Once upon a time, I took a Political Philosophy course. There was only one required textbook, Political Thinking: The Perennial Questions by Glenn Tinder. The basic idea behind this is that there are a series of questions that have to be considered in order to be thought of as being politically conscious. The book, offers questions, no definite answers, and potential discussion from various sides. There are more recent editions of the book available, but here is the question list from the 5th edition (divided by topics; don’t worry, I’ll repeat the questions for each section):
Estrangement and Unity
- Are human beings estranged in essence?
- If human beings are not estranged in essence, why are there so many divisions and conflicts among them?
- Can estrangement become overcome through reason?
- Do we need religious faith to overcome estrangement?
- Should all peoples be united in a single global society?
- Should all class distinctions be abolished?
Inequality and Equality
- Are human beings unequal in essence?
- If some human beings are essentially superior to all others, how and by whom can they be identified?
- If human beings are essentially equal, are all conventional inequalities wrong?
- If all conventional inequalities were abolished, would estrangement disappear?
- Should men and women always and in all ways be treated equally?
Power and Its Possessors
- Is power the only source of order?
- Who should rule?
- If the people rule, should they do so themselves or through representatives?
- Is it good to have power?
- Why obey?
Limits on Power
- Should governments be under the same moral limits as individuals?
- Should governments in all circumstances be under constitutional limits?
- Should governments ordinarily leave the ownership and control of industry in private hands?
- Can political power and perfect knowledge ever be joined?
The Ends of Power
- Does every government sever merely “the interest of the stronger”?
- Is the final goal of government simply to enable individuals to live as they choose?
- Does government have any responsibility for truth and morality?
- Is avenging crime a proper aim of government?
- Should governments try to create societies that fulfill all needs and desires?
Historical Change
- Can human beings control the course of history?
- Can we shape history without using extensive violence?
- Do truth and right change in the course of history?
- Does history lead naturally toward “the good society”?
What follows are my answers to these questions. My answers will be fairly short and to the point. I’m not looking to start any arguments or provide any profound philosophical views. I just want to give you a glimpse into what I think regarding the topic at hand. My answers probably aren’t very complete, but they are a starting point.
Estrangement and Unity
- Are human beings estranged in essence?
- If human beings are not estranged in essence, why are there so many divisions and conflicts among them?
- Can estrangement become overcome through reason?
- Do we need religious faith to overcome estrangement?
- Should all peoples be united in a single global society?
- Should all class distinctions be abolished?
In order to begin, it is probably helpful to have Tinder’s definition of Estrangement:
The word estrangement is used here to signify every kind of disunity among human beings. War among nations, conflict among classes, and personal alienation are manifestations of estrangement; hatred, indifference, and loneliness are emotions of estrangement.
Now, back to the questions at hand…
Are human beings estranged in essence? Is there something essential about our nature that makes us predisposed towards conflict? I don’t believe so. I believe that all of existence comes for a single source, call it God, Allah, Tao, etc. Whatever you call the source, I find it difficult to believe that we would come from that source in a state of estrangement.
So, why is it so easy to find examples of estrangement? I believe that an essential fact about human beings is that they have a desire to understand the world around them and their place in it. We tend to congregate in societies which reflect and reinforce our beliefs and values. The problem comes about when we are confronted with facts or situations that force us to question our beliefs. It can be very difficult to modify our belief system. It is much easier to modify the facts or situations to meet the expectations of our beliefs. This might range anywhere from ignoring the issue, using pseudo-rationalizations to explain it away, or outright ostracizing/destroying the source of the issue.
Neither reason nor religious faith alone are enough to overcome estrangement. Reason helps us to learn facts, but those facts are almost invariably colored by our beliefs, and facts alone will not really tell us about our place in the world, although it can help. Life needs to be experienced in order to fully understand it (if that is even possible). Religious faith can also blind us from experiencing life (it can help as well, though). What is needed to overcome estrangement is a balance between reason, religious faith, and a level of sympathy to know that we all come from the same source and are going to be at various places in the trail that is our understanding of life.
Will we eventually be united in a single global society? I think it is inevitable. Just look at how our concept of societies have evolved so far.
Individual » Family » Clan » Village » City » State » Nation » Multination » Global
We accept the fact that we have grown from being a part of a family, to being part of a village, or a state, or a nation. Is it really that inconceivable that we will eventually have a single global society? I would say levels of society work only in instances where individuals feel like they belong. Everyone has a different comfort level as to where they still feel like they are part of society. Most are probably quite comfortable up to the state or nation level. I think it is only a matter of time until a truly global society happens, but it requires the global level of comfort for everyone (and I don’t see that happening anytime soon, and it can’t be forced either).
Classes are really another means that we are grouped together (similar to society), but we are grouped according to different criteria – wealth, job, ethnicity, sexual preference, hair color, etc. People get lumped together over petty things some times. Some visions of what make up a class should be abolished – things that individuals have no control over – ethnicity, etc. Why should they matter?
Inequality and Equality
- Are human beings unequal in essence?
- If some human beings are essentially superior to all others, how and by whom can they be identified?
- If human beings are essentially equal, are all conventional inequalities wrong?
- If all conventional inequalities were abolished, would estrangement disappear?
- Should men and women always and in all ways be treated equally?
The number of ways in which one person can be unequal to another is exhaustive — physically, mentally, socially, etc. However, it is also a part of American philosophy that “all men are created equal” (I would modify that to “everyone is created equally”). So which is it; are we equal or not? It is my belief that we all come from the same source, and this makes us all equal. While we may not be equal as basketball players or chess players or painters, we are equal as human beings. We are not unequal in essence.
If we are equal in essence, is there such a thing as a superior human being? In a manner of speaking, yes; as long as you are referring to those specific traits that set one person about from another and not the person as a whole. These “superior” people would be identifiable by the population that is familiar with whatever trait(s) that the person excels in. I must point out, that I don’t believe in a superhuman who excels at every trait.
Tinder refers to “conventional inequalities” as “all the inequalities resulting from the laws and customs of the social order…such inequalities include those of social status, power, wealth, and honor.” I would say that anything which denies that we are all equal in essence is wrong. While there is nothing wrong with celebrating talent, there is something wrong with those with talent trying to ensure that they stay on top by denying someone the opportunity to develop their talents.
Can we abolish these conventional inequalities? I don’t know if it is possible. I don’t see parents not giving their excess wealth to their children (and we shouldn’t ask them to – parents do what they can to make life for their children better than the life that they had; they shouldn’t be punished for that). However, many of the other conventional inequalities should be earned, not inherited. We need to end that cycle. This will help to ease the feelings of estrangement felt by many.
“Should men and women always and in all ways be treated equally?” A loaded question if I ever saw one (just like any question dealing with absolutes such as “always and in all ways”). My response is to say yes (we are all from the same source). There should be no reason why a man should be treated differently from a woman.
Power and Its Possessors
- Is power the only source of order?
- Who should rule?
- If the people rule, should they do so themselves or through representatives?
- Is it good to have power?
- Why obey?
I guess I should start with some definition of power (that won’t compete with what the local electric company sells)...I would say that power is the ability to perform an action without restraint or to utilize/organize the power of others (through economic, social, political, military, etc. means) to achieve goals (whether altruistic or selfish).
Power is not the only source of order. When people organize to accomplish shared goals, it can create a sort of order, but I think that most people are reasonable beings that recognize and respect the rights of others and it is this respect for the rights of others to exercise their power in a reasonable fashion that creates a sort of order. Order that comes only through extreme usage of power is not true order. True order does not come from the barrel of a gun (so to speak).
People should rule themselves. They should lose that right in cases where they are preventing others from ruling themselves. Now, life is all about compromise…what you are willing to give up to do x or y. Governments attempt to codify these compromises into laws.
Government should be for the people, by the people. However, that isn’t very practical on a large scale. A representative system is a fair compromise (there’s that word again).
I believe that having the power to act is a natural thing (hence good). However, just as with so many things, it’s how you use something that attributes value to it. If you abuse your power and cause harm to others, then it is evil (from a social point of view). If you use your power to assist others, then it might be considered good.
So why obey? For the most part, it is much easier to accept established compromises for a society over forming new compromises with all of the individuals in a society (like most animals, people take the path of least resistance).
Limits on Power
- Should governments be under the same moral limits as individuals?
- Should governments in all circumstances be under constitutional limits?
- Should governments ordinarily leave the ownership and control of industry in private hands?
- Can political power and perfect knowledge ever be joined?
Moral limits are culturally based. It is very difficult for me to believe that a group of individuals believe in exactly the same moral limits on their actions (and the actions of others) as another group. Therefore I think it is pretty much impossible for governments to be under the same moral limits as individuals. That being said, I do believe that governments should act under a shared (i.e. cross-cultural) moral base. Those in government come from groups of individuals with a shared view of moral limits. However, due to the power they now possess, they should be morally obligated to represent all cultural groups, not just the cultural group they identify with. If those involved in government remembered this, there would probably be a lot less dissatisfaction with government.
Governments should always be under constitutional limits. If there are no real rules for what a government can and can’t do, then anyone living under that government are living an illusionary life (no matter how nice) at the whim of the state.
In ordinary circumstances, governments should leave the ownership and control of industry in private hands (and those controlling industry would do well to learn that cooperation does better in the long run over competition and money isn’t the only measure of success — check out: Cooperation Not Competion” & The Corporation ).
There is no such thing as perfect knowledge (although we all like to think that we possess it). I think those with political power would do well to understand that they do not have perfect knowledge and limit their use of power.
The Ends of Power
- Does every government sever merely “the interest of the stronger”?
- Is the final goal of government simply to enable individuals to live as they choose?
- Does government have any responsibility for truth and morality?
- Is avenging crime a proper aim of government?
- Should governments try to create societies that fulfill all needs and desires?
I don’t believe that any just government merely serves the interest of the stronger (although it can appear that way). I believe that the primary role of government is to define and enforce property rights. As someone who just went through a rezoning battle in his neighborhood (and lost to the condos), it is abundantly clear to me that property rights are really what government is about. The scale may vary, but pretty much everything governments do is related to property rights in some way. For a slightly different view of property rights and your place in it, check out the Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty (10 minutes).
I very much believe that the primary goal of government should be to enable individuals to live as they chose. As with most ideal goals, this one is probably not totally possible. Other individuals seem to get it in their heads to do what they want no matter what (I guess they haven’t seen the animated movie I mentioned before). Therefore, a secondary role of government is to, as much as possible, protect people from each other (and since corporations are considered a legal person…). I don’t believe that government should be in the job of protecting people from themselves (candidates for the Darwin Awards ). Why should the government invade your right to be stupid? If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seat belt, who is it hurting? With that being asked, though, I have no problem with your insurance company denying your claim (or vastly increasing your rates) if you don’t follow reasonable safety measures. Race car drivers drive with their seat belts on for a reason. They realize that accidents can happen (even if the odds are against it). They aren’t stupid. They want to live.
Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Also, how can society define a morality that encompasses the rights of every individual. Government should, to the best of its ability, try to uncover the truth (at least expose all of the facts) when it is needed. Basically, government needs to protect the rights of people to do what they want as long as it isn’t infringing on others’ right to do what they want.
There will probably always be some who won’t respect your rights. In a just society, something needs to be done with these people. Incarceration, ostracism/exile, etc. The severity of the crime and the persistence of the perpetrators should define a just punishment.
Government can’t create societies that fulfill all needs and desires. However, government does have a responsibility to try to ensure a future. Natural resources need to be preserved and protected. People need clean air, water, etc. Nature needs to be preserved. It shouldn’t be too hard.
Historical Change
- Can human beings control the course of history?
- Can we shape history without using extensive violence?
- Do truth and right change in the course of history?
- Does history lead naturally toward “the good society”?
History is an evolving perception of what has happened to get us to where we are today. The best we can do is to attempt to guide the course of history into the future, hoping we will end up at a better place than we are today. Control implies some sort of absolute, as if history was some sort of robot that we could just program to go where we want it to. There are too many variables involved for that to ever really happen (although that doesn’t stop people from trying).
I believe that we can shape the course of history without resorting to violence, but that is only the case in a society where we all realize that we come from the same source and have overcome our estrangement from each other.
Truth and Right are simply concepts; the meaning of which evolves over time. This is inevitable. The perception of what is Truth and what is Right varies from person to person. It should be self evident that the events in recorded history are going to be colored with the historian’s crayons (perceptions).
History leads us towards a society that meets the needs of a given society at a specific period of time. This might be “good”, but that is a value judgment I am not willing to make. It can only be “good” if it meets the needs of a unified society, and we won’t have a unified society until estrangement is gone. Will we ever get there? I don’t know, but I’m holding out hope.
Once upon a time, I took a Political Philosophy course. There was only one required textbook, Political Thinking: The Perennial Questions by Glenn Tinder. The basic idea behind this is that there are a series of questions that have to be considered in order to be thought of as being politically conscious. The book, offers questions, no definite answers, and potential discussion from various sides. There are more recent editions of the book available, but here is the question list from the 5th edition (divided by topics; don’t worry, I’ll repeat the questions for each section):
Estrangement and Unity
Inequality and Equality
Power and Its Possessors
Limits on Power
The Ends of Power
Historical Change
What follows are my answers to these questions. My answers will be fairly short and to the point. I’m not looking to start any arguments or provide any profound philosophical views. I just want to give you a glimpse into what I think regarding the topic at hand. My answers probably aren’t very complete, but they are a starting point.
Estrangement and Unity
In order to begin, it is probably helpful to have Tinder’s definition of Estrangement:
Now, back to the questions at hand…
Are human beings estranged in essence? Is there something essential about our nature that makes us predisposed towards conflict? I don’t believe so. I believe that all of existence comes for a single source, call it God, Allah, Tao, etc. Whatever you call the source, I find it difficult to believe that we would come from that source in a state of estrangement.
So, why is it so easy to find examples of estrangement? I believe that an essential fact about human beings is that they have a desire to understand the world around them and their place in it. We tend to congregate in societies which reflect and reinforce our beliefs and values. The problem comes about when we are confronted with facts or situations that force us to question our beliefs. It can be very difficult to modify our belief system. It is much easier to modify the facts or situations to meet the expectations of our beliefs. This might range anywhere from ignoring the issue, using pseudo-rationalizations to explain it away, or outright ostracizing/destroying the source of the issue.
Neither reason nor religious faith alone are enough to overcome estrangement. Reason helps us to learn facts, but those facts are almost invariably colored by our beliefs, and facts alone will not really tell us about our place in the world, although it can help. Life needs to be experienced in order to fully understand it (if that is even possible). Religious faith can also blind us from experiencing life (it can help as well, though). What is needed to overcome estrangement is a balance between reason, religious faith, and a level of sympathy to know that we all come from the same source and are going to be at various places in the trail that is our understanding of life.
Will we eventually be united in a single global society? I think it is inevitable. Just look at how our concept of societies have evolved so far.
Individual » Family » Clan » Village » City » State » Nation » Multination » Global
We accept the fact that we have grown from being a part of a family, to being part of a village, or a state, or a nation. Is it really that inconceivable that we will eventually have a single global society? I would say levels of society work only in instances where individuals feel like they belong. Everyone has a different comfort level as to where they still feel like they are part of society. Most are probably quite comfortable up to the state or nation level. I think it is only a matter of time until a truly global society happens, but it requires the global level of comfort for everyone (and I don’t see that happening anytime soon, and it can’t be forced either).
Classes are really another means that we are grouped together (similar to society), but we are grouped according to different criteria – wealth, job, ethnicity, sexual preference, hair color, etc. People get lumped together over petty things some times. Some visions of what make up a class should be abolished – things that individuals have no control over – ethnicity, etc. Why should they matter?
Inequality and Equality
The number of ways in which one person can be unequal to another is exhaustive — physically, mentally, socially, etc. However, it is also a part of American philosophy that “all men are created equal” (I would modify that to “everyone is created equally”). So which is it; are we equal or not? It is my belief that we all come from the same source, and this makes us all equal. While we may not be equal as basketball players or chess players or painters, we are equal as human beings. We are not unequal in essence.
If we are equal in essence, is there such a thing as a superior human being? In a manner of speaking, yes; as long as you are referring to those specific traits that set one person about from another and not the person as a whole. These “superior” people would be identifiable by the population that is familiar with whatever trait(s) that the person excels in. I must point out, that I don’t believe in a superhuman who excels at every trait.
Tinder refers to “conventional inequalities” as “all the inequalities resulting from the laws and customs of the social order…such inequalities include those of social status, power, wealth, and honor.” I would say that anything which denies that we are all equal in essence is wrong. While there is nothing wrong with celebrating talent, there is something wrong with those with talent trying to ensure that they stay on top by denying someone the opportunity to develop their talents.
Can we abolish these conventional inequalities? I don’t know if it is possible. I don’t see parents not giving their excess wealth to their children (and we shouldn’t ask them to – parents do what they can to make life for their children better than the life that they had; they shouldn’t be punished for that). However, many of the other conventional inequalities should be earned, not inherited. We need to end that cycle. This will help to ease the feelings of estrangement felt by many.
“Should men and women always and in all ways be treated equally?” A loaded question if I ever saw one (just like any question dealing with absolutes such as “always and in all ways”). My response is to say yes (we are all from the same source). There should be no reason why a man should be treated differently from a woman.
Power and Its Possessors
I guess I should start with some definition of power (that won’t compete with what the local electric company sells)...I would say that power is the ability to perform an action without restraint or to utilize/organize the power of others (through economic, social, political, military, etc. means) to achieve goals (whether altruistic or selfish).
Power is not the only source of order. When people organize to accomplish shared goals, it can create a sort of order, but I think that most people are reasonable beings that recognize and respect the rights of others and it is this respect for the rights of others to exercise their power in a reasonable fashion that creates a sort of order. Order that comes only through extreme usage of power is not true order. True order does not come from the barrel of a gun (so to speak).
People should rule themselves. They should lose that right in cases where they are preventing others from ruling themselves. Now, life is all about compromise…what you are willing to give up to do x or y. Governments attempt to codify these compromises into laws.
Government should be for the people, by the people. However, that isn’t very practical on a large scale. A representative system is a fair compromise (there’s that word again).
I believe that having the power to act is a natural thing (hence good). However, just as with so many things, it’s how you use something that attributes value to it. If you abuse your power and cause harm to others, then it is evil (from a social point of view). If you use your power to assist others, then it might be considered good.
So why obey? For the most part, it is much easier to accept established compromises for a society over forming new compromises with all of the individuals in a society (like most animals, people take the path of least resistance).
Limits on Power
Moral limits are culturally based. It is very difficult for me to believe that a group of individuals believe in exactly the same moral limits on their actions (and the actions of others) as another group. Therefore I think it is pretty much impossible for governments to be under the same moral limits as individuals. That being said, I do believe that governments should act under a shared (i.e. cross-cultural) moral base. Those in government come from groups of individuals with a shared view of moral limits. However, due to the power they now possess, they should be morally obligated to represent all cultural groups, not just the cultural group they identify with. If those involved in government remembered this, there would probably be a lot less dissatisfaction with government.
Governments should always be under constitutional limits. If there are no real rules for what a government can and can’t do, then anyone living under that government are living an illusionary life (no matter how nice) at the whim of the state.
In ordinary circumstances, governments should leave the ownership and control of industry in private hands (and those controlling industry would do well to learn that cooperation does better in the long run over competition and money isn’t the only measure of success — check out: Cooperation Not Competion” & The Corporation ).
There is no such thing as perfect knowledge (although we all like to think that we possess it). I think those with political power would do well to understand that they do not have perfect knowledge and limit their use of power.
The Ends of Power
I don’t believe that any just government merely serves the interest of the stronger (although it can appear that way). I believe that the primary role of government is to define and enforce property rights. As someone who just went through a rezoning battle in his neighborhood (and lost to the condos), it is abundantly clear to me that property rights are really what government is about. The scale may vary, but pretty much everything governments do is related to property rights in some way. For a slightly different view of property rights and your place in it, check out the Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty (10 minutes).
I very much believe that the primary goal of government should be to enable individuals to live as they chose. As with most ideal goals, this one is probably not totally possible. Other individuals seem to get it in their heads to do what they want no matter what (I guess they haven’t seen the animated movie I mentioned before). Therefore, a secondary role of government is to, as much as possible, protect people from each other (and since corporations are considered a legal person…). I don’t believe that government should be in the job of protecting people from themselves (candidates for the Darwin Awards ). Why should the government invade your right to be stupid? If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seat belt, who is it hurting? With that being asked, though, I have no problem with your insurance company denying your claim (or vastly increasing your rates) if you don’t follow reasonable safety measures. Race car drivers drive with their seat belts on for a reason. They realize that accidents can happen (even if the odds are against it). They aren’t stupid. They want to live.
Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Also, how can society define a morality that encompasses the rights of every individual. Government should, to the best of its ability, try to uncover the truth (at least expose all of the facts) when it is needed. Basically, government needs to protect the rights of people to do what they want as long as it isn’t infringing on others’ right to do what they want.
There will probably always be some who won’t respect your rights. In a just society, something needs to be done with these people. Incarceration, ostracism/exile, etc. The severity of the crime and the persistence of the perpetrators should define a just punishment.
Government can’t create societies that fulfill all needs and desires. However, government does have a responsibility to try to ensure a future. Natural resources need to be preserved and protected. People need clean air, water, etc. Nature needs to be preserved. It shouldn’t be too hard.
Historical Change
History is an evolving perception of what has happened to get us to where we are today. The best we can do is to attempt to guide the course of history into the future, hoping we will end up at a better place than we are today. Control implies some sort of absolute, as if history was some sort of robot that we could just program to go where we want it to. There are too many variables involved for that to ever really happen (although that doesn’t stop people from trying).
I believe that we can shape the course of history without resorting to violence, but that is only the case in a society where we all realize that we come from the same source and have overcome our estrangement from each other.
Truth and Right are simply concepts; the meaning of which evolves over time. This is inevitable. The perception of what is Truth and what is Right varies from person to person. It should be self evident that the events in recorded history are going to be colored with the historian’s crayons (perceptions).
History leads us towards a society that meets the needs of a given society at a specific period of time. This might be “good”, but that is a value judgment I am not willing to make. It can only be “good” if it meets the needs of a unified society, and we won’t have a unified society until estrangement is gone. Will we ever get there? I don’t know, but I’m holding out hope.