributed to the gods.
Part 11: these 4 things are the natural causes of religion. 1. opinion of ghosts. 2. ignorance of
second causes. 3. devotion towards what men fear. 4. taking of things casual for prognostiques.
Different religions come from the diff interpretations of these by the diff passions etc. of men.
Part 12: religions are made diff by culture. Some make religion by their own invention. Some
make religion by god’s commandment and direction. Goals of religion obedience, laws, peace,
charity and civil society.
Part 13: the absurd opinion of gentilism. Gentiles attribute many things to spirits.
Part 14: the goals of the authors of religion of the heaven. Some people make up a religion just
to get obedience and peace.
Part 15: describes the true religion. God did speak his laws to people so that they could enact
his law as the law of the state to get along peacefully not only with one another but with him as
well.
Part 16: the causes of change in religion. Following men’s interpretations when these men say
they are holy and inspired by god.
Part 17: Belief in impossibilities. Leaders of false religion say inspired by god to explain why
defies natural religion.
Part 18: doing contrary to the religion they establish. Hypocricy of rulers. If leaders do things
only for their benefit, they do not love others.
Part 19: need of testimony of miracles.
Chapter 13: of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery.
Part 1: men are equal by nature. Equal in body and mind so one makes up for the other.
Differences not that great. Can band together if weak. All men’s abilities equalized by
experience which time gives equally to all men. All of us have enough wisdom. Proven in fact
that no man thinks that he is deficient in wisdom.
Part 2: equality preceeds difference. People compete for things.
Part 3: war arises. Men invade for gain, safety and reputation.
Part 4; without civil society there is always war between all men.
Part 5: the incommodities of war.
Part 6: in this war, nothing is unjust. Right and wrong has no place there. Without common
power, no law. If no law, no injustice.
Part 7: the passions that incline men to peace= fear of death.
Chapter 14: of the first and second natural laws and of contracts.
Part 1: right of nature. Men can be their own judges to preserve their lives.
Part 2; liberty= the absence of external impediments.
Part 3: law of nature= general rule found out by reason. Cannot destroy your own life.
Part 4: difference between law and right. Not at Liberty to take away your life or your ability to
protect it because the law of nature dictates that you must protect it.
Part 5: naturally, every man has a right to everything so no security.
Part 6: the fundamental law of nature: every man should endeavor for peace, and where he
cannot get it himself, he should look for help to find it. Seek peace and follow it. Then, defend
ourselves by all means we have.
Part 7: the second law of nature: men should mutually be willing to lay down rights to all things
and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow men against himself.
Part 8: what is to lay down a right? To give up the liberty to take away another’s right to the
same.
Part 9: can either renounce a right or give it away to another.
Part 10: if he transfers the right he is obliged to him.
Part 11: it is his duty not to violate these obligations.
Part 12: injustice is not following the authority of the one to whom you gave the right.
Part 13: you cannot transfer all rights. Transferring rights must be for one’s own good.
Part 14: contract =mutually transferring of right.
Part 15: pact or covenant is the agreement of service at a later time.
Part 16: free gifts are not required but given as charity.
Part 17: signs of covenant can be expressed or inferred. Expressed ones are promises.
Part 18: inferred ones are those of actions etc.
Part 19: free gift passes by words of the present or past. Diff. If say I will that this be thine or
this will be thine. The first is in the present and the second is future.
Part 20:a promise is equivalent to a covenant and therefore obligatory.
Part 21: what is merit? Even if something is a free gift, you can merit it. The maker of a
covenant merits what he will get.
Part 22: a covenant needs a power over both men to ensure that they will perform to make it not
void. Civil society is this power.
Part 23: the right to the end contains the right to the means. If you get a mill, you get the stream
on that land.
Part 24: can’t make a covenant with beasts.
Part 25: can’t make covenant with god without special revelation because we must know if our
covenants are accepted.
Part 26: the covenant must be possible and future because otherwise it makes no logical sense.
Part 27; can be freed of covenants two ways: by performing or being forgiven.
Part 28: covenants extorted by fear are valid unless the law releases you.
Part 29: one covenant made previously can void one made later.
Part 30: a man cannot make a covenant not to defend himself because of the law of nature.
Part 31: no man has to accuse himself because it will be corrupted by nature. Also testimonies
under torture are not valid.
Part 32: oaths are made out of fear or pride and those are the only two things which can ensure
that they will work.
Part 33:oath must have a form with oral promise.
Part 34: there is no oath but by god. Must be serious when say I swear by god.
Chapter 15: of the laws of nature.
Part 1; the first law of nature is justice. Men must perform their covenants.
Part 2: justice =whatever is not unjust. Unjust=breaking of a covenant.
Part 3: justice begins with the constitution of a commonwealth. Power over those who make a
covenant to punish them if they don’t follow through.
Part 4: justice can’t be contrary to reason.
Part 5: covenants can’t be discharged by th evice of the makers of the covenants.
Part 6&7: justice of men is conforming to reason. Justice of action is conforming to reason not
in manner but in particular actions.
Part 8 : nothing done to a man can be injury.
Part 9: justice can be commutative or distributive.
Part 10: fourth law of nature is gratitude.
Part 11: fifth law of nature is compleasance. Every man strives to accommodate himself to the
rest. Sociability.
Part 12: sixth law of nature man should forgive something if the other repents because it is the
granting of peace.
Part 13: seventh law of nature that in revenge (retribution of evil for evil) men should look at the
good to follow, otherwise it is cruelty.
Part 14; the eigth law of nature is that no one should express hatred.
Part 15: ninth law of nature is everyone should accept that all men are equal. If he does not
believe this, he is prideful.
Part 16: no man can take a right which he does not grant others or he is arrogant.
Part 17: 11th: must deal equally with all men.
Part 18: 12th everyone can use common things equally.
Part 19: 13th equal lottery if fist use a problem.
Part 20: 14th lottery by first possessor or primogeniture if can’t be shared.
Part 21: 15th al lthat mediate peace get sage conduct.
Part 22: 16th when people fight, should find an arbitrator.
Part 23: 17th no man can be his own judge b/c motivations messed up.
Part 24: 18th judge should be impartial.
Part 25: 19th equal credit to witnesses
Part 26: rule that encompasses all laws of nature is “do not that to another that which you would
not have done to yourself.”
Part 27: security is necc. For this to work.
Part 28: the laws of nature are eternal.
Part 29: it is easy to observe these laws.
Part 30 ;the science of these laws is the only true moral philosophy.
Hobbes’s Leviathan Book 16-21
Chapter 16: Of Persons, Authors, and things Personated
The contracts, or covenants, discussed in earlier books, were upheld by natural law; they
represent the persons involved. A Person can either be “a natural person” or “an artificial
person.” A natural person is a person whose words or actions are considered as his own; an
artificial person is a person who represents the words or actions of another man. Therefore, all
natural men are authors who have the authority of their own words and actions whereas an
artificial person is a mere actor acting according to the authors. All men in natural state are
natural men, and their words are of their own when they make contracts with each other to
escape their state of nature, which is of war. Because they are authors of their words, they are
bound to fulfill their contracts. All natural men agree on a contract that they are bound to, which
condense their wills and desires into one single representation; this representation, or a contract,
is an actor acting out the words of natural men and therefore an artificial person. Therefore, this
contract is an artificial person, which is the basis of the Leviathan.
PART 2: Of Commonwealth
Chapter 17: Of the Causes, Generation, and Definition of a Common-Wealth
Hobbes demonstrated in Part 1 that human beings seek peace and attempt to escape their
natural state, required so by the natural law. However, the human nature of constantly increasing
hunger for power threatens the upholding of contracts. This is where Hobbes sees the need of a
common power, a sovereign authority, which forces each individual to uphold one’s contracts by
fear of punishment. The sovereignty will be a part of social contract amongst all men in order to
have the authority and voice of all natural men.
The concept Sovereignty in Hobbes’s analogy is the soul of the artificial person and the
sovereign itself, the head of the entire state. The artificial person in this analogy is what Hobbes
calls “LEVIATHAN.” Hobbes argues that Leviathan is the only way to force all men to uphold
their contracts against their nature and the only way to have all men avoid the natural state of war.
The Leviathan derives its authority from the social contract that all men make.
The purpose of establishing a commonwealth is to escape the constant fear and despair in
the state of nature. Therefore, Leviathan is responsible for the security and defense of all men
under it. The sovereign can either be one person or an assembly of a few men, but “he” can do
whatever he deems necessary to protect the commonwealth and security of mankind. All
individual rights are transferred to sovereign and the only right that remains with each person is
the right of self-preservation-the original reason of establishing the Leviathan.
Chapter 18: Of the Rights of Soveraignes by Institution
There are two ways of achieving this commonwealth: acquisition and institution. The
latter is the way Hobbes describes the natural man achieving the peace out of his natural state;
nevertheless, Hobbes states that establishing a commonwealth through force-sovereign taking
over a control of people unless they resist and depose the sovereign-is pretty much the same as
the one established by acquisition: as much a part of the social contract. Both have the same
purpose and rights.
The rights of a sovereign are the following: 1) the subjects cannot change the form of
government; 2) sovereign power cannot be forfeited; 3) no man can without injustice protest
against the institutions of the sovereign declared by the major part; 4) the sovereign’s actions
cannot be justly accused by the subject; 5) whatsoever the sovereign does is not punishable by
the subject; 6) the sovereign is judge of what is necessary for the peace and defense of his
subjects and of what doctrines are fit to be taught them; 7) the right of making rules, whereby the
subjects my every man know what is so his own, as no other subject can without injustice take it
from him; 8) to him also belongs the right of all judicature and decision of controversies; 9) also
of making war, and peace, as he shall think best; 10) and of choosing all counselors and
ministers, both of peace, and war; and 11) and of rewarding, punishing, and that arbitrary; 12)
and of honor and order.
Hobbes claims that such rights that sovereign has are indivisible and the only way of
transferring such rights are direct renouncing of the sovereign power by the sovereign.
Chapter 19: Of the severall Kinds of Common-wealth by Institution, and of Succession to
Sovereign Power
There are three kinds of sovereign authority instituted by agreement: monarchy (all
power on one individual), aristocracy (all power in a group of selected people), and democracy
(all power in all people who want to participate). Although others may say there are other forms
of government, these are variations of the three listed above.
Hobbes argues that monarchy is the best form of sovereign because of several reasons: 1)
his interests are the same as people’s, 2) he will receive better counsel than aristocratic or
democratic governors in private, 3) he will be consistent, 4) he will not oppose himself therefore
less chance of civil war, and 5) succession of sovereign power is smoother because he can
choose the heir.
Chapter 20: Of Dominion Paternall, and Despoticall
In this chapter, Hobbes argues that the sovereign established through force has all the
same rights and requirements of contract. The only difference between one through force and
the other through agreement is the fact that people obey the one established through force
because of fear of the sovereign whereas people support the one established through agreement
because of fear of each other. However, both kinds of sovereignty are a part of social contract,
and both contacts are based on fear.
This sovereignty by contract is like the power of a father over a child. In the state of
nature, child is subjugated to mother, because child’s mother is easily known but there is no way
to know the father. The only person who knows the father of a child is the mother, and therefore,
mother has the power of a child. Two parents make an agreement to transfer the power to father,
just like all men do in the state of nature to transfer the power to the sovereign and that is why
the instituted sovereign power is called “paternal” sovereign.
Acquired sovereign power is often called “despotical” because it seems to be analogous
to the relationship between master and servant. Hobbes says, however, that such a relationship is
also based on contracts, therefore, paternal and despotical sovereign power are one and the same.
Chapter 21: Of the Liberty of Subjects
According to Hobbes, liberty means the ability to act according to one’s will without
being physically hindered from performing that act. Only chains and imprisonment can prevent
one from acting, thus all subjects have absolute liberty under sovereignty. Laws and contracts
may seem like chains, because we have authorized the sovereign with all the rights to do
whatever to keep security, subject is responsible for all and any hindrance to his actions.
Hobbes writes that in the state of nature, liberty did not exist because all the actions were
chained by fear of death of fear of each other; although fear is still present under Leviathan,
because all men contracted to give the power and fear to the sovereign, they achieved the
absolute liberty. All men are the authors of every actions of sovereign and therefore responsible
accordingly. Even if subject is imprisoned and killed by sovereignty, the subject is responsible
of his own fate. Hobbes concludes that absolute freedom only exists under a sovereign power
authorized by the contracts of all its subjects.
The more common sense of liberty is that of legitimately resisting or disobeying a
sovereign and Hobbes concludes that only under the self-preservation rights can he or she
rightfully resist the sovereign. However, for other reasons, a subject cannot rightfully resist the
sovereign because such would hinder the sovereign’s actions to secure and protect the
commonwealth.
Lecture on November 2 & Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapters, 29-31
Lecture summary 2 November 2004
Hobbes:
The state of nature: life in the absence of a state is nasty, brutish and short.
On the role of conceptions of human nature in political theories:
Hobbes thinks a stable political order requires some realistic idea of human nature.
“the naturalist fallacy” moving from a claim about human nature to a claim that something is, by
its existence in nature, good.
Hobbes doesn’t necessarily believes this but believes that any ‘oughts’ or dictates must be
possible, not unnatural, for the success of a state.
Is “love they neighbor as thyself” a psychological impossibility? Do communists
presuppose an impossible level of altruism?
Hobbes maintains that man is naturally associable—in this way diff. From other animals—the
state is artificial [vs. the naturalness of aristotle’s polis]
Hobbes also maintains that men are natural equals in the state of nature b/c we are all equally
capable of killing each other.
Hobbes tears down the distinction between healthy and corrupt political regimes—denying the
notion of objectively unjust gov’t, saying tyranny is just a word used by the discontented.
There is almost no excuse for disobedience—as the great defender of the state, believes that the
alternative to any state is almost always worse--- ie war.
Another contrast with the greeks that some forms of activity or some lives are objectively higher
or better than others. Hobbes insists upon the subjectivity of value—so the people must
designate an arbitrator—the state will standardize good and evil.
G.M says that Hobbes’ brilliance lies in the idea that you can be for both a divine right of kings
and popular sovereignty—that after the social contract empowers a king (or whatever the state is
embodied by) his power is absolute. [frontispiece of leviathan—a monarch’s body composed of
his people.]
The belief of the people in the state, their obedience to it, of the most importance.
For hobbes, anything for the sake of order—sovereignty by instituion—ie popular
authorization—or by the assumption of power—either way they are still owed obedience for the
sake of order. Hobbes very outcome-oriented—who provides us w. stable order?
Hated by both puritan oppostion and the king, as he opposed both their claims to legitimacy.
Leviathan is supposedly the first real description of a modern state.
Despite his view of the state of nature, he had an optimistic view of mankind, that we all have
sufficient capacity for reason to lift ourselves up.
We give up the [sole] natural right, to protect ourselves, once we establish a sovereign state, as
conflict is unhealthy. We entrust the state with our protection and in return obey it. However,
hobbes’ important caveat is that even under a sovereign state you have the right to flee the threat
of death. You can regain your right to try to protect yourself… though the state has no
obligation to respect it if it decides you ought to die/be punished.
GM left us with some cliffhanger questions:
Hobbes on the nature and limit of political obligation—why should people obey the law of the
state? What are the limits of the law—of obedience? What are the consequences of breaking the
law? [hobbes considered the lawbreaker a fool, and irrational individual who merited expulsion
from the state, or even death.]
MISSING ITEM #6 Summary of Chapters 29-31
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapters 46-7, Review and Conclusion
Chapter 46
Of Darknesse from Vain Philosophy, and Fabulous Traditions
Philosophy is that knowledge that we acquire through reasoning about how things were
generated and its various properties. Those things that we learn from experience (prudence) are
no part of philosophy as they were not learned through reasoning.
It is impossible for philosophy to have any false doctrines because if one reasons through a
problem, you cannot conclude with an error.
The ability to reason is a product of our ability to speak as well as the leisure time and the peace
afforded by life in a commonwealth.
Hobbes goes on the speak of the various schools of philosophy amongst the Athenians, the Jews
(whose synagogues were schools of law), and the Greeks.
1 The schools of the Greeks were unprofitable because they spoke more of dreams than
science and their philosophy merely described their passions. But since there is such a
diversity of tastes, they could agree on nothing. He describes Aristotles Metaphysiques
as the most absurdly said thing in natural philosophy and repugnant to government.
2 The Jews corrupted the Text of the Law so much with their traditions and commentaries,
that they had misconstrued the words of the prophets to such a degree that they were not
even able to realize when Christ arrived
He then goes on to discuss all the errors that have infiltrated religion as a result of Aristotle’s
Metaphysics.
2 Metaphysics were mingled with the Scriptures to make his School of Divinity that taught
a number of false doctrines. Aristotle describes “abstract essences” that are separated
from the “substantial forms of our bodies”. These essences are Spirits. As we learned in
lecture, Hobbes is a materialist and bases everything upon physical things and denies the
idea of such ethereal beings. He believes that these “separated essences” that Aristotle
speaks of simply frighten men from obeying the laws of their country as they will be so
concerned with ghosts etc that they may obey their priest rather than their sovereign. As
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
a result, Aristotle’s teaching are harmful to the security of the sovereign and unacceptable
in Hobbes’s view.
Aristotle also teaches that eternity is the standing still of the present time (nunc-stans)
since they cannot conceive of it as the endless succession of time.
Aristotle contradicts himself by saying that by the power of God, one body can be in
many places at the same time and that many bodies can be at one at the same time and
place.
Beyond their religious doctrines, Aristotle’s school also failed at physics, and instead of
defining the causes of natural events they merely used empty words such as “heaviness”
to define what we know now to be gravity.
When they cannot determine the cause of a natural event they mask their ignorance,
Hobbes believes, with other words. For example when they do not know the cause of
something, they call it fortune.
He criticizes Aristotle’s classification of good and evil by the appetite of men as this
would only work if all men were governed by the same law. Hobbes believes that all
men derive what they believe to be good and evil in part from public laws and only
monks, and friars who are bound to obey God, can judge it on any other standard.
Aristotle’s school declares marriage repugnant to chastity and uses that as its reason to
deny marriage to the clergy who must remain pure to be on the altar. Hobbes disagree
with the making of marriage a sin through making sex unclean.
Aristotle classifies all kings as tyrants and democracies as engendering liberty. We have
learned that Hobbes does not believe that tyrants exist as they are only rulers that the
people do not like, and instead supports any strong government as being better than the
state of nature.
Aristotle also errs in saying that in a good Commonwealth, laws govern, not men. It is
wrong to attempt to extend the power of the laws to the thoughts and minds of men by
allowing interrogations to ask questions about what a defendant was thinking. Cannot
force someone to accuse themselves of opinions when they did not perform any bad
actions. Man cannot condemn himself in Hobbes view, so this is against the law of
nature.
Hobbes believes that private men should not be allowed to interpret the law as he pleases
The ecclesiastics who take power upon themselves in their own right, which they call
Gods right, are merely usurpers.
Chapter 47
Of the Benefit that Proceedeth from Darknesse, and to who it accreweth
The author is presumed to be the one who benefits from a fact.
The Church of Rome first taught that the church now militant on Earth is the kingdom of god.
The Right of Saint Peter has afforded the Church a universal monarchy.
The Church of England removed itself from the universal power of the pope giving the King if
not a supremacy, then an independency on the civil power of the people.
There are a number of doctrines intended to keep the possession of the spiritual sovereignty of
the Church of Rome including the following:
13 The Pope is infallible in issues of doctrine
14 The bishops receive their Right directly from the pope - not from God or from a civil
sovereign
15 The clergy are exempt from civil law
16 Clergy only have the right of marriage and therefore control the right of succession to
hereditary kingdoms
17 By denying marriage of priests, the pope has power over the kings who cannot become
priests because they have to marry and have children
18 Confession gives the church intelligence of what is going on
19 Have the power to canonize saints and declare martyrs meaning they can induce men to
go against the laws.
20 Thru exorcisms, transubstantiation (bread and wine to body and blood of Jesus),
indulgences etc. priests can keep people in awe of their power.
The Church is wrong to say that the Church on Earth is the Kingdom of God described in the
Bible. And those sovereigns who allowed by the Christians to come in and take their power
away and disturb the tranquility of their subjects were accomplices to their own public damage.
It is the fault of those sovereigns who initially accepted the power of the pope and doomed all
their successors to having less power.
Power of the Church government in England was dissolved in reverse order as the church gained
the power.
Hobbes compares the papacy to the kingdom of fairies.
21 Beginning with describing the papacy as the ghost of the deceased roman empire, he goes
on to create many analogies between the two kingdoms. He concludes that the fairies
only exist in the fancies of ignorant people and from old wives tales as the spiritual power
of the Pope remains only in the fear of excommunication upon hearing of the miracles
and false traditions and interpretations of the Scripture.
A review, and Conclusion
In all deliberations reason should be used to prevent rash or unjust actions or sentences
Adding to laws of nature That every man is bound by nature to protect the Authority that defends
him in times of peace.
22 a man becomes the subject of a conqueror when, having the liberty to submit, he consents
to be his subject
23 conquest is not merely victory; it is the acquisition by victory of a right over the persons
of men. Men that are killed in battle are overcome but not conquered
24 If a man lives openly under the protection of a government, he is understood to submit
himself to that government
The seed of death of a state is when conquerors not only require future submission of men’s
actions, but also try to gain approval for past actions because most commonwealths were not
begun in a justifiable mannor.
Toleration of a professed hatred in tyranny is harmful, because it is tolerated hatred of the
commonwealth in general.
The ancient rule of the Israelites that allowed criminals to be stoned to death by the people led
many to kill by private zeal rather than sovereign command. It was intended to be public
condemnation and not to allow executions by private zeal.
Hobbes did not quote ancient philosophers or poets contrary to tradition because he thinks he
owes nothing to antiquity and believes that it is better to discover it ourselves. Praise of ancient
authors is not out of reverence but from competition and mutual envy of the living.
Universities are essential as fountains of civil and moral doctrine and thus must be insulated
from the influence of politicians and the “incantation of deceiving spirits”
Divine Law and Human nature require inviolable observation of the mutual relation between
protection and obedience. Thus we must be obedient to the sovereign and we will be protected
from the dangers of the state of nature.
Lectures on November 4 and November 9
MR review guide
Lecture summary November 4, 2004
From Hobbes (1588-1679) to John Locke (1632-1704)
1. The Killing of Theo Van Gogh and the Idea of Establishment
a. Gogh made a film that showed the extent of violent sex in Muslim families - was
killed by Muslim radicals
b. In England there is no thereat from the dangers of religious enthusiasm because
Church and State are one.
i. Rulers have problems dealing with separate religion because religion have
something that trumps the laws of man
2. Hobbes on public and private issues
c. Hobbes wants to declare a state religion - uniform, church and state as one.
i. Remember that 17th c. was full of religious wars
ii.
Hobbes thinks that man is naturally asocial.
iii.
See Hobbes ch. 31.
3. Two Conceptions of Order: the punitive and the formative.
d. Punitive- Hobbes, people ought not to be formed into one thing because people
should find their own good.
i. However, should these individuals step out of line, stop them like “a ton of
bricks”.
ii.
Punishment is not from the king but from the whole community
e. Formative- in favor of forming characters (i.e. towards the idea of man as a
progressive being)
i. Mill is in favor of despite harm principle because he fears strong
government and social opinions
ii.
Solve problems early because do not want lot of prisons and/or
capital punishment.
f. Which order is freer?
4. Hobbes and Toleration
g. Hobbes will give lots of power to anyone who will force the people to be good
i. However, in favor of punitive order. Although there is a lot of power in
the government, the government represents the people and the people can
do whatever they please in private (up to a point).
h. Sovereign obliged by the laws of nature but we cannot hold him or her up to it
i. Sovereign is to provide safety of people and contentment of life
ii.
Hobbes does not care about what is the contentment of life
iii.
Monists (one superior way of life, Mill, Christians) vs. pluralists
(pagans, Hobbes).
5. John Locke (1632-1704)
i. Believes that the care of each man’s salvation belongs only to himself
j. Writes in the contexts of Oliver Cromwell, Charles II, and Protestants vs.
Catholics.
k. Believes in a limited state and a constitutional government
i. Whole argument embedded in a theological framework - man is property
of God.
ii.
Cannot coerce religious beliefs because sincere belief is needed for
salvation.
Lecture Summary November 9, 2004
John Locke
1. The Argument for Toleration: toleration as non-coercion; disapproved acceptance
a. Non-coercion - on state and individual level- will not act on it.
b. Disapproved acceptance- tolerate that what we otherwise do not like or loathe
2. Why not toleration for Atheists and Muslims?
c. If groups seem to threaten democracy, should they be limited?
3. Social Contract Argument Revised
d. Social contract- a political society that is set up by a contract by its members
e. State of nature
i. Egalitarian - free and individual equals (Hobbes and Locke)
ii.
Hierarchical - aristocratic world, if you disturbed this hierarchy
there would be chaos
4.
5.
6.
7.
f. Basic interest (what state of nature gives us)- security is crucial (and missing in
the state of nature)
g. Nature of our ties (Links and obligation between humans)- theological, secular
moral, and prudential (self-interested).
Argument for the 2nd treatise
h. During Stuart monarchy, many thought that the Stuarts were excellent kings, but
Locke tried to persuade his peers that the Stuarts are illegitimate.
i. Locke believes that one ought not to consent to a false king i.e. Stuart monarchy.
j. Locke wants to limit on what one can consent to
Men are the workmanship of God
k. Locke uses the fact that men are workmanships of God to back his arguments on
the limits on what you can consent to
Limits of Consent
l. Contrary to Hobbes
i. “Leviathan protects us from the polecats and foxes, but our state is set up
to let us be devoured by lions”
Locke on the state of nature
m. Not that bad because we have the knowledge of the laws of nature
n. However, life in the state of nature is inconvenient because we can punish but
sometimes we can become excessively punitive
o. Therefore establish political society to protect life, liberty, and estates in a way
more effective than without government
p. Locke could be
is at odds with a formative view of the state
A Letter Concerning Toleration
John Locke
The two main points:
“Liberty of Conscience is every man’s natural Right, equally belonging to Dissenters as to
themselves; and that no body ought to be compelled in matters of Religion, either by Law or
Force” (51)
“Although the Magistrates Opinion in Religion be sound, and the way that he appoints be truly
Evangelical, yet if I be not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind, there ill be no safety
for me in following it.” (38)
1 Toleration is the mark of the true church
2 Any other aspects of Christianity such as denominations, place of worship etc. are all
aspects that men have invented in an attempt to have power over others.
3 True religion is built to regulate men’s lives according to the rules of virtue and piety
4 When someone professes that they’re going to be Christian then they must make war
upon their own vices. They can not go ahead and attempt to persuade people to be
Christian if they seem to not have conquered their own iniquity.
5 What makes a true Christian?
o Someone who has embraced the religion in their hearts
o Someone who has charity
o Someone who has faith not by force but by love
6 Whoredom, fraud, malice and any other sins that man frequently commits, committed by
a supposed Christian is worse than a an innocent life lived by an atheist or someone who
does not believe in outward worship.
7 The toleration of people who are not Christians is agreeable both with the gospel as well
as the genuine reason of mankind.
8 Locke wants to distinguish between the business of civil government and that of religion.
Need to do so to put to rest disagreement between those who claim to care for the
commonwealth and those who claim to care for the soul
9 The common wealth is a society of men constituted to procure, preserve and advance
their own civil interests. Civil interests being life, liberty, health, indolence and
possessions.
10 The duty of the civil magistrate is to make people secure that they can attain and preserve
these things and punish those who violate the laws of public justice and equity. But Civil
power and rights should only extend to these ends, not to the salvation of souls.
11 Why should this not be so?
o God has never given any man authority over another to compel him to his religion.
If we’re not fully satisfied that what we’re believing is true then this is an even
greater obstacle to our salvation
o Civil magistrate’s power only consists of outward force while religion is of the
inward persuasion of the mind. Magistrate is allowed to attempt persuasion but
can not command. Also can not make laws because laws are useless without
penalties and as already stated, penalties are out of line and can not convince the
mind anyway.
o Care of salvation can’t belong to magistrate because even if penalties could
change men’s minds, they’d be blindly following some governor with no real
belief themselves. Firstly, God can’t be fooled into thinking that your outward
show reveals what you really believe and secondly, if it were true then where you
were born would determine your eternal fate.
12 What is a Church?
o A voluntary gathering of men for public worship with hopes of salvation
o Must be governed by some sort of internal laws because it can’t hold together if
it’s not. Since it is voluntary though, making the laws is the responsibility of
common consent of all members of the society. No need for bishops, popes etc.
o No force is to be used because forced belongs to the civil magistrate. The only
arms that can be used are admonition and advice.
o No church is required to hold anyone who after admonition keeps offending the
laws of the society but they can not be punished otherwise.
o No private person has the right to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments
because they are of different religions. If he is not living life the right way, that’s
his problem, not yours. You can’t punish him for that
6 Nobody, neither private individuals nor churches nor commonwealths can invade the
civil rights or goods of each other upon pretence of religion
7 Duty of Toleration of priests, ministers etc.
o There authority is to be kept within the bounds of the church because that is
where is arose
8 Magistrates duty in toleration
o He can do nothing about each man’s decision in care of his soul. If a man is living
what seems to be a wrong life, it’s no one else’s business. Princes were born
superior to other men in power but not by nature or morality. They know no better
than anyone else what true religion or the bath to heaven is so they can not
instruct other people on how to get there. He is just as ignorant as anyone else and
worse is even less concerned for you individual soul than you are.
9 The principal issue of the argument: Even if the magistrate’s opinion in religion is sound,
if you are not fully persuaded in your mind that the religion is true then you will still not
make it to heaven. You can not be saved by a religion that you distrust and a form of
worship that you hate. If Princes think they are saving souls by forcing people to be in
their religion then they are mistaken. They are working against their ends
10 Outward worship
o The magistrate has no business in deciding or condemning the rites or ceremonies
that a religion chooses to worship with. Whatever the practice is justifiable so far
as the people using it believe in it. But things that are indifferent to worship of
god can not be given dignity by some authority to enable them to do it. If it
doesn’t contribute anything to the worship of god then don’t do it. If it was no
made by divine institution then it can not be deemed divine worship and therefore
is sinful.
11 When does the magistrate not have to be tolerant?
o When the rites or ceremonies being used are in direct opposition the already
existing civil laws (e.g. sacrificing infants,), are neither lawful in ordinary public
life nor private life, then they are not lawful in a religious meeting either.
o Whatever is lawful in the commonwealth though can not be prohibited by the
magistrate in the church. Whatever is permitted to all subjects for ordinary use
can not be forbidden for only a certain sect of people.
12 No such thing as a Christian commonwealth. There are countries and cities that have
predominantly practiced the religion but have retained their own form of government.
Argues that Jesus taught how to attain Eternal Life, not how to institute a commonwealth.
13 The Good Life
o Domain of both the government and the church
o Moral actions belong to the outward and inward courts (magistrate and
conscience)
o The highest obligation that man has is to himself; his salvation but besides his
soul, he also has a temporal life on earth- although frail and fleeting he still needs
some conveniences here. That’s why we enter society- temporal good and
outward prosperity to make sure no one can take that away from us.
o However, where obligation lies between beliefs and the government is a shady
area. If a person is forced by the magistrate to do something that is against his
beliefs, he should refuse to do so and undergo the punishment for it. Even if the
magistrate believes that law is for the public good, don’t do it. The private
judgment of the magistrate can be erroneous just as a normal person’s can be.
Bottom line: Soul followed by public peace.
o However, the magistrate does not have to tolerate a group that upon pretence of
religion challenge any manner of authority. Meetings that under the pretence of
religion or stirs made in the name of religion do not have to be tolerated because
they don’t proceed from this or that church; they arise from suffering or
oppression. If anything happens in a religious meeting that is contrary to public
peace than it is to be punished as if it had happened in any public place.
14 Those who deny the being of a God are not to be tolerated. Promises, covenants and such
can have no hold on an atheist.
MISSING ITEM #7 Locke, Second Treatise
Lectures on November 16 VERSION 1
Notes 11/16/04
Background:
Shakespeare well known in court of James I
Angelo to run Vienna
Claudio first sacrificial victim of Angelo’s rule. Got lover, Julietta, pregnant – violation of laws.
Sentenced to death as example for rest of Vienna. Friend Lucio tells Claudio’s sister, Isabella, of
his fate, requests that she plead for his life. Isabella = devout Christian, about to become nun.
Angelo, of “unimpeachable immorality,” falls for Isabella.
1. Background
a. 1603 – death of Elizabeth I, 1st performance of M for M
b. Shakespeare well known in court of James I
c. Duke can’t control rampant sex/vice in Vienna
2. Topics to think about in reading M for M
d. Nature of Western political philosophy trying to answer two questions
i. What is nature of good government?
ii.
What is the nature of man?
a. Where does man fit in God’s universe? How important of
insignificant is he in God’s universe?
b. What is the “good life” for man? Is there such a thing?
e. M for M concerned with these things
i. Duke wants security and order for Vienna
ii.
Hobbes said we all fear violent death above all else so gov’t should
work to avoid that (fear of violent death
Shakespeare’s play allows us to reflect on this through Isabella
iii.
Isabella values her honor over death (this is counter-Hobbes)
iv.
Note every mention of words fear and death (also Claudio and the
“horrors of death”)
f. Considered a dramatic and moral failure
i. Play ends with Duke marrying Isabella
ii.
Widely believed to be unacceptable solution, buys into
conventions of dramatic comedy
iii.
One of Shakespeare’s “problem plays” (along with Merchant of
Venice) because solves the moral dilemmas presented unsatisfactorily
g. Shakespeare’s view of Christianity
i. Does he share the Christian moral view?
ii.
Is he sympathizing with Isabella’s plight?
iii.
Vienna is a Catholic country, not Protestant country of England. Is
he warning us of what happens when James I and others take England in
Catholic direction? What’s his view of role of religion in gov’t and life
man?
h. What are strengths and weaknesses of exploring these themes dramatically,
instead of philosophically?
i. Author can raise questions without closing down answers
ii.
Consider Socratic dialogues as well (philosophy or drama?)
i. Tension between liberty and authority
i. Look again at Hobbes’ letter in Leviathan, in preface
ii.
M for M: “Liberty plucks justice by the nose, the baby beats the
nurse”
iii.
How do you establish authority once liberty has “run amuck” and
turned to license?
1. Shakes suggests stricter, moral leadership (Angelo, John Ashcroft)
2. BUT humans are corrupt, and so is Angelo
j. Conception of the state
i. Less modern than Hobbesian state (not embodied in a single individual)
ii.
Shakes’ leadership is in individuals
Lecture notes 11/16/04 VERSION 2
Measure for Measure
The purpose of modern political philosophy is to address:
a. nature of Good Government
b. nature of Man
1 where does man fit in God’s universe?
2 what is the good life for man?
In Measure for Measure
1 how can the law be made effective: note reference to fear and death
How does Shakespeare present death?
3 Consider Socrates and Hobbes
Exception: there are people who value glory and honor and God above death
4 Isabella values her honor above death
Measure for Measure is criticized as a dramatic moral failure
The play ends with the Duke marrying Isabella
5 Buys into the pact of a romantic comedy
6 Moral dilemma was not addressed sufficiently and morally
7 Referred to as one of Shakespeare’s problem plays
a. plays on comedy, drama, morality
b. resolves them satisfactorily for the characters
c. but to us seems unsatisfactory
Shakespeare’s religious stance unclear: his view on religion as it relates to government is
unclear
The play has no philosophical argument
a. this allows the author to show both sides of an argument without settling on an
answer
b. note Crito in reference to philosophy and drama
Theme of tension between “liberty and authority”
c. liberty plucks justice by the nose
d. there is too much liberty-the hierarchy has been upset
Shakespeare points to these things: (e.g. sexual immorality-outbreak of syphilis) as a
result of too much liberty
All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
Conception of the state is different and earlier than Hobbes
Shakespeare presents a personalized view of the state
Notes 11/18/04: More Measure for Measure and a little Weber
• Change in syllabus
Thursday, and his review pages on bureaucracy.
• Weber and Foucault represent view of modern state.
Politics as a Vocation for
1. Public/private concerns in M for M
a. Brothels and prostitutes – state run? Licensed with health check ups?
b. Right of privacy – would we violate a “john” if we printed his ID in the
newspaper to shame him? Or would we be doing the right thing?
2. Presents clear view of government, less clear view of man
c. Which character represents Shakespeare’s view? Can we identify this?
d. Not in this play, but still Shakes has a view of man. What is his view of nature of
man?
i. Augustine says fallen, sinful, ruled by sexual passions. Must conquer to
get into City of God. Not sympathetic to man’s plight. Classical texts =
man as minor god, came back with Renaissance. Man at center of cosmos.
ii.
Shakes’ view of nature of man: man is noble and awesome but
continually thwarted by his basic character. Doesn’t find this sad or sorry,
it’s just what they are (v. Augustine, who finds it horrendous). We should
mock pretensions of those who don’t understand this part of our nature.
iii.
Man’s character uncontainable by categories and generalizations.
Trying to live by sets of laws is a fool’s errand b/c of man’s base instincts.
He who hates vice hates mankind.
iv.
Therefore, we should be suspicious of monism (one single
conception of good to be recommended to all).
3. Political implications?
e.
o’s
doing the only thing he can do. Compare to Foucault.
f. Or… should we be more liberal? Angelo trying to regulate what can’t be
regulated.
4. Note mentions of sex, fear and death and link to order
g. Death in relation to sexual activity
h. Syphilis common, so sleeping with a prostitute means risking death.
i. If people risk this and do this, totally anti-Hobbes. Something valued more than
death.
j. Isabella: Christian morality, won’t sacrifice honor for death
5. The underworld
k. Level of social and sexual disorder in polity that would make Angelo’s plight
sympathetic?
l. Role of prison as part of social order
m. Scene before execution when Barnardine drunk
• Feature of modern world that we rule ourselves. We all have a calling for politics. Weber realist,
emphasizes play of power in politics.
Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
Measure for Measure
From sparknotes.com (so you know it’s not just my crappy interpretation)
Overall Summary
Shakespeare's Measure for Measure centers around the fate of Claudio, who is arrested by Lord
Angelo, the temporary leader of Vienna. Angelo is left in charge by the Duke, who pretends to
leave town but instead dresses as a friar to observe the goings-on in his absence. Angelo is strict,
moralistic, and unwavering in his decision-making; he decides that there is too much freedom in
Vienna and takes it upon himself to rid the city of brothels and unlawful sexual activity. Laws
against these behaviors and institutions already exist, and Angelo simply decides to enforce them
more strictly. Claudio is arrested for impregnating Juliet, his lover, before they were married.
Although they were engaged and their sexual intercourse was consensual, Claudio is sentenced
to death in order to serve as an example to the other Viennese citizens.
Isabella, Claudio's sister, is about to enter a nunnery when her brother is arrested. She is
unfailingly virtuous, religious, and chaste. When she hears of her brother's arrest, she goes to
Angelo to beg him for mercy. He refuses, but suggests that there might be some way to change
his mind. When he propositions her, saying that he will let Claudio live if she agrees to have
sexual intercourse with him, she is shocked and immediately refuses. Her brother agrees at first
but then changes his mind. Isabella is left to contemplate a very important decision.
Isabella is, in a way, let off the hook when the Duke, dressed as a friar, intervenes. He tells her
that Angelo's former lover, Mariana, was engaged to be married to him, but he abandoned her
when she lost her dowry in a shipwreck. The Duke forms a plan by which Isabella will agree to
have sex with the Angelo, but then Mariana will go in her place. The next morning, Angelo will
pardon Claudio and be forced to marry Mariana according to the law.
Everything goes according to plan, except that Angelo does not pardon Claudio, fearing revenge.
The provost and the Duke send him the head of a dead pirate, claiming that it belonged to
Claudio, and Angelo believes that his orders were carried out. Isabella is told that her brother is
dead, and that she should submit a complaint to the Duke, who is due to arrive shortly, accusing
Angelo of immoral acts.
The Duke returns in his usual clothes, saying that he will hear all grievances immediately.
Isabella tells her story, and the Duke pretends not to believe her. Eventually, the Duke reveals his
dual identity, and everyone is forced to be honest. Angelo confesses to his misdeeds, Claudio is
pardoned, and the Duke asks Isabella to marry him.
Characters
Isabella - The main character, Isabella, is a very virtuous and chaste young woman who faces a
difficult decision when her brother is sentenced to death for fornication (unlawful sex). Isabella
does not approve of her brother's actions at all, but she pleads for his life out of loyalty and
sisterly devotion. Isabella is a spiritual person who starts off wanting to become a nun.
The Duke - The other central figure is the Duke, who spends most of his time dressed as a friar
in order to observe what is happening in his absence. The Duke is unfailingly virtuous, good, and
kind-hearted. He tends to rule a little softly, which is why he enlists Angelo's help.
Claudio - Isabella's brother Claudio is a young man sentenced to death for impregnating an
unmarried woman. He was engaged to her by a common-law agreement, but they had sexual
intercourse before the legal marriage took place. Claudio depends less on the guidance of laws
and religious practices than on his sister.
Lord Angelo - Angelo is the villain of the play, a man who rules strictly and without mercy. He
has his own weaknesses, however, and he is loathsome more for his hypocrisy than for anything
else. He presents Isabella with a difficult proposition and then does not even hold up his end of
the bargain.
Escalus - Escalus is a wise lord who advises Angelo to be more merciful. He is loyal to the
Duke and seeks to carry out his orders justly, but cannot go against Angelo's will.
Lucio - Lucio, described by Shakespeare as a "fantastic," is a flamboyant bachelor who provides
much of the play's comedic content. He is a friend of Claudio's and tries to help him.
Mariana - Mariana was supposed to marry Angelo, but he called the wedding off when she lost
her dowry in a shipwreck that killed her brother.
Mistress Overdone - Mistress Overdone runs a brothel in Vienna.
Pompey - Pompey is a clown who also works for Mistress Overdone.
Provost - The provost runs the prison and is responsible for carrying out all of Angelo's orders.
Elbow - Elbow is a dim-witted constable who arrests people for misconduct, particularly of the
sexual variety. He speaks in malapropisms and provides comic-relief throughout the play.
Barnadine - A long-term prisoner in the jail, Barnadine is sentenced to be executed together with
Claudio. The Duke originally considers him hopeless and therefore dispensable but later changes
his mind.
Juliet - Claudio's lover, she is pregnant with his baby.
Act I
The major characters and situations are laid out. The plot revolves around the new leader's
treatment of sexual offenses, particularly fornication, which is considered a sin. The characters
also fit into groups depending on their opinions about sexual behavior. Claudio is the middle-ofthe-road thinker, not involved in prostitution and possessing only noble beliefs about his
relationship with Juliet, but unable to prevent himself from desiring her sexually and therefore
culpable. His sister Isabella presents one extreme, abstaining from sexual activity entirely in
order to become a nun. Mistress Overdone is at the other end of the spectrum, managing the
prostitution business in Vienna.
The only mobile character on the spectrum is Angelo, who is here presented as a strict but
virtuous leader who is given free reign in the Duke's absence. Angelo begins to enforce laws that
have been dormant for some time. He hopes to clean up the city, shutting down brothels and
requiring abstinence before marriage. This will make illegitimate births a thing of the past and
protect the city's women, so it is not harmful in itself. He oversteps the framework of justice,
however, when he sentences Claudio to death for having sexual intercourse with his lover before
marriage. This is, of course, a very strict punishment considering the crime, and Angelo appears
as an unwavering, unmerciful leader at this point.
The general atmosphere in Vienna seems to be one of merriment and disregard for the law.
Claudio is to serve as an example in order to change this. It is perhaps this environment which
prompts Isabella to join the nunnery, since she does not approve of fornication or prostitution
and wants to be close to God and safe from male attention. The major conflict of the play already
emerges at this point; it lies between Isabella and the other characters, religion and hedonism.
The Duke and Isabella are both described in more detail. They are both shown to be goodintentioned, sometimes confused characters who seek to improve the situation around them. The
Duke wants to bring more law and order to Vienna but does not know how to do it himself, so he
has allowed Angelo to take his place. However, he does not wish Angelo to have free reign,
knowing him to be very strict and possibly heartless, so he asks Friar Thomas to disguise him so
that he might roam the city in secret.
Isabella, similarly, seeks to retire from daily affairs. She joins a convent, thinking that she will
find a safe, religious, pure environment in which she can worship. Her introduction to the life of
a nun is interrupted by a plea from Lucio, and this is the first moment at which she must consider
her choice. She is asked to leave the nunnery physically at this point; later she will be asked to
give up her vow of chastity, and eventually she will be asked to marry instead of returning to the
nunnery. Her physical departure is all the more important because she is asked to plead, on her
brother's behalf, for forgiveness of what she and her religion consider to be a sin: fornication. At
this point, she acts on familial loyalty rather than religious devotion, saying that she thinks the
punishment for her brother's crime is warranted but too severe.
This first introduction to Isabella's beliefs about sexual behavior is particularly important. She
will be asked to make major decisions and question her beliefs about acceptability and propriety,
and her brother's life hangs in the balance. At this point, we see only that Isabella is innocent,
chaste, and devoted to her religion. She is looking for protection from the sins of the common
people of Vienna; Lucio brings her away from this safe haven into a situation in which she is
vulnerable to the sins of others.
Act II
This scene exists primarily for comic relief, distracting the audience momentarily from the issues
at stake, particularly Claudio's imminent execution. Escalus is a noble character who acts as a
straight-man to the dim-witted constable and the foolish clown. Elbow is a frivolous addition to
the cast of characters, amusing because of his use of malapropisms, or misspoken phrases and
words. He is sent to retrieve the criminals of Vienna, and he appears at various intervals
performing this task and providing more pure comedy.
At the end of the scene, the tone shifts back to seriousness, as Escalus expresses his pity for
Claudio. It is important that Escalus, as well as the provost, does not approve of the punishment
to be administered to Claudio, and yet sees no way to convince Angelo to be more merciful.
Angelo appears to be narrow-minded and stern; the other characters seem to fear him. There is a
sense of apathy among the characters generally; it takes the Duke's intervention to promote
movement, discussion, and action in them.
Measure for Measure reaches its height of tension early, with the encounter between Isabella and
Angelo and the issues that their meeting raises. Angelo find himself suddenly vulnerable to the
same sinful desires for which he is having Claudio put to death. This changes his position
completely; no longer on a moral pedestal, he must instead spend his time avoiding culpability
rather than carrying out the law.
Lucio seems to comprehend Angelo's vulnerability from the start, encouraging Isabella to touch
him and be less cold. Lucio is encouraging Isabella to exploit her femininity to convince Angelo.
In a way, he is even encouraging her to offer herself as his sexual object in order to save her
brother's life. Lucio may well know that Angelo would respond by propositioning her, and he
may expect her to accept, just as her brother will when she explains the dilemma to him. Only
Isabella understands fornication to be a deadly sin, which is why the thought is so repulsive to
her.
The Duke enjoys his newfound power to absolve sinners as a friar. He shows natural sympathy
towards Juliet, and it is clear that he would be more merciful in Angelo's place, but that he is not
against Angelo's actions. Already we see the Duke's desire to operate power from the inside,
investigating the various characters in his disguise and determining from the evidence they
provide what the best course of action will be. The Duke is the only character who appears in
almost every location in the play; his hand is active everywhere, and he is pulling most of the
strings.
The very structure of this scene is frustrating. The audience is immediately aware of Angelo's
intentions, but Isabella is either too naive to understand them or too desperate to avoid the actual
proposition. She is obviously offended by the very notion of having sexual intercourse with
Angelo, becoming furious at the suggestion. It may be her angry reluctance that makes her so
desirable to Angelo. It would not be difficult for him to find a sexual partner, considering the
prevalence of prostitution in Vienna, and later we discover that there is a woman readily
available to him as a wife. He seeks to abstain from sexual activity, and only Isabella draws him
out of this resolution.
Isabella is given apparent power over her brother's situation, and she genuinely believes that she
could save her brother's life. She refuses the option instantly. In a way, she is handing this power
over to God; her virtue and her soul are, for her, in God's hands, and by refusing to disobey his
will she is only following along with his expectations of her. Her power is solely sexual, and so
she refuses it. Although Isabella is fast in her determination to refuse, Angelo gives her a day to
think about it. Dramatically, this gives Isabella time to discuss the proposal with her brother and
the Duke time to formulate a plan. It also shows that Angelo believes she will relent with enough
persuasion.
Two larger issues emerge in the exchange between Angelo and Isabella. Angelo brings up the
topic of love, claiming to be in love with her. He does not promise to marry her, however,
implying that he really feels solely lust. Isabella mentions that she would rather die than have
intercourse with him, which becomes her primary justification for refusing. She formulates the
opinion that death is favorable to shame, and decides that her brother's death is better than her
own sinful act.
Act III
Isabella has no real reason to tell Claudio about Angelo's proposition if she has truly made up her
mind. She either seeks approval from him, or she is unsure and wants to be convinced that she is
wrong. Considering Claudio's reaction and Isabella's response, it seems that the former is more
likely; her mind is set, but she wants his approval for her decision. She is reassured when he
seems to agree, but she clearly does not have enough faith in him to think that he would agree
with her no matter what. If that were the case, she could simply have stated the proposition
immediately, knowing that he would agree with her. However, she sidles around it, first ensuring
that they agree on moral grounds and then mentioning the specific circumstance.
Isabella should not be too surprised by his reaction, given that he obviously considers fornication
to be less of a sin than she does, having committed it himself. He begins to look upon her as a
selfish, naive figure as he tries to convince her to sacrifice virtue for the sake of pragmatism.
However, he does realize the repulsiveness of the suggestion and feels ashamed for having tried
to convince her otherwise.
Isabella's response to Claudio's willingness to let her accept the proposition is to criticize the act
of sexual intercourse itself. She says, "Heaven shield my mother played my father fair"
(III.i.141), suggesting that there was some sexual deviance in their own parents' relationship
which caused him to become so cowardly and given to sinful behavior. At this point, Isabella
wavers between virtue and foolishness. The play is sexually explicit in its plot and language, and
Isabella emerges as a frigid, prudish figure for her willingness to sacrifice her brother's life to
save her own honor. She will not be a martyr for him, and he does not wish to become a martyr
for her.
The Duke's solution is an easy way out, and it ends the great moment of conflict between brother
and sister with a pat and unlikely solution. Perhaps Shakespeare thought the question too large to
answer in five acts, and so he discards it as open-ended, replacing it with an unlikely and
somewhat illogical scheme instead of examining it in more detail.
Another primarily humorous scene, here we see the Duke interacting with both prisoners and law
enforcement agents. Interestingly, all of the prisoners other than Claudio are quite laughable
figures. Claudio emerges as the one offender for whom sympathy is felt naturally, as opposed to
merely amusement.
The Duke encounters Lucio and shows himself to be mildly vengeful, trying to protect his honor
despite his disguise. This, perhaps, suggests an ulterior motive in disguising himself: he wants to
see how his subjects honestly feel about him and his methods of rule, and he can only do so
through making himself functionally invisible to them.
Claudio's offense is also revealed to be much smaller than those of the other convicted criminals.
He was involved in nothing truly decadent, acting solely out of love and lust. Angelo appears as
a merciless figure for condemning him to death, and Isabella appears even stricter in her beliefs
for her suggestion that the sentence is not entirely unjust. Perhaps it is this belief which
motivates her to allow him to be killed instead of giving up her chastity.
Act IV
The Duke's schemes are developed more fully, and here we really see him directing his followers
according to precise instructions. He tells Isabella and Mariana what to do with assuredness,
although the plan could clearly fail, considering the intimacy of the proposed contact between
Angelo and Mariana. The issue is not discussed clearly, nor is the question of why it is legal for
the act to take place truly explored. After all, Claudio and Juliet had a similar contract of
marriage to Angelo and Mariana's, and in that case both were willing. Here only one party is
willing, and yet it is considered lawful. Perhaps it is the thought of tricking Angelo which makes
the scheme seem appropriate here.
Mariana, when asked if she approves, answers that she will carry out the scheme if the friar
thinks it is all right. The Duke assumed all along that Mariana would be willing to have sexual
intercourse with Angelo, despite his hateful behavior towards her. The suggestion is that she can
be redeemed only through this sexual act, because otherwise she remains a discarded woman
instead of a wife.
The Duke also arranges a scheme involving the provost and the executions which are to take
place. He is willing to sacrifice the life of Barnadine but wishes to preserve the life of Angelo.
This implies a value judgment on life itself; one life is seen as worthwhile while the other is not.
These statements of balance and equality figure largely in the play as a whole, as prospects are
weighed against each other. The whole concept of "Measure still for Measure" (IV.i.414) centers
around appropriate punishments and retributions.
Things become more muddled just as they are on the verge of clarification. The Duke's plans are
carried out, and he instigates a new scheme to save Claudio and Barnadine both. Barnadine
refuses to be executed, perhaps even sensing that the Duke and the provost see his life as
worthless. His assertion that he will not die is a statement of the sanctity of life in general. The
convenient death of the pirate matches the convenient existence of Mariana in its incredibility,
and the Duke's attitude encourages us simply to follow along as all the other characters do.
Angelo emerges as quite an oblivious figure, as he is tricked by Mariana's substitution for
Isabella and a pirate's substitution for Claudio all in the space of one night and morning. Here
Shakespeare truly demands that we suspend our disbelief.
The Duke's lie to Isabella is undoubtedly unkind, causing her great distress and anger. There are
some possible motivations for this; perhaps, for instance, he believed that she would not argue
passionately against Angelo once the point became irrelevant. However, it is likely that he wants
to surprise her dramatically before asking for her hand in marriage.
The Duke does not immediately reveal his dual identity, still enjoying the intrigue which only he
fully comprehends. To some extent, he is playing with his subjects, making them believe that
they act of their own volition while manipulating them. He is also testing them, perhaps to
determine how worthy they are of their positions. Isabella no doubt falls into this examination of
virtue, and she passes by refusing Angelo's proposals and obeying the Duke and Friar
wholeheartedly.
Act V
Shakespearean comedies traditionally end with marriage, and Measure for Measure is no
exception. Isabella, originally on the verge of becoming a nun, finds herself about to marry the
Duke. It is interesting that she is not given a chance to respond to the Duke's marriage proposal
in the play. She is assumedly very happy to become the wife of the town's leader, particularly
since he has saved her brother's life. But at the same time this situation reinforces her loss of
sexual independence. The central conflict in the play revolves around Isabella's refusal to follow
the ways of most of the women in Vienna. Her marriage to the Duke confirms her virtue while
denying her independence.
There are no independent women in Measure for Measure. Of course, this is not strange,
considering the setting and Shakespeare's own era. But Measure for Measure gives its women
characters even less freedom than other Shakespearean plays. They are prostitutes, nuns, or jilted
lovers, given no chance to control their own lives. Isabella is the one exception in that she
refuses to respond to Angelo's advances. However, she is still obedient toward the Duke,
following all of his instructions.
At the conclusion of the play, the Duke administers punishment to all of the wrongdoers and
rewards the virtuous. Angelo is told to marry Mariana, and he escapes death at her request. The
Duke probably does not intend to execute Angelo, but wants it made clear that his crime
deserves such a punishment. Mariana's reward is Angelo, which she takes happily, although the
Duke tells her that he is unworthy of her love. Claudio is allowed to marry Juliet, and Lucio is
punished by being made to marry a prostitute. Marriage is not a clear-cut punishment or reward,
therefore. Instead, its qualities revolve around the individual situations in which it occurs.
Lectures on November 23 & Nov 30
11-23: Max Weber: 1864-1920
-Presents a view of the modern state.
1. The Idea of “Modernity” as a distinctive type of society: urban; industrial; secular
(disenchanted); democratic; bureaucratic; and dependent upon technological and scientific elites.
-Old thinkers do not apply
-Modern world is seen as meaningless - it is routinized
2. To what extent is democratic self-government possible in the modern world?
-Two conceptions of democratic self-government:
(i) indirect popular sovereignty
(ii) direct democratic control over the organs of government.
-Weber is skeptical of democratic government in a modern world dependant upon
bureaucracy and scientific/technological elites.
3. Realism: Power is the currency of politics; acquire power or be at the mercy of the more
powerful.
-Weber is a realist
-Weber’s definition of “a state:” a human community that (successfully) claims a
monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. - Emphasizes
domination
4. The Charismatic Leader= the root of the idea of a calling in its purest expression…called to be
the leader of men.
-Has the force of personality to break out of the routine dominating the modern world.
-Takes on followers by shear force of personality
5. Weber’s Politics as a Vocation 1918 (“Politik als Beruf”)
-Simply a descriptive account of the political world
-Where there are three forms of legitimacy: Traditional/Charismatic/Bureaucratic
-No politician can follow the Christian ethic.
-Must follow an ethic of responsibility
11-30: Power from Weber to Foucault
1. Weber and the Idea of Social Complexity: Power is located in the Bureaucratic
State and the Capitalist Economy-two differentiated social systems that operate
according to their own inner rules and logic.
1 We live under the influence of the bureaucratic state and the capitalistic economic - both
entities operate in their own accordance and logic.
2 We couldn’t live without the absence of those entities unless those two systems were left
to operate to their own inner rules.
2. Power: Some Conceptual Distinctions-Infrastructural Power; Despotic Power;
Loosely Networked Power; and Unorganized Power.
a. Infrastructural - the modern world has tremendous infrastructure power.
i. If you are in charge of the modern state, you have tremendous ability to
get things done.
ii.
You have control because you have a huge infrastructural (built up
from science and tech) at your disposal.
iii.
If you break the law, the state has tremendous power to punish you.
1. This was not true in medieval Europe.
2. The state in medieval Europe has low infrastructural power.
3. You can’t have high infrastructural power in the absence of science
and technology.
b. Despotic Power - medieval state have high despotic power.
i. Kings can do what they wanted.
ii.
XIV has low infrastructural power and high despotic power
iii.
As the medieval state, as it fell apart, you got absolute monarchs.
iv.
The modern world sees high infrastructural power, but no despotic
power. Contained in one entity.
v.
George Bush has a lot of infrastructural power, low despotic power
vi.
Saddam may have high infrastructural power and high despotic
power
c. Loosely Networked Power - Internet as a metaphor - a set of connected nodes.
But one can access one node to get power.
i. A new type of power that people wrestle to conceptualize
d. Unorganized power - been a contradictory term.
i. It was not possible before, because get power by organizing something,
like King organizing country
ii.
However, now terrorist could make bomb during their free time
and then use it for their own personal power, they don’t need to acquire
organization, and this is a feature of the modern world
iii.
Power constitutes control - or if you can access a network.
iv.
The lone scientifically trained terrorist - can take their knowledge
been able to use that knowledge for purposes of their own power.
v.
Hasn’t been a feature of the modern world. But might be in the
future and use it for powerful ends without organization.
vi.
We will come back to these terms when we talk about terrorism.
3. Morality in this New Socially Complex World: Some Difficulties.
2 People assume that the social world we live in is tractable and we can make our social
world in accordance.
3 However, to make our social world, there has to involve the question of morality
4 If we take seriously that the bureaucratic state and capitalist economy - then maybe it’s
impossible to subsume (include) morality
Weber’s Realism: Ethics of Responsibility/Ethics of Ultimate Ends.
road morality - the extent those two things pull apart
You cannot follow the ethics of ultimate ends, but rather of ethics of responsibility
If you are a leader in an organization, you have ethics of responsibility
Entrepreneur has ethics of ultimate ends
a. Not too sure about this concept? Read the book.
9 Uses it as a statement for all sorts of other professions.
10 If you have a business, functions and you can’t be a successful entrepreneur without this.
It’s depressing, dark vision of the modern world.
4.
5
6
7
8
1 Ethic of responsibility and ethics of ultimate ends Pg. 120
o do what you believe is right, and then leave it up to god to see what happens
o what you do that is right may not achieve the ends you want to
o
o
The ethics of responsibility is always in conflict with the ethics of ends, so as a
politician you have to be responsible for your ends, so in that case, you may have
to give up your ethics of responsibility pg. 125
You have good will and create bad results, he’s not trying to preach a solution of
ethics, but is disillusioned by it. Need to rationalize, but we need luck for things to
do well
5. Michel Foucault(1926-1984) - an even darker world.
6. Foucault and Discourse:
“With the prisons, there would be no sense in limiting oneself to discourses about prisons: just as
important are the discourses that arise within the prison, the decisions and regulations that are
among its constitutive elements, its means of functioning, along with its strategies, its covert
discourses and ruses, ruses which are ultimately played by any particular person, but which are
nonetheless lived, and ensure the permanence and functioning of the institution of the
institution.”
Obsessed with discourse - Foucault
a. He uses discourse to explain power
b. What does he mean by discourse:
i. The language, debates, and the discussion that take place,
ii.
Think about the question: if you thought about who has powering
in Harvard. Who is the most powerful person? Summers. It’s embodied
in the body of a person. Think about power in a Foucaultian way - if you
want to understand power at Harvard, you need to look at the discourse,
the language, debates and discussion that take place by the participants (by
you) at Harvard. This is a troubling discussion. So, the constitutes of an
institution - they are a form of power. That you being at Harvard are
subject to rules, strategies, languages that you can’t even recognize
because they are part of the air you breathe.
iii.
That being in Harvard, you are subject to certain rules and
languages that you don’t even realize it, like you have to be busy and can’t
have nothing to do, and if you scream in the dining hall that you have
nothing to do, people will think you are a loser and move away from you,
this is the power that is embedded in Harvard
iv.
Madness is a form of control, and the discourse of madness and
language is a form of control.
7. Discipline and Punish 1975.-documents shift in the history of repression/punishment
from infliction of penalties (Damiens) to the imposition of surveillance. Note the
concluding sentences of the book:
“At this point I end a book that must serve as a historical background to various studies of the
power of normalization and the formation of knowledge in modern society.”
1 Foucault wants to shift the history of precession punishment from inflection of penalties
and physical pain to the infliction or use of surveillance.
2 Power of normalization and the form of knowledge in modern society
vii.
Normalization - he wants to explain the shift in society from what
went on in the 18th century when we would torture and kill people in a
spectacle, to what goes on today.
viii.
The standard description is a story in progress. One of Foucault’s
suggestion is the form of control is more insidious.
ix.
Foucault’s suggests that people were really free back then, but now
we are controlled figures
x.
Back then, they had it good.
xi.
He wants to reverse the story in which we think is progress to
show that it is a story of decline
xii.
We are now poor, pathetic, controlled figures.
xiii.
He is writing as a historian - willing to hide behind history and not
come out and say what he really thinks.
8. Bentham’s Panopticon-the Enlightenment/Rational Form of Control-changes in
economy and society render the old form of punishment archaic.
2 Bentham was a man who was constantly inventing institutions to make everyone happy.
3 He designed a prison - called it the Panopticon.
4 Became the modern prison - a prison where the person can be watched from a central
place.
5 Surveillance is the modern feature of the prison.
6 The perfection of surveillance is when that surveillance becomes self-surveillance.
7 When you can achieve control to think they are always being watched, the rise of
surveillance of a surveillance society - central feature of the modern world. Takes this
further:
9. Different Mechanisms of Power
(i)
Physical Pain-works on the body from above
The King inflicts pain on his subjects
Is consistent with glorifying the king.
Elevates the king above us all.
(ii)
Surveillance-Panopticon-works within the social body-self-surveillance
Arrives in the age of reason
Need a different form of control in a more complex society
Surveillance - (arrives in the age of the Enlightenment) Panopticon works within the social body - self-surveillance. We watch each other.
(iii)
Normalization-Power in its Capillary form--Works on the Soul-inserts itself into their
actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives.
1 Form of power that involves normalization
o What kind of things do they encourage and punish
o We are all in the process of normalization which defines a normal
person from someone that is abnormal.
o Being at Harvard, going through a normalization process.
The way discourse at Harvard works - certain modes of
thinking that allow what it is to be normal vs. abnormal. How
these processes of normalization come from.
10. In a Society where Power has been normalized, the Sovereign is irrelevant-a
fantastic personage at once archaic and irrelevant.
The Carceral System lowers the threshold of tolerance to penalty.
2 He wants us to think about the consequence of criminalizing something and
what we draw on
3 Foucault’s Carceral Discipline
o (Double check on this concept in the handouts)
4 The carceral system lowers the threshold of tolerance to penalty
5 we no longer think of the consequences of criminalizing, so the consequences
of penalty are not terrible anymore, because you go to prison, you won’t be
subject to all the normalized behavior and get individual freedom
6 We’re much more willing to criminalize things because we no longer think
about things according to Damien (the guy being killed in the intro of his book)
7 he is an extreme defender of individuality, he wants us to think about the
consequences of criminalizing something, and the practices we draw when we
criminalize something
8 Does Foucault have a normative a normative/prescriptive message?
11. Foucault’s Carceral/Disciplinary Society - submissive subjects are produced and a
dependable body of knowledge is produced. Disciplines (Medicine; General
Knowledge; Religious Direction) were developed. Two different groups had to learn
these disciplines - the staff and the inmates.
b. Disciplines as a form of knowledge and control.
i. Knowledge as a form of control.
ii.
The two different groups - one were the delinquents (subject of
control), staff (learn and practice learn how to discipline, but they were
also being discipline).
iii.
So some are being trained to being a professional in that discipline
and then it will be applied to people - it will be subjected to our
knowledge- that’s the world we live in.
iv.
One group is being subjected, another group is being trained and
being disciplined to subject other people. We can’t be free.
v.
becoming a processional we have to go through exams and training,
and requiring the normal way to behave, it is required for us to us. So we
are not subjected to our morals, we are subjected to normalization and
don’t have individual freedom
11. Does Foucault have a narrative prescriptive/moral message?
Weber, From Max Weber: “Bureaucracy,” pp. 196-244 Version 1
Weber - “Bureaucracy”
1. Characteristics of a Bureaucracy.
I. Bureaucracy consists of fixed and official jurisdictional areas ordered by rules (laws or
administrative regulations).
1. The regular activities required for a bureaucratically organized structure is distributed
in a set, fixed way.
2. The authority of command is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive means,
physical, sacerdotal, or otherwise, which are placed at the disposal of officials.
3. Provision is made for the continuous fulfillment of duties. Only persons of deserving
merit are qualified to server/be employed.
“Bureaucratic Authority” in public and lawful government. Bureaucratic “management” in
private economic domains.
II. There is a rigid hierarchy. Power flows down from the top.
Offers the governed an opportunity to appeal a lower decision to the next level. Those at
the top simply tell people what to do, those at the bottom simply do what they are told from
above.
III. The management (of the “office”) is based upon written documents (“the files”).
As such, there is an entire staff of subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts.
Bureaucracies are organized strictly and adhere to rules.
In principle, the modern organization of the civil service separates the bureau from the private
domicile of the official and the bureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct
from the private property of the official.
Bureaucracy helps to delineate a differentiation between public servants private lives/property
and public duties/means.
IV. Office Management is modern and requires expert training.
V. Official activity requires the full working capacity of the official.
VI. Managing the office requires following the rules which can be learned. Learning the rules
requires jurisprudence, or administrative or business management.
Bureaucracy eliminates the individual privileges and favors dominant in patrimonialism.
2. The position of the official:
- Modern Loyalty is devoted to impersonal and functional purposes.
- when at work the official is completely focused on the job at hand and does not let
personal feelings/emotions interfere.
- Officials are appointed to duty by higher up authorities
- Officials are compensated for their work (they get paid).
- The official should progress up the hierarchy over time (get promoted).
3. Presuppositions and Causes of the Bureaucracy.
-Plain and simple: The development of the “money economy” presupposes the
bureaucracy. Officials need to be paid (receive something for their efforts).
-Examples of distinctly developed large bureaucracies: Egypt (during the New Empire),
later Roman Principate, the Roman Catholic Church from the 13th century onwards, China from
the Shi Hwangti until present, modern European states and increasingly so, public corporations,
large modern capitalist enterprises.
4. The Quantitative Development of Administrative Tasks
- in politics the great state and mass party are the foundation for bureaucracy.
- not as important as qualitative development.
5. The Qualitative Development of Administrative Tasks
- structure of state power influences culture quite strongly.
- need to regulate public goods.
- need to maintain peace
6. Technical Advantages of Bureaucratic Organizations.
- it is superior to all other forms of organization.
- similar to the benefit of a machine over a non-mechanical mode of production.
- precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of files, discretion, unity, strict subordination,
reduction of friction, and reduction of material and personal costs.
- absolute specialization and the inherent efficiencies thereof.
7. Bureaucracy and Law
- Bureaucracy is meant to ensure blind justice.
- personal interpretations and feelings should be absent unless specified in the official
duties (eg. Judge).
8. Concentration of the Means of the Administration
- The means are eventually concentrated at the topmost level, however, it is also
dispersed throughout the organization quite well.
- Division of labor ensures that the whole organization will not collapse when one small
part is lost.
9. The Leveling of Social Differences
- Bureaucracy is chosen in order to level social and economic differences.
- it is usually chosen by way of mass democracy.
10. Permanent Character of the Bureaucratic Machine
- once established bureaucratic power is one of the hardest to destroy.
- it is the means of carrying over “community action” into “societal action”.
- the individual official can not “squirm” against the bureaucracy. He is usually only a
single cog in the machine.
11. Economic and Social Consequences of Bureaucracy
- this is dependent on how much economic power the bureaucracy is given
- politics determines the effects that bureaucracy can have on society as well.
12. The Power Position of Bureaucracy
- The pure interest of bureaucracy is power. It is always seeking to better itself with more
professional people
13. Stages in the Development of the Bureaucracy
- The (hopeful) goal of all bureaucracies is the separation of “objective” legal order from
the “subjective” rights.
14. The Rationalization of Education and Training
- Bureaucracy promotes a rationalist lifestyle.
- Education is needed to ensure that there are people qualified to serve in the bureaucracy.
- it is important that they are deemed “qualified” or have passed through examinations of
a sufficient nature.
- the result is that there is a baseline of competencies and abilities.
- this leads to diplomas and certificates.
Weber, From Max Weber: “Bureaucracy,” pp. 196-244 Version 2
Weber's approach is of importance--he analyzes several non-Western
cultures in drawing conclusions about the nature of bureaucracy. In some
sense he seeks (or appears to seek) a "descriptive" approach.
Characteristics of Bureaucracy
-broken up into fixed jurisdictional areas governed by laws/regulations
-activities of a bureaucracy are distributed as official duties
-duties are regularly filled by qualified individuals (sometimes trained
in specific areas of expertise)
-hierarchical organization
-governed by rules, administration, paperwork
Position of Official
-"office holding is a vocation"-it requires training, occupies a
significant amount of time, it is a career, receives salary
-often official has higher social esteem (especially in socially
stratified societies)
-offical can be appointed (derive power from above) or elected (derive
power from below)
-there is tension between desires of public, desires of political parties
and need for trained experts in selection of bureaucratic official
Presuppositions and Causes of Bureaucracy
-money economy-required for compensation of officials, taxes, private
property; bureaucracy requires a constant income to maintain it
-stability, desire of some group to keep order
The Quantitative Development of Administrative Tasks
-"The proper soil for the bureaucratization of an administration has
always been the specific developments of administrative tasks"
-even in societies which are partly unbureaucratic there exist
structures-parties, groups of professionals/experts-which are bureaucratic
in nature
-modern state is larger more complex, requires the administration of tasks
to keep order
Qualitative Changes of Administrative State
-Weber looks at several examples and concludes that the "direction
bureaucratization takes and the reasons that occasion it vary widely"
Technical Advantages
-" The decisive reason for the advance of the bureaucratic organization
has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of
organization"
-efficiency, continuity, unambiguity, precision, speed, strict
subordination
-carries through administrative functions according to purely objective
considerations-makes bureaucracy impersonal "without regard for persons,"
"dehumanized"
Bureaucracy and Law
-formation of bureaucracy tied to rise of legal state
-move toward "empirical" law, towards rational, fact-based law
-law supports bureaucracy
Concentration of the Means of Administration
-bureacratization goes "hand in hand with the concentration of the means
of organization in other spheres"-army, research institutions
The Leveling of Social Differences
-bureaucratization rose in parallel with democracy a the leveling of
economic/social differences
-abstract regulation of authority goes with "equality before the law"
-democratization leads to public treasury
The Permanent Character of the Bureaucratic Machine
-its operation becomes habitual
-becomes a powerful, "unshatterable" force
-web of rules and order make it a structure larger than the sum of its
parts
-removal of one part of bureaucracy does not debilitate its functioning
Economic and Social Consequences of Bureaucracy
-vary from state to state, see p. 208 for more details
Power Position of Bureaucracy
-bureaucracy as a highly developed means of power
-bureaucracy seeks to increase the "superiority of the professionally
informed"
-only the expert knowledge of private economic interest groups can rival
that of a bureaucracy
Stages in Development of Bureaucracy
-originally formed as a way for ruler to use knowledge of special experts
without ceding power
-professional bodies grow in authority and become powerful in themselves
-p. 239 grows from a separation of "public" law (power of the state,
structures of authority) and "private" law (individual rights)
The Rationalization of Education and Training
-training becomes more specialized
-education as a commodity
-decline of the "cultivated" man
“Politics as a Vocation” From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, pp.77-128…1946
The lecture begins stating that the main idea is to understand by politics only the leadership of a
political association of a state. One can define the modern state in terms of the use of physical
force. Force is a means specific to a state. A state is a human community that claims the
monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Politics means striving
to share power or influence the distribution of power among a state. Political officials strive for
power for one of two reasons: 1. in the means of serving others, or 2. for power’s sake.
There are three reasons that people obey: 1. traditional domination, 2. traditional leadership (a
charismatic leader), and 3. legality. Obedience is a result of fear and hope. In this lecture we are
concerned with just the charismatic leader. Such a leader has an administrative staff with
represents the organization of political domination: they work as a result of reward and social
honor. Political association in which the material means of administration are controlled may be
organized into estates where the lord rules with the aid of an autonomous aristocracy. In the end,
the modern state controls the total means of political organization.
Professional politicians have emerged which define those who have not wished to be in power
but have entered that service…they have been the most important instrument for princes.
There are two ways to make politics one’s vocation: 1. One lives for politics, 2. One lives off
politics. He who lives for makes politics his life, and he who lives off politics makes it his
source of income.
The professional politician must be economically dispensable. Politics can be conducted by
wealthy men or by property less men. Modern bureaucracy in the interest of integrity has
developed a high sense of status honor. Development of politics into an organization struggling
for power separated categories into administrative officials and political officials on the other
hand. Political officials can be transferred at any time.
Types of professional politicians: 1. clergy, 2. the humanistically educated literati, 3. court
nobility, and 4. English institution, 5. University-trained jurist
The management of politics through parties means management through interest groups. Politics
today is in fact conducted in public means of the spoken or written word.
The genuine official will not engage in politics but rather in impartial administration. It is the
nature of officials of high moral standing to be poor politicians. The demagogue has been the
typical political leader…journalists are these types of leaders. The active leadership and their
freely recruited following are the necessary elements in the life of any party. Professional
politicians strive for power through sober and peaceful party campaigns to get votes.
In a parliament the power actually rests in the hands of those who, within the organization,
handle the work continuously. The members of Parliament are normally nothing better than
well-disciplined yes men. The party following expects compensation from the victory of their
leader. Officials submit relatively easy to a leader’s personality if it has strong demagogic
appeal. The bourgeois trust the man who they recognize.
Purely emotional means are used in selecting leaders. Parties change their views according to
the views of the public and what will get them voted in.
The typical boss attracts attention and then begins to climb. Unlike the professional who seeks
power alone, the typical boss is a sober man who has no firm political principles but asks what
will capture votes.
There is only the choice between leadership democracy with a “machine” and leaderless
democracy-the rule of professional politicians without a calling.
Three qualities are decisive for the politician: 1. passion, 2. a feeling of responsibility, 3. and a
sense of proportion.
Vanity is harmless but two things are deadly sins in the politics: 1. lack of objectivity and 2.
irresponsibility. Lack of objectivity tempts him to strive for glamorous semblance of power
rather than for actual power while irresponsibility suggest that he enjoy power merely for
power’s sake without a substantive purpose.
Some kind of faith must exist in politics. The problem present is the ethos of politics as a cause.
A nation forgives if its interest have been damaged, but no nation forgives if its honor has
been offended, especially by a bigoted self-righteousness.
The duty of truthfulness: conduct can be oriented by 1. ethic of ultimate ends or 2. ethic of
responsibility. An ethic of ultimate ends is identical with irresponsibility and ethic of
responsibility is identical with unprincipled opportunism. A man who believes in an ethic of
responsibility takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people.
The decisive means for politics is violence. Emotional revolutionism is followed by the
traditionalist routine of everyday life.
He who wants to engage in politics as a vocation lets himself in for the diabolic forces lurking in
all violence.
Age is not decisive but viewing the realities of life is. Politics is made with the head, but it is
certainly not made with the head of alone. The responsibility for the consequences does not fall
upon me but upon the others whom I serve and whose stupidity or baseness I shall eradicate.
An ethic of ultimate ends and an ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts but rather
supplements.
A man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well. Those who are neither must
arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes.
Only he who in the face of all this can say “In spite of all!” has the calling for politics.
Foucault, Discipline and Punish: Part I: Ch1(entire), Ch. 2, pp. 41-63
Foucault, Chapter 1 (all)
Foucault begins his book by giving an overview of the penal system over time and declares his
book to be a history of the prison. The book begins with a description of the torture and
execution of Damiens, a regicide, in front of a large public audience. His torture, involving
being burnt by sulfur and ripped apart by horses, is so severe that the man is forced to cry out to
God.
Foucault quickly shifts to a description of the treatment at the “House of young prisoners in
Paris,” where prisoners are given a daily routine of work and instruction, instead of severe
physical punishment. Foucault notes that these two penal styles, though very different, were
separated by less than a century. He states that he shall consider “the disappearance of torture as
a public spectacle” in his book. Over time, punishment became a hidden process with its
effectiveness resulting from its inevitability, not its visual intensity. Today, sentences stem from
a desire to correct individuals and not from a desire to simply punish for the fun of it. This
modern penal system seeks to “deprive the individual of liberty that is regarded both as a right
and as property” instead of inflicting physical pain on criminals. The guillotine, where “death
was reduced to a visible, but instantaneous event,” was a step towards the modern system, as was
the adoption of a veil for the condemned, so that the criminal would no longer be seen. A
modern punishment such as forced labor or imprisonment “concerns the body itself: rationing of
food, sexual deprivation, corporal punishment, solitary confinement.”
Since the Middle Ages, a process of investigation has built up. Rather than just asking if an act
has been committed it is important to study the casual process that lead to the crime, in addition
to figuring out the best way of punishing and rehabilitating someone. There has also been an
introduction of considering the nature of a person in relation to a crime through the use of
psychological experts. (eg if someone is crazy, they are not punished in the same way as a person
of sound mind). These psychiatric experts address such questions as: “Does the convicted
person represent a danger to society?” “Is he susceptible to legal punishment?” etc.
Foucault advises that we must “rid ourselves of the illusion that penality is above all a means of
reducing crime.” In addition, something like a chain gang would provide a larger work force.
Above all, punishment is situated in a “political economy” of the body even when there is no
violent punishment. The examination of prisoners serves to give us a “corpus of knowledge”
through the use of scientific techniques. Foucault says that he would like to write a history of the
prison as a means of “writing the history of the present.”
Ch 2 pp41-63
Foucault goes over several important factors that are involved with judicial torture, and later,
execution. He begins with the analysis that guilt is not attached in a polar manner, such at a
person was either wholly guilty or wholly innocent. In this case, small amounts of suspicion
brought small amounts of guilt, which then merited judicial torture as the punishment for that
small amount of guilt. That torture then attempted to prove further guilt via a confession. If
such a confession occurred, then further punishment could occur for the guilt shown. However,
with heinous crimes that had plenty of condemning evidence, judicial torture was withheld,
because if the ‘patient’ did not confess, the death penalty could not be used. Foucault then used
this discovery of the truth to explain the ceremony and purpose of public executions. The
parading of the guilty through the street made them their own herald. In this way, they express
their guilt to all on their own body. Next, it set a time when truth would supposedly be revealed
in full in many ways. One way is that the guilty man could confess further accomplices or
crimes, and thus spare himself from potential further torture, using the reasoning of “what did he
have to lose”. Some however, used this tactic to prolong their lives by asking to return to their
cell to confess further crimes or accomplices. The moment of truth extended beyond the
understanding of the crimes of the person. It was thought that the amount of time the guilty man
remained alive, the intensity and frequency of his screams, and other such occurances during the
deliverance of the punishment displayed how much his punishment in the afterlife would be
lessened. However, Foucault offers the idea that perhaps such suffering might show that God
had abandoned this person to the painful machinations of his executioner. Thus the cycle of
truth between judicial torture and execution is displayed. Judicial torture produced the truth of
the mortal world, and executions produced the truth of the world beyond.
One other very important symbol described by Foucault is the connection between the
ruler and the guilty man. Foucault goes over that breaking the law, which is thought to be an
extension of the ruling sovereign, is thought to be as similar as an attack upon the sovereign. In
this way there are two repayments required, the first to be fair compensation to those directly
harmed by the crime, and the second to the sovereign. This concept is not too much unlike our
criminal and civil courts. However, the crime against the sovereign requires a show of absolute
strength over the guilty man, thus prompting a punishment far outweighing the crime. In this
way, the sovereign stands far about the criminal as if he were standing above a conquered people.
Symbolism is made that soldiers were used to ensure that the people did not soften and
attempt to free the criminal, nor enrage and demand his immediate death. This connection
between the military and enforcement of law is important. The criminal is seen to be as actively
harming the sovereign by breaking the law. In this way, it would be as if he had launched an
attack upon the kingdom. Further, agents of the sovereign aiding in something ruled by the
courts shows that while the sovereign delegates that authority to the courts, he never relinquished
it, and may overrule them for guilt or innocence at any time. This leads into the final symbol, the
letter of pardon. This is the quintessential show of the sovereign’s power in this situation. The
concept that pardons arrive at the last moment occur because punishments were usually carried
out hours after sentencing, thus requiring a swift footed messenger to arrive before the sentence
was carried out. Many times people would try to confess further things or do other acts to
attempt to delay in hopes of seeing a messenger with a pardon sealed with royal green wax.
MISSING ITEM #8 Foucault, Discipline and Punish: Part II: Ch1, pp. 73-94, 101-103
Foucault, Discipline and Punish: ch.2, pp. 104-116, 120, 126-131
Part 2, Chapter 2: The gentle way in punishment
(page 104 – 116, 120, 126 – 131)
Page 104 – 116
1 Foucault suggests that the art of punishment rest on a whole technology of presentation.
To find the suitable punishment for a crime is to find the disadvantage whose idea is such
that it robs forever the idea of crime of any attraction.
2 It is a matter of establishing the representation of pairs of opposing values, setting up a
complex of obstacle-signs
3 In order to function, the obstacles signs must obey several conditions
1) They must be not be arbitrary
a. Defining the crime is not natural and it is the society that defines it in terms of
its own interest.
b. The ideal punishment should be transparent to the crime that it punishes; thus,
for him who contemplates it, it will be infallibly the sign of the crime that it
punishes; and for him who dreams of a crime, the idea of offence will be
enough to arouse the sign of the punishment.
2) The signs must engage with decreasing the desire for crime and increase the fear of
penalty
c. So that the representation of crime and its disadvantages are more apparent
than that of the crime and its pleasures
d. Teach the criminals the feelings of respect for property – for wealth, but also
for honor, liberty and life
3) Penalties cannot be permanent, the more serious the crime, the longer the penalty
should be
e. A penalty that is permanent and has no end would be contradictory, because it
will be pointless to make the convict virtuous once more after the punishment
4) The punishment should be directed at others, not just the criminal
f. Punishment should be directed above all at others, at all the potentially guilty
g. The obstacles signs must circulate rapidly and widely, and must be accepted
and redistributed by all
5) The penalty should be a representation of public morality
h. One should know the laws for themselves and know that the laws associated a
particular crime with a particular punishment.
i. The mourning of the crime must be clear to the citizens; it must mention the
crime, the corresponding law, and the punishment, through posters, placards,
or signs. The punishment less the terrible details must be publicly announced
just like a book everyone must read. An example includes having a traitor
wear a red coat with the word "traitor" in the front and back before his
execution.
j. The lesson must be repeated as much as possible. We can think of it as a
school or an ever-open book. Children should be allowed to visit.
6) The traditional discourse of crime should be inverted, end the dubious glory of the
criminals
k. It was hoped that people would talk about the horrible stories of criminals,
that such stories would spread out, so that people were deterred from the
crime.
l. Indeed, a secret punishment is wasted, and we can think of the body of the
criminal as instruction.
3 In short: this is how Foucault imagines the punitive city. Each crime will correspond to a
specific law and specific punishment. Punishment will be visiblt and justified in itself.
The display of the punishment will make people aware of what they should not do.
4 The idea of uniform punishment was harshly criticized. In this period, imprisonment was
just a punishment for people who violated others' liberty, not punishment for all crimes.
This is different from the idea of prison we have today.
5 The problem is, within a short period of time, imprisonment has become popular. The
new law in 1810 envisioned imprisonment ("detention" or "reclusion" are also the terms
used to describe the same thing) as penalty for a range of crimes. The city planned the
structure of prison which was similar to the modern one, with high, enclosed walls. To
be sure, at first there were attempts to individualize imprisonment by controlling amounts
of food, light, or labor work each criminal was assigned. However, this practice died out.
The sentiment among the public at this time was, "if I have betrayed by country, I go to
prison; if I have killed my father, I go to prison." The punishment has become uniform.
Page 120
6 Foucault raises an important question: how detention (imprisonment) became one of the
most general forms of legal punishment in such a short period of time? This question
must be viewed against the fact that, not so long before, people were really against
imprisonment. This came from humanity concerns. “Imprisonment is not a penalty.”
7 Foucault answers that the prestige of the several models of punitive imprisonment formed
in the classical period made it possible to “overcome the obstacle constituted by the ageold rules of law and the despotic functioning of imprisonment.” Reformers helped make
detention a reality.
8 Foucault, however, claims that these detention models themselves pose problems: the
problems of their existence and of their diffusion. How did they come about? How did
they become so accepted?
Page 126-131
9 Point of convergence of these punishment models (Flemish, English and American, and
reformers’ models)
o All are mechanisms directed towards the future (prevent further crimes and to
transform a criminal).
o All also require methods to individualize the penalty (ie its duration, nature, how
it is to be carried out, etc).
10 However, disparity exists in the technology of the penalty and in the techniques of
control over the individual.
o Individual correction assures a process of redesigning the individual as a subject
of the law through the reinforcement of a system of signs and representations.
o Corrective penalty acts on the soul. Instead of representations, forms of coercion
operate here. Exercise timetables and plans all try to restore the obedient subject,
who obeys habit, rules and orders.
11 Two ways of reacting to an offense: to restore the juridical subject of the social pact, or to
shape an obedient subject.
12 Punishment by timetable makes a spectacle impossible, and establishes a certain
relationship between the convict and punisher. The subject must be subjected to total
power, which is secret and autonomous. Problems rise when the power that applied the
penalties now threatened to become as arbitrary as the power that once decided them.
13 A divergence exists between the punitive city and the coercive institution. In the first, the
functioning of penal power is distributed throughout the social space. In the other, there is
a compact functioning of power, an assumption of responsibility for the body and time of
the convict and an attempt to reclaim him individually.
14 In the late eighteenth century, there were three ways of organizing the power to punish:
1) Punishment based on the old monarchical law which still functioned where it was the
ceremonial of sovereignty.
2) Punishment as a way of re-qualifying individuals as subjects using signs recognized
by the citizen
3) Punishment as a technique for the coercion of individuals. It operated by training
habits
15 These latter two were corrective, utilitarian and the consequence of the right to punish
belonging to society as a whole.
16 These three mechanisms cannot be reduced to theories of law, or derived from moral
choices. They are technologies of power. Foucault then questions why they last model
was adopted. Why did the coercive, corporal solitary model replace the representative,
signifying, collective model?
Lectures on December 2 & December 7th
December 2, 2004 VERSION 1
The theme of today’s lecture is “Western Political Theory and Public and Private Distinctions”
1. Why is there (allegedly) no non-western political theory?-no systematic discussion of
(i) the nature of good government; (ii) the nature of the good life for man; and (iii)
the bearing of the nature of the good government on the nature of the good life for
man.
There isn’t this in India and China. Some say this is not true while others say that it is true.
2. Two Key distinctions:
A (i) Nature; and (ii) convention
-It is in our nature to be selfish, spiteful, and aggressive but it doesn’t necessarily hold that it
is good or justified that we act this way.
-Western Political theorists are interested in teasing out man in his natural state and man
under government. We see a version of this in social contract thinkers like Locke and Hobbes.
B (i) that which is owed to God; and (ii) that which is owed to man.
Much of medieval and modern political thought revolves around this question. How do we
draw the boundary between what belongs to the church and what belongs to man. How do we
settle boundaries between king and God?
These two distinctions establish dual dualisms that western political theory explores.
3. Three Great Transformative Moments in the History of Western
a. The shift from descending to ascending conceptions of political authority;
from the Divine Right of Kings to popular sovereignty and then indirect
representative popular sovereignty (the importance of Hobbes)
-There is a shift in 12th and 13th century partly due to the fact that medieval writers
rediscovered the Greeks (Aristotle).
-That leads to a whole range of questions concerning what can we legitimately
authorize our ruler to do in our name. This is where consent becomes very important.
-We talked about these questions of can you consent to be slaves? Locke says no! An
interesting feature about Locke is that he says no by going back to an earlier way of
thinking. We cannot consent to these things because we are not wholly owners of our
body. We are God’s workmanship.
-Even though Hobbes precedes Locke in terms of both. He is a more modern thinker.
He writes political theory without God claiming a major justification of the argument.
Hobbes makes this important move. He is a defender of popular sovereignty. He
accepts the ascending view of political authority. He rejects the divine right of Kings.
He makes two fascinating moves, he shows how you can be in favor of absolute rule
along with popular sovereignty. We have designated the sovereign as our
representation, although we have …
Indirect popular sovereignty describes the form of government that we now have in
place.
b. From monistic to pluralistic conceptions of value
There is a single highest blah of good. We can say for example that the life of the
citizen or a philosopher is the highest good. We can rank order the life of everything
beneath it. We can disagree about what constitutes the highest good. Everyone has
different views. They all think that it makes sense to talk about what is the highest
good for man. That perspective is challenged by pluralists. The pluralistic says that
there are multiple highest goods in life and they cannot be ranked. Some goods are
good for some people and other goods are good for other people, and it makes no
sense to rank them.
Hobbes thinks that there is no rational justification for talking about the good. Yet the
fact that we disagree about the nature of the good says that we are led into conflict.
But we must listen to the sovereign.
c. The rise of social complexity (Is modernity a fundamentally different set of
social conditions?)- our dependence upon the differentiated sub-systems such
as “the capitalist economy” “the bureaucratic state” and “the university”
(which we rely upon for recruitment and training of a scientific, technical
and legal/bureaucratic elite).
In societies where the
4. Can we speak of progress and improvement? Is this a story of the progressive
emancipation of man from the shackles of ignorance and from dependence upon
nature? Is conquering nature still a worthy and inspiring enterprise? Can we
conquer our own human nature?
5. Where does public and private fit into all this? Now’s the time to complete our
reading of Geuss.
Western Political Theory
12/2/04
VERSION 2
1. Why there is allegedly no non-western political theory
(i)
nature of good government
(ii)
nature of man
(iii) the good life
No such systematic discussion outside of the west
2. Two Key Distinctions
A (i) nature
(ii) convention
(ex: think of Aristotle’s discussion of slaves in context of nature v. convention)
B (i) that which is owed to God
(ii) that which is owed to man
These two distinctions establish dual dualisms that western political theory explores
- natural doesn’t necessarily equal good
- that which is in our nature is not necessarily good
- much of medieval thought was based around 2nd distinction
- i.e. church v. state, pope v. king
- in societies w/o this battle of temporal & spiritual authorities you may not develop this
systematic inquiry
3. Three Great Transformative Moments in the History of Western Political Thought.
a) From descending to ascending conceptions of political authority; from the
Divine Right of Kings to popular sovereignty and then indirect representative popular
sovereignty (the importance of Hobbes)
- authorization from the people
i. what can we legitimately authorize our ruler to do?
- Locke says we cannot consent to certain things like slavery because we are God’s
workmanship
- Hobbes- more modern- defends popular sovereignty- rejects the divine right of
kings
i. shows belief in favor of both popular sovereignty & absolute rule
ii.
sovereign as indirect representative- we have no limits or control
once elected
b) From monistic to pluralistic conceptions of value.
Monistic- there is such thing as “the good life”
- you can rank order other ways of life below the highest good
- belief in the highest good
Pluralistic- lots of different goods in life that you cannot rank
- value pluralistic in nature w/ regard to the highest good
c) The rise of social complexity-our dependence upon the differentiated sub-systems such as
“the capitalist economy” the bureaucratic state” and “the university” (which we rely upon
for recruitment and training of a scientific, technical and legal/bureaucratic elite).
- is modernity fundamentally different w/ regard to social conditions?
- our dependence upon differentiated sub-systems
i. “capitalist economy”
ii.
“bureacratic state”
iii.
“the university”
- all have inner logics, run in accordance to their own internal rules
- difficult to structure in accordance with moral values
4. Can we speak of progress and improvement? Is this a story of the progressive emancipation of
man from the shackles of ignorance and from dependence upon nature? Is conquering nature
still a worthy and inspiring enterprise? Can we conquer our own human nature?
- in our era progress & improvement rhetoric is more controversial
- if you take a pluralistic conception seriously difficult to justify your perspective
on progress- who are we to say?
- Green movement relevant to question of conquering nature- brutalization of
nature
- Does is make sense to say one society is more advanced than another
Ex: civilized v. barbarian societies
5. Where does public and private fit into all this? Now’s the time to complete our reading of
Geuss.
2 points
(ii)
he goes to great lengths to attack those who think there is a single public
private distinction
(iii) both a realist & has spent too much time reading Foucault & Nietzche
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thinking and Arguing about Rights and Constitutions and Laws
A. What is a right?
Person P has a right iff some aspect of P’s well-being is of sufficient importance to
justify the imposition of duties on others.
- rights correlate with duties
- rights don’t protect trivial things they are grounded in fundamental morals
- rights require an aspect of right holders well-being
- one man’s right is another man’s duty
ex: reciprocated romantic love
or right to healthcare- imposes a duty to provide it
B. Legal Rights; Constitutional Rights; and Fundamental Moral Rights (or Human
Rights).
- legal rights- guaranteed by the existence of a statute
-
constitutional- certain rights constitutionally protected
ex: freedom or speech
- can’t be trumped by legislative action
- role of Supreme Court- US unique in the power it grants to the courts
- unlike parliamentary sovereignty which has little restrictions
ex: Canada- in between US & British systems- notwithstanding clause- which
allows the judiciary to strike down legislation as unconstitutional but legislature
can override by invoking notwithstanding clause
-checks & balances
Fundamental moral rights
- so central to human well-being, decency, & dignity that a society that doesn’t
observe such rights is illegitamate
ex: Saddam’s Iraq
- What are these rights?
i. Is gay marriage?
ii.
Abortion?
iii.
Universal health care coverage?
C. Is there a justification for Judicial Review?
December 7, 2004
Today’s theme was the Court Cases.
Question: Should there be a right to privacy in a democratic constitution?
Courts, Constitutions, and Privacy
1.
Privacy and tort Law (a tort=a non-contractual wrong)—publishing gossip,
photographs, and diaries
2.
Two Distinctions in thinking about Constitutional Interpretation:
a.
Original Intent (Robert Bork) – what did our founding fathers intend to do?
Original intent: you ask what did the founding fathers intend to do with the constitution/bill of
rights? And that should be your sole guide when you try to interpret these documents. Are
statutes enacted by government consistent with the constitution as intended by those who wrote it?
Consistent w/ either (c) or (d)
b.
Moral Reading (Ronald Dworkin, tremendously influential legal philosopher at
NYU)
Moral reading: influenced by Robert Dworkin, his approach to the constitution and the activities
of judges is to say, we live in a democracy, and any account with what constitutions do must be
consistent with our ideas of democracy. Democracy itself is an ambiguous form of governmentthere are two possibilities for thinking about democracy.
i.
Democracy views laws as majoritarian
One is the majoritarian view (a legitimate policy is one that has been enacted by a majority- but
Dworkin has a problem with this because majorities often enact discriminatory policies that
deprive people of their rights- there’s no moral basis to pure majoritarian democracy)
Dworkin says he has an issue with the majority ruling everything (examples
include Hitler, Jim Crow laws, etc.) So he argues there’s no moral basis to a
pure majoritarian view.
ii.
Second view is egalitarian – we have democracy because we wish to acknowledge that we
are all moral equals, and a democratic form of govt must be consistent with this equality)- from
that premise Dworkin argues that a democratic outcome must be consistent with equality of
concern and respect- from there he says, pure majoritarianism may or may not be consistent
with this equality- it is the job of judges to ensure that all statutes enacted at any level must
be consistent with equality of concern and respect. Dworkin is willing to allow judges to
move a considerable distance to move away from what is written in the constitution/bill of
rights- this leads to tension between constitution. If they are not, they should be
struck down (Warren Court, judicial activism)
c) Judicial activism
d) Judicial constraint
Lochner v. New York, 1905
The citizens of New York were worried about the brutality and harshness of robber baron
entrepreneurs making people slave in hot bakeries morning noon and night. Those citizens
decided to enact a statute that would limit the number of hours anyone could work in a bakery to
ten hours, and all employers must respect that. Entrepreneurs challenged law and sent to
Supreme Court, who struck down laws and sided with employers.
“The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by
the Fourteenth Amendment.” [All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US,
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.]
“This includes the right to purchase and seel labor, except as controlled by the state in the
legitimate exercise of its police power… Ther eis no reasonable ground, on the score of health,
for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right of free contract, by determining the
hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker… Section 110 of the labor law of the state of NY,
providing that no employees shall be required/permitted to work in bakeries more than sixty
hours in a week, or ten hours a day, is not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state,
but an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the
individual to contract, in relation to labor, and as such it is in conflict with, and void under, the
Federal Constitution.”
Dissenting opinion: “I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do
with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law. It is settled by various decisions of
this court that state constitutions and state laws may regulate life in many ways which we as
legislators might think as injudicious or if you like as tyrannical…A constitution is not intended
to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the
citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and
the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking
ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict
with the Constitution of the USA.
-much closer to a majoritarian democracy view
Brown v. Board, 1954—see the Balkin article (Not very important because not public/private
issue). From the liberal perspective, the Court got it right (unlike in the Lochner case)
Griswold v. Connecticut
Law was passed: “Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose
of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than
one year…”
Justice Douglas’ decision: (important in the privacy issue) “The Bill of Rights have penumbras,
formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance… The
present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several
fundamental constitutional guarantees…We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of
Rights- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming
together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.
It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political
faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble
a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.” An example of a judge finding a justification
for striking down a statute that isn’t there in the text. Proponents of judicial constraint (who up
to now have been conservatives) have held up this case and these passages as a disgrace because
judges are overreaching.
Justice Stewart, dissenting: “I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the
law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a
philosophical matters, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should
be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual’s moral, ethical, and religious
beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control
should be available to all, so that each individual’s choice can be meaningfully made. But we
are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are
asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.”
Glyn asks us whether we think the majority or the court should decide (why have
democracy if courts decide?)
Note: Justice Douglas’ argument is a great example of a judge coming up with a
justification that isn’t in the text (people with philosophies of judicial
restraint point to this as an example of overreaching).
Justice Stewart and Thomas in the other case show how they both disagree with
the statute in question (classic liberal argument from Mill), but both say
there’s no constitutional right to privacy, and don’t find justification to
strike it down. Glyn says this change in 2003 is a disgrace because the judges
no longer go by the Constitution and just rule based on what they really believe
(me: ends justifies the means is supported by Weber, no?)
Foucault, Discipline and Punish: Part III: Chs. 1, pp. 135-148, 155-156,
164-169; Ch. 2, pp. 170-184, bottom 191-194
At the forefront of the transformation of the penal system were the technological
disciplines surrounding the body. During the classical age, doctors and philosophers began to
construct an “anatomico-metaphysical register” and a “technico-political register” of the human
body (Foucault 136). The latter detailed how regulations and discipline could be applied to the
body to mold its behavior and movements. From this arose the notion of “docility,” which
implies more of a behavioral malleability rather than an anatomical one. This new technology
differed from pervious forms of power, such as slavery, in that it was an individualized process
of coercion, rather than subjugation en masse. Efficiency and continuity of the action itself
characterized the training. The quintessential example of this is military training, in which
individuals are subjected to rigorous forms of discipline so that they may execute, seemingly
pointless, tasks flawlessly and economically.
In order to achieve this individualized training, it became necessary to devise a system of
organization that would operate smoothly on the macro-level yet impact its subjects efficiently
on the micro-level. “It was a question of distributing individuals in a space in which one might
isolate them and map them” (144). This paralleled the use of tabulation techniques in the natural
sciences - such as classifying species - and contributed to the development of a technology
inseparable from that of individualized training or action - schools, hospitals and prisons are just
a few examples of institutions that utilized it effectively.
The effects of these technologies on the individual were that they reduced the body to
performing operations mechanically - with regularity, precision and speed, but without thought.
While training operated individually, the sum, or collective result, of the individualized actions
became the paramount objective. The industrial-age example of the factory comes to mind.
Additionally, regimented behavior required oversight and surveillance, which created a
hierarchical system of command. At the higher levels of control emerged the technology of
tactics, which concerned itself with combining and orchestrating movements of groups of
individuals. This carried implications for the nature of politics. “Politics, as a technique of
internal peace and order, sought to implement the mechanism of the perfect army, of the
discipline mass, of the docile, useful troop, of the regiment in camp and in the field, on
manoeuvres and on exercises” (168). This is a part of the process of the “rationalization” of
power.
The training itself introduced many of the methods of power that would later characterize
modern penal society. Hierarchical observation served to monitor the operations of the
individuals and ensure the proper fulfillment of their designated task. The implementation of
strict rules governing behavior within institutions and punishments in the event of a transgression
guaranteed conformity. The punishments included corrective elements to “reform” those
individuals who repeatedly failed to abide by the established norms.
These changes ushered in a new era of power in which the individual occupied a
“cellular” space observed and analyzed by superiors and governed by ‘rationalized’ rules. The
accumulation of information on an individual precluded the possibility of maintaining anonymity.
In modern society, individualization comprises individuality or anonymity. As a product of the
power-knowledge coupling, individualization merely embodies a new technique of control,
nothing more.
Foucault, Discipline and Punish: Part III: Ch. 3, entire. Part IV: Chs. 1, pp.
231-235, 254-256
Relevant lecture notes from 11/30
1 Surveillance is one means of control; the others include physical pain and normalization.
2 Normalization means judgment according to what is normal, so each person participates
and has power.
3 Panopticon helps internalize surveillance; this is a form of control.
Foucault
Section III, Chapter 3.
I.
Brief history of the idea of social control and the Panopticon:
a. It began in the 17th Century, with the rise of the plague. Townspeople were locked
into their houses, not allowed to speak or see one another. Inspectors were posted
at each street, and took attendance each day. "Inspection functions ceaselessly.
The gaze is alert everywhere." (195) Foucault describes people as animals, locked
in cages. There is an "omnipresent and omniscient power" (197) keeping tabs on
the townspeople.
II.
Next, Foucault describes a leper colony, wherein lepers are cast aside from society.
The leper colony shows the difference between the normal and the abnormal.
b. Combining these two, we see a society which is a "pure community" while also
being disciplined. (198).
III.
Benthem’s Panopticon
c. We all know what this looks like: a tower in the center with a guard in it,
prisoners housed in cells surrounding the tower.
d. The Panopticon is different from a dungeon in that it emphasizes light and
visibility such that the prisoners can always be seen. In addition, since the cells
are separate, there can be no camaraderie between inmates, thus eliminating the
chances of rebellion.
e. Because prisoners are unable to see the guard, they never know where he is
looking, and therefore are scared into submissiveness. The idea is to "induce in
the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic
functioning of power...permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its
action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise
unnecessary." (201).
f. This power is amplified the more anonymous and numerous the guards.
g. The Panopticon is useful for other purposes too: experimentation, surveillance of
doctors, etc.
h. There is no risk for tyranny, as the Panopticon is always open to individuals, and
constantly is undergoing "irregular and constant inspections" it "enables everyone
to come and observe any of the observers" (207).
i. The idea of everyone observing everyone then spreads throughout society, and
becomes amplified, applied to everything anyone does. People become
normalized.
IV.
Disciplinary institutions
1. The functional inversion of the disciplines.
a. Discipline originally served to correct faults in groups of people.
b. Increasingly, it makes people more useful.
2. The swarming of disciplinary mechanisms.
c. Discipline can disperse from institutions to a “free” state, allowing surveillance to
happen outside the institution.
d. Example of religious groups using children’s discipline to monitor parents.
3. The state-control of the mechanisms of discipline.
e. State-discipline leads to a distinction between command by a king and command
by the king’s agents.
f. Foucault argues that an overwhelming police force gets caught up in minutiae.
g. Secret agents would compile life histories of everyone.
h. Excessive police would inhibit rival political movements to the dominant power.
i. Because discipline is a “technology” of power, it can be taken over by
successively higher power mechanisms, creating an intertwined network known
as ‘panopticism.’ (215-6).
j. Julius proposed that society is regulated in a reverse-panopticon fashion. Rather
than having each person available to be monitored, they make it desirable for
people to lead a particular type of life by focusing on one (can we see any
relationships with pop-culture here???). This can be attributed to the fact that key
elements of society have changed from “community and public life” to “private
individuals and the state.”
II.
Historical process involved with the formation of disciplinary society: economic,
juridico-political, scientific.
1. Economic requirements:
1. Low cost: economic/political/socially acceptable
2. social effectiveness: intensity and range
3. output of products: educational, military, industrial, medical
2. This ensures that the system can adapt to diversity and growth
3. Discipline must quickly deal with any confusion or disputes.
4. “The disciplines are the ensemble of minute technical inventions that
made it possible to increase the useful size of multiplicities by
decreasing the inconveniences of the power which, in order to make
them useful, must control them” (220).
5. The increased use of capital makes it possible to diminish people’s
political power.
2. “Panoptic modality of power” and “juridico-political” structures operate on
different levels.
1. Discipline works on a tiny scale; juridico-political structures (laws) are
larger frameworks.
2. The two work opposite each other: even though laws may be created
with egalitarian ideals, the disciplines are unequal (prejudice).
3. Disciplines are inconsistent
4. The panopticon is not just a way to punish a select few, but a means of
observing society as a whole (224).
3. Development of panopticon as a “technology”
1. developed with, but did not receive as much attention as, industrial
technological developments.
2. Ideal penal system: surveillance (“interrogation…investigation”), but
without end and without penalty.
3. Eerie conclusion: “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories,
schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?”(228)
231-5
Chapter I: Complete and Austere Institutions
Society uses prisons because they provide ‘equal’ punishment through “access to ‘humanity.’ ”
Time and freedom have a standardized value in society. Although it is imperfect, people seem to
think that it is a natural outcome of history, representing the progress of society. It had the
advantages of punishment and reform of people, but the way in which this reform takes place has
been perpetually disputed. Prisons and their place in society, therefore, should be carefully
studied.
254-6
1. Prison/penitentiary creates delinquents because they lose respect for the law, and are more
prone to breaking it repeatedly.
2. “Delinquency is the vengeance of the prison on justice” (255).
3. Foucault shows slight negative attitude toward prison system by calling them “the darkest
region in the apparatus of justice.”
lichauco@fas
Foucault, Discipline and Punish: Part IV: ch. 2, pp. bottom 264-285; ch. 3, pp.
293-308
Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault
Part IV: Ch. 2, Illegalities and Delinquency, pg. 264-285
Prison was denounced as “the great failure of penal justice.” The history of the prison has
not followed a traditional chronology of formation. Criticism of prisons consisted in the
following:
1. Prisons fail to diminish crime rate no matter how much they are changed and reformed.
2. Detention causes recidivism (several examples are cited that show a large percentage of
criminals being recidivists).
3. Prisons produce delinquents. They do this by violent constraints, environment and abuse
of power. Prisoners acquire a feeling of injustice that can instill a contemptuous attitude
toward all forms of authority. Exploitation that occurs in prisons can, by example, lead to
demoralization of prisoners.
4. Prisons facilitate cohesive associations of delinquents, encouraging conspiracy and future
crimes. Delinquents can learn from one another and be corrupted by fellow inmates.
5. Recidivism is expected considering the conditions to which inmates are freed.
Surveillance and a bad reputation follow them, making it difficult to find an honest job
and earn a living, in turn forcing them to retreat back into crime.
6. Prisons indirectly produce delinquents by forcing the prisoner’s family into destitution.
Foucault puts forth seven universal principles of the good penitential condition to
improve prisons.
1. Correction: the aim is to transform the inmate’s behavior
2. Classification: convicts must be separated and organized according to age, mental attitude,
offense and stage of transformation
3. Modulation of Penalties: customization of punishments according to individuals
4. Work as Obligation and Right: the learning of a useful trade is essential for
transformation and socialization
5. Penitentiary Education: necessary for both prisoner and society
6. Technical Supervision of Detention: staff must consist of morally qualified and
experienced specialized individuals
7. Auxiliary Institutions: supervision and assistance must follow imprisonment until
rehabilitation is apparent
Foucault argues that failure is an essential part of the working of the prison and in fact,
the prison succeeds. Prison differentiates and organizes crime instead of getting rid of it. Prison
creates delinquency, the abnormality in society and a form of illegality that can more be isolated
and supervised more easily than other offenses. A delinquent is a member of a small group
among the lower social classes whose reputation implies illegality. The replacement of the
criminal or prisoner by the delinquent is beneficial because a delinquent is unmistakably
separated from society, making him easier to control and is politically useful as an informer;
delinquency can be directed to other activities and useful in colonization endeavors. The
carceral system he introduces contains the prison’s physical structure, regulations and staff. It
encompasses the failure and reform of the prison. Foucault also points out that a large majority
of criminals emerge from the lower social classes due to their inherent alienation from society.
Part IV: Ch. 3, The Carceral pg 293-308
Foucault fixes the date of completion for the carceral system and the start of the modern
art of punishment as the date of the official opening of Mettray Reformatory. Here, hard labor
and a disciplined routine were strictly enforced and technologies of behavior were concentrated.
The aim of the supervisors (technicians of behavior) was to produce docile, submissive and
capable bodies. Mettray’s operation fostered in both staff and inmates the development of
disciplines such as medicine, general education and religious direction. A new supervision of
knowledge and power was introduced.
Prison changed the punitive procedure into a penitentiary technique which caused the
following results:
1. A gradual progression was established that allowed moving from order to offense and
back to the norm.
2. The far-reaching carceral network allowed the recruitment of major delinquents.
3. The carceral system makes the power to punish natural and legitimate and lowers the
threshold of tolerance to penality.
4. The carceral system allowed the emergence of a new form of law, the norm.
5. The carceral texture of society permits that the body be captured and observed.
6. As the prison’s origins lie in mechanisms and strategies of power, it can resist attempts to
drastically change it, but can still be changed by processes that affect its utility and the
growth of other supervisory networks.
The difficulty with prisons now is in the growing use of the mechanisms of normalization
and attached powers. The modern system of punishment, or the carceral city, differs greatly
from the theater of punishment. The prison is not subordinate to the laws, codes or judicial
apparatus and is connected to a carceral network that tends to exercise a power of normalization.
“At this point I end a book that must serve as a historical background to various studies of the
power of normalization and the formation of knowledge in modern society.”
MISSING ITEM #9: Jack Balkin,"What Brown Should have Said"
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/whatbrownteachesus1.pdf
MISSING ITEM #10 Jeremy Waldron, "A Rights Based Critique of Constitutional Rights" in
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1993 Available on JSTOR
Court Cases (See Links):Griswold v. Connecticut & Roe v. Wade
Griswold v. Connecticut
Facts: Two physicians fined for prescribing contraceptives.
Statute: Conn. Statute prohibits use of contraception and aiding such use.
What is the specific legal issue?
Is a state statue prohibiting use of contraception by married persons and aiding such use
unconstitutional?
Can usually specify what constitutional provision is at stake - but not here
What is majority’s decision?
Statute is unconstitutional under …
Sources of law that they rely on:
Constitution
Precedents - esp. prior interpretations of bill of rights
Explain doctrine of precedent: issues decided in previous case should be re-decided the same
way
But: when is an issue “the same”?
“right of privacy older than bill of rights” p. 282 - natural right? Opinion doesn’t really rely on
this
[Conn. Statute]
Look at their reasoning:
1. Rights not specifically enumerated have been read into the Constitution:
1st Am: right of free speech and press - includes freedom to teach and study particular
subjects
1 freedom of association - no required disclosure of membership lists; may subscribe to
any political doctrine
2 Association is a form of expression
Necessary to make express guarantees “fully meaningful”
Rights in Bill of Rights have penumbras (top of rt column, 282)
They are saying that, as a matter of law, protections of bill of rights extend beyond
textual provisions
How do they know this is the law? -- based on interpretation of precedents
Privacy: (p. 282 rt)
1st amendment - right of association
3rd am. - no quartering of soldiers
4th am - no unreasonable search and seizure
5th am - no self-incrimination
9th am - enumeration does not deny existence of non-enumerated rights
Marriage relationship lies within zone of privacy
Statute is overbroad, regulating use rather than sale or manufacture
Could allow police to search bedrooms
Did that happen in this case?
What if statute only prohibited providing of information, instruction, and medical advice
by physicians? - intrusion on privacy
Roe V. Wade
How does this deal with the right of privacy?
Blackmun then considered an argument that the state had a responsibility to protect the fetus. He
agreed this was so, but stated that this responsibility had to be balanced against the concerns of
the pregnant woman. Among those concerns was the woman’s right of privacy.
Blackmun noted that "the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy," but he
also wrote that since at least 1891 the Supreme Court had "recognized that a right of personal
privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution."
He then mentioned many cases in which the Court had upheld the right of personal privacy in
marriage, family relationships, contraception, childbirth, child rearing, and education. He also
noted the constitutional protections guaranteeing that the government not intrude into the privacy
of the home without a legal cause and a warrant.
Despite these examples of constitutional guarantees of personal privacy, Blackmun pointed out
that privacy is not absolute. He stated that in some specific cases, the government could intrude
on personal privacy. For example, the Court had previously upheld requirements that children be
vaccinated in order to safeguard public health and maintain medical standards. Thus, Blackmun
rejected the idea that the Constitution protects "an unlimited right to do with one's body as one
pleases." All of these considerations led Blackmun to develop compromise guidelines that
allowed states to interfere with the privacy rights of a woman only during the later stages of
pregnancy.
Court Cases (See Links): Planned Parenthood of S.E. PA. v. Casey
Terrorism Readings: 2) Profiling and 3) Balancing Liberty and Security
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Planned Parenthood v. Casey decided that states could regulate abortion to require parental
involvement when minors are involved, require a waiting period before seeking abortion and
obtaining an abortion and require doctors to provide detailed medical information before
obtaining consent for the abortion.
Background:
Petitioners, five abortion clinics and a group of physicians declared that each of the provisions of
the PA Abortion Control Act were unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals agreed partially and
only struck down the provision which stated that husband notification is necessary before an
abortion.
The Opinion was delivered by Justice O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter
1 Stare decisis confirms that Roe v. Wade’s decision should be reaffirmed (Roe states that
it is a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy as a “liberty, protected against state
interference by the component of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
*Roe’s view is that a state’s interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying an override
of individual liberty claims.
The guiding principles which should control assessment of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case
are:
1 keep in mind the “undue burden standard” which gages whether the court is placing an
obstacle (a burden) in the path of a women seeking an abortion before the fetus gains
viability.
2 The state may take measures to inform a women, regardless of whther it is trying to sway
her towards childbirth.
3 The provision which demands that a husband be notified counts as an undue burden
because many women may have difficulty getting this approval. Thus, a significant group
of women will be burdened by this provision. Furthermore, we cannot claim that the
father’s interest in the fetus’ wellbeing is comparable to the mother’s protected liberty.
4 We must consider that perhaps Roe went too far in saying that women have a
fundamental right to abortion.
5 The 24 hour waiting period may perhaps not be a “burden.” It furthers the state’s interest
of preserving potential life. Also, it contributes to the women making a better informed
decision.
6 A state can file reports on each abortion. This is constitutional because it contributes to
the state’s interest of medical progress and advancment.
Justice Scale, White and Thomas provide the dissent.
They argue that abortion is not a liberty and that certain aspects of the Roe v. Wade case
ought to be reconsisdered. Futhermore, they state that Roe v. Wade is not entirely
comparable to Planned Parenthood v. Casey because Roe v. Wade involved the prohibition
of abortions while Planned Parenthood v. Casey involves the regulation of abortions.
Racial Profiling by Mathias Risse and Richard Zeckhauser
*Our case in support of profiling is consistent with the claim that far-reaching measures
must be taken to decrease racial inequality.
7 Definition: Is any police initiated action that relies on race, ethnicity/national origin,
rather than behavior of an individual/ information that leads the police to a particular
individual who has been identified as being or having been engaged in criminal activity.
8 Issue of expense - - it is too time consuming and expensive to search everyone
9 This essay states that profiling can be justified in even minimal cases such as highway
searches.
10 Most media-covered profiling cases entail abuse
11 Proportionality: profiling seems to affect minorities disproportionately. However, the
essay also addresses proportionality in the sense of its relativity to the goal of the
investigation.
12 Issue with profiling: others who are not in the target group would get away with “free
crime”
13 Essay argues that alongside police abuse, disproportionate screening of minorities must
be condemned, even if one endorses (as the Essay does) the use of race in police
investigation.
14 The legitimacy of profiling given that certain minorities are more likely to commit certain
crimes that society takes seriously
15 Using race as the only criteria as opposed to using race as one of many
16 Utilitarian argument is not enough - - the utilitarian argument states that the benefits of
profiling as means of crime reduction outweigh its costs.
17 Essay states that the primary cause of frustration amongst minorities is underlying
racism/underlying socio-economic disadvantage, rather than profiling as such.
18 The Non- Consequentialist argument - - innocent, non-threatening persons have a right to
not be attacked and everyone has a duty to refrain from attacking such person.
19 Functioning Reciprocity - - Differential burdens are imposed if demanded by the nature
of the public good.
20 Self Interest Argument - - profiling is in the interest of the targeted racial community
because if members of a racial group know that they are targeted by police measures,
they will be disproportionately deterred from being criminals.
Ultimately, the essay is an advocate of racial profiling.
Lectures on December 9 & December 14th
Lecture 12/9/04 - A Right to Privacy Justifications and Applications
1 Rights can be justified in numerous ways
o Constitutionally (4th, 5th; 9th; and 14th amendments)
o Philosophically
X has a right if and only if some aspect of X’s well-being (his/her
interest(s)) are of sufficient importance to justify the imposition of duties
on others
Considerations
Identity of rightholders (who has this right to privacy?)
2
3
4
5
6
Identity of duty bearers
Scope of privacy rights (how far does it reach, what does it cover?)
Weight of privacy issues (what’s important…what’s not)
A common right to privacy
o Louis D. Brandeis and Samuel Warren, “A Right to Privacy” Harvard Law
Review 1890
o Pictures of Warren’s wedding party published in a Boston paper, sparking this
paper
o “The common law secures to each individual the right of determining, ordinarily,
to what extent his thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to
others.”
o “Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred
precincts of private and domestic life”
o This covers diaries, letters, books, and private papers, but it also prevents gossip
columnists from publishing details or pictures of our sex lives.
What undercuts a right to privacy
o Celebrity, royalty, media stars
o Criminality - Megan’s Law, naming “John and Jane Does”
What overrides a right to privacy
o A right to security perhaps, the threat of terrorism
o The public interest…see David Brin’s article about the transparent society
o Sexual harassment laws
Difficulty of justifying right to privacy
o Is there something fundamental to privacy?
Difficulty of maintaining privacy in a technological era
o Email, internet, all leading to a public existence…
Moral Reasoning 50 - Lecture on 12/14/04
Privacy, Technology, and Surveillance
1 What could be the justification for privacy?
o Definition of a right - X has a right if and only if some aspect of x’s well-being
(his/her interests) are of sufficient importance to justify the imposition of duties
on others
This means that for a right to privacy to exist, the interests that this right
involves must be of overwhelming significance
When formulating a right to privacy, the scope of this right must be
considered. For far should this right extend? Should it impinge upon
other rights, such as the right to security?
When formulating a right to privacy, the weight of this right must be
considered. When compared with the interests of other rights, do the
interests involved with the right to privacy have more weight/importance?
o In order for a right to privacy to be justified, a philosophically mature argument
must be put forth. As previously stated, it must include the interests affected, the
scope of the right, its weight compared to other rights.
2 What is privacy?
o A working definition - freedom for official scrutiny
“Official scrutiny” means organized society, as in the state, businesses,
schools, etc.
3 Why does privacy matter?
o One key question to ask is, in what sense are privacy violations “autonomylimiting?”
“Autonomy” is defined as the freedom to choose one’s own way in life
If privacy violations are simply autonomy-limiting actions, then does this
mean that a right to autonomy exists but not necessarily a right to privacy?
Problems with this definition
Example - if someone reads your diary but does not reveal the
information to anyone else, this does not affect your autonomy.
Most people, however, would still consider this a privacy violation.
o Incorporating the Millian “harm principle,” in what sense are privacy violations
harmful?
Using the diary example, this could be classified as a moral wrong, but
what harm does it actually do?
Does it matter if the agent committing the violation - reading the diary - is
a corporation rather than an individual?
o Solitude/seclusion - most people would say that humans have an interest in
occasionally being in seclusion
What justification is there for saying that humans have a need to
occasionally be alone?
o
o
o
Is being alone an end in itself, or simply a means to other ends, such as
thinking or intimacy?
Informational control - assume an official organization gains access to “private”
matters
Is this only a violation when they act on this knowledge? Or is the simple
knowledge a violation?
Should tax returns and salaries be made public? Does this lead to
accountability?
Attentional privacy - Are Spam/pop ups and extremely intrusive advertising
violations of privacy?
What interest is affected by spam’s presence?
Re-creation of “selfhood”
Should there be a statue of limitations on information of past crimes?
Does posting information about sex offenders limit their ability to
refashion their lives? Do they forfeit this right by their crimes?
Minority Report - The Appeal and Threat of Transparency
1 Appeals
o Security would be almost complete, as crime would be so limited as to be almost
nonexistent
o Companies can use information to serve better and price products more
effectively
o Complete accountability - all public figures, teachers, etc. would be held
accountable for their performance
o “Perfect justice” - no crime would go unobserved/unpunished
o Does not just prevent crime by the constant threat of observation, but would also
prevent immoral but legal acts
2 Threats
o Would morally good actions lose their potency once the ability to act immorally is
eliminated?
o If government had information, then they could use it.
o Anonymity vanishes. Why is anonymity a good thing?
Allows a person to move and refashion persona, shaping their life as a
work of art (Mill)
Homosexuality Court Case (See Link): Bowers v Hardwick &
Lawrence v Texas
U.S. Supreme Court
BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) BOWERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
GEORGIA v. HARDWICK ET AL.
Argued March 31, 1986
Decided June 30, 1986
1 Georgia statute forbade men from engaging in homosexual activity in their own homes.
Hardwick was charged under this law, he filed suit claiming the law unconstitutional in
criminalizing consensual sodomy.
2 He lost in his first case, appealed and then won. The Supreme Court, however, then
reversed Hardwick’s victory and ruled that essentially the state’s law doesn’t violate the
constitution.
3 The bullet points below are excerpts from the case that prove/explain the decision of the
justices:
4 “This case does not require a judgment on whether laws against sodomy between
consenting adults in general, or between homosexuals in particular, are wise or desirable.
It raises no question about the right or propriety of state legislative decisions to repeal
their laws that criminalize homosexual sodomy, or of state-court decisions invalidating
those laws on state constitutional grounds. The issue presented is whether the Federal
Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.”
5 The Court's prior cases have construed the Constitution to confer a right of privacy that
extends to homosexual sodomy and for all intents and purposes have decided this case.
The reach of this line of cases was sketched in Carey v. Population Services International,
431 U.S. 678, 685 (1977). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v.
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), were described as dealing with child rearing and
education; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), with family relationships;
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), with procreation; Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), with marriage; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, and
Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, with contraception; and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),
with abortion.
6 So basically the question is do the 14th and 15th amendments that were used to justify
privacy rights in the examples above extend to homosexual sodomy too?
7 JUDGES SAY: “Hardwick would have us announce, as the Court of Appeals did, a
fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.”
8 Identifying rights is difficult: “Striving to assure itself and the public that announcing
rights not readily identifiable in the Constitution's text involves much more than the
imposition of the Justices' own choice of values on the States and the Federal
Government, the Court has sought to identify the nature of the rights qualifying for
heightened judicial protection”
9 Fundamental liberties are “those liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history
and tradition." Since until 1961 all 50 states outlawed sodomy, “against this background,
to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history
and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.
10 Other issues: “Respondent, however, asserts that the result should be different where the
homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home. He relies on Stanley v. Georgia,
394 U.S. 557 (1969), where the Court held that the First Amendment prevents conviction
for possessing and reading obscene material in the privacy of one's home: "If the First
Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting
alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."
11 “plainly enough, otherwise illegal conduct is not always immunized whenever it occurs
in the home. Victimless crimes, such as the possession and use of illegal drugs, do not
escape the law where they are committed at home. Stanley itself recognized that its
holding offered no protection for the possession in the home of drugs, firearms, or stolen
goods. Id., at 568, n. 11. And if respondent's submission is limited to the voluntary sexual
conduct between consenting adults, it would be difficult, except by fiat, to limit the
claimed right to homosexual conduct [478 U.S. 186, 196] while leaving exposed to
prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are committed in
the home. We are unwilling to start down that road.”
12 “Even if the conduct at issue here is not a fundamental right, respondent asserts that there
must be a rational basis for the law and that there is none in this case other than the
presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy is
immoral and unacceptable. This is said to be an inadequate rationale to support the law.
The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing
essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts
will be very busy indeed”
13 The point above is key, because it hits on the issues of majorities making bad choices,
because it’s basically saying that the law may be irrational but the majority electorate
doesn’t think so and therefore it must stand. The ruling stood until Lawrence v. Texas.
LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS
certiorari to the court of appeals of Texas, fourteenth district, Argued March 26, 2003-Decided June 26, 23
1 Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police
entered petitioner Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner
Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and
convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two
persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. The state court of
appeals of texas ruled the law constitutional.
2 Court essentially reversed Bowers: Resolution of this case depends on whether
petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty
under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider
its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court's initial substantive statement--"The issue
presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon
homosexuals to engage in sodomy ... ," 478 U. S., at 190--discloses the Court's failure to
appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply
the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put
forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about
the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here
purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes
have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct,
sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a
personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is
within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty
protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter
upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still
retain their dignity as free persons.”
3 The court also nullified the historical argument, saying that historically anti-sodomy laws
were meant to prohibit sexual predation and also to prohibit intercourse outside the goal
of procreation.
4 “The Nation's laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They
show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in
deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” Court is
condemning it’s previous decision.
5 Supreme court also points out that sodomy laws in the 4 states that still enforce them are
(times have changed since 1986) unfairly prosecuted against homosexual acts of sodomy
when heterosexual acts of sodomy are equally illegal.
6 Here’s a social argument: “although the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a
criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including
notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms, and registration as
sex offenders under state law.”
7 “In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of
our lives outside the home, where the State should not be a presence.
8 Comments on homosexuality as a moral concern: “The condemnation has been shaped by
religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the
traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep
convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles.These considerations do not answer
the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of
the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal
law.”
9 Interests: This case raises a different issue than Bowers: whether, under Equal Protection
Clause, moral disapproval is a legit. state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans
homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. It is not.
10 The idea, thoug,h is that the criminalization of gay sodomy also violates the equal
protection clause, and is not wholly a privacy issue. So the debate may well continue in
other cases in differing situations. (i.e. non-sexual claims to privacy)
Alright…Lawrence v. Texas is a lot denser than Bowers, but the basic are written above.
MISSING ITEM #11: Lecture from 12/16
Final Lecture 12/21/04
Second Essay Questions
Final
Rights- Question 3
Whats the difference between fundamental moral rights, human rights, constitutional rights, and
natural rights?
- fundamental moral rights- rights that belong in any decent society
1 natural rights- can be treated more or less the same as fundamental moral rights
2 inalienable rights- those moral rights that belong to you regardless of legal rights
What conception of rights should you use?
2 A person has a right iff some aspect of that person’s overall well-being (his or her
interest) is of sufficient importance to justify the imposition of duties upon others
Are our privacy interests protected when our rights to autonomy, bodily security are protected?
Is all we need autonomy based harm?
What about contraception, abortion, euthanasia?
3 supreme court defends it in terms of privacy
4 Prof. Morgan thinks it has more to do w/ autonomy
Question 2- (the broadest question- think of it in terms of specific cases and examples)
Can privacy rights be too strong and overbroad? - think in terms of terrorism
5 informational control: can it be too strong? Desire to control the info others can find
about you
6 intimacy control/ individuality: what about the community interest in shaping a
common character?- Aristotle- permit subgroups to develop?
7 Anonymity/ recreation: what about the community’s interest in surveillance and
control?
NY Times article by Jeffery Rosen- on blogging of personal info/ i.e. dating merits
- new threats to privacy: technology security, and sexual harassment law
8 we face more dangerous threats to privacy than we have in the past
9 Feminist critique of privacy- privacy rights as a threat to women- the danger of overly
robust privacy rights (spousal abuse, etc.)
What is terrorism?
10 balancing liberty, privacy, and security interests
Def: conclusive: indiscriminate politically motivated violence designed to terrorize
civilian populations ALWAYS MORALLY WRONG
Def: analytical: socially resonant, politically motivated violence committed by non-state
actors SOMETIMES MORALLY WRONG
11 Is radical Muslim terrorism different from other groups present or historically?
o Prof. Morgan says yes
o They share characteristics with early modern puritanical groups
o Claim unmediated access to the word of God
o Word of God trumps laws of man
o More dangerous than Puritan groups that Hobbes worried about, with quotes
like “you love life, we love death”
o Discount the pleasures of earthly life for the life in the next world
o Much different from the IRA or Basques
o Further danger due to advances of technology that make it easier for groups to
get means to injure the population than in the past
12 Richard Reid- the shoebomber
o
o
o
o
not your classic terrorist
recruited by muslims while in jail for petty crime
just a down and out guy
society is in danger with lots of guys like him around who feel they’ve got
nothing left to lose
13 Justice Hoffman’s decision
o Allowed prisoners to be held by Brits in perpetuity
o allowed the government to designate dangerous individuals to be held
without trial indefinitely
14 Extreme threats to personal and collective security justify limitations on privacy
o mandatory ID cards, retinal scans, wiretaps, possibly profiling
o but they do not justify limitations on basic liberties such as the right to a fair
trial, a right not to be tortured
15 Brief discussion of profiling
o Profiling as racist
o What if it was done not on basis of race, but nationality
o Profiling as a means of breeding disloyalty and alienation
o Liberty before privacy?
Terrorism Readings: 1) security and privacy: A libertarian Perspective
SUMMARY - TERRORISM READING iii
Security and Freedom in a Free Society - A Libertarian Perspective
Done by the Cato institute
This article is broken up into segments by different people.
Robert A Levy
1 Many African Americans support racial profiling of Middle Easterners in combating
terrorism, but condemn profiling of blacks in condemning crime. Is this hypocritical?
Reasons why not:
1. Criminal profiling can catch, at best, a serial murderer, saving maybe
10 or 20 lives. Terrorist profiling could catch a crazy suicide bomber
and save thousands of lives. Therefore, terrorist profiling is more
important and more legitimate.
2. Seven out of the eight major terrorist attacks against the US and its
allies over the past 30 years have been perpetrated by male Islamic
fundamentalists, age 17 - 40. All of the 9/11 hijackers were of Arab
descent. This is a much better profile fit than we have for blacks and
crime.
3. The US has a history of racial bias toward blacks, and racial profiling
could lead to police acting based on their own deeper prejudices
against blacks. There is no corresponding history of racism against
Arabs, so they have less cause for concern.
Also, racial profiling is much less objectionable if it’s only used to target people
for voluntary questioning, not for detainment or legal action.
1 An example of justified racial profiling is when the US targeted for investigation people
from certain Arab countries who have ignored deportation orders. In this case, these
people already broke the law, and in doing so have already given up some of their rights.
They should be prosecuted anyway. We simply don’t have the time to prosecute all of the
people who ignored deportation orders, so we do the ones from statistically dangerous
ethnic groups first. No innocent people are imposed upon, no civil liberties denied.
2 An example of unjustified racial profiling is when the US asked all male non-permanent
residents with Visas from certain Arab countries to show up for mandatory registration
and fingerprinting. The fingerprints were then compared to their database of terrorist
suspects. Here, many completely innocent people were screened, based only on their
nationality. Also, it was not shown that this would really help our flawed immigration
system, as was claimed. Finally, it is unlikely that an actual terrorist would show up for
fingerprinting, or even be in possession of a Visa.
Timothy Lynch
3 National ID cards are a bad idea. They require us to give up some liberty and some
privacy, and they don’t really provide any added security. Terrorists could easily avoid
these measures by simply recruiting people with ID cards, or bribing the card-makers.
4 Also, the Government would probably make it so that you would have to produce your
ID whenever the police asked for it; that would make them more useful for the police,
and that’s what happened in other countries that tried ID card systems. This overturns a
large part of our liberty; right now, police can’t do anything or ask anything of us unless
they have a warrant.
5 Even if the ID doesn’t start out this way, it’s a slippery slope once we get one. It would
slowly turn us into a “surveillance state.”
Charlotte Twight
6 Congress is proposing having driver’s licenses or national IDs with computer chips in
them, to link to your information in a big central security database. This would be a huge
privacy violation. The government already has the right to make databases including
information from our banks, doctors, schools, employers, etc. These cards could let any
cop who asks for your ID see all of this stuff about you at once.
7 This type of government power will inevitably grow. Social Security Numbers were
originally meant only to identify social security accounts. They slowly grew into
basically a national ID number. The same would happen with these databases.
8 We will have no idea what amount of information our cards would link to. The
government has abused data collection in the past (Clinton, Nixon) and we shouldn’t just
trust them now. If we institute these IDs, people will get used to it, think it’s normal, and
then authorize their expansion. It would be bad.