SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Questions regarding the individual’s relation to society

and nature of political power will be discussed.
What is the role of a society?

Do individuals have priority over society?

What constitutes a moral or just society?

What is the justification of government’s authority?

What would happen if all forms of social authority were

withdrawn?
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

What is Justice?

What is the major responsibility of

government?
• To serve us by maximizing our individual liberties but
allowing us to live our individual lives as we please?
• To produce the best results for our selves and society in
general, even if this goal requires limiting our freedom?
Table 6.1: Four Questions in Political Philosophy and Responses to Them
What is the What is justice? Which should be given Is civil disobedience
justification of priority: individual liberty ever morally
government? or the good of the permissible?
community?
Anarchism: Justice is merit: giving Individualism: individual Socrates: no
government is not everybody what they liberty
justified deserve, based on their
contribution or merit
Social contract Natural law theory: Collectivism: the good of Martin Luther King
theory: the consent conformity to a universal the community Junior: yes
of the governed moral law
Utilitarianism: whatever Mahadma Gandhi:
produces the greatest good yes
for the greatest number
Justice is fairness: it
includes maximizing
political equality and
maximizing the position of
the least advantaged
Lawhead, 7th ed. Ch.6
The Question of Justice
In all areas of society, we give people privileges, power and
opportunity based on their merits or qualifications and not on the
bases of democratic equality..Why then one should do differently when
it comes to the issue that who should run the society?
 Retributive justice
• The proper allotment of punishment proportionate to the
severity of a crime

 Distributive justice
• The proper distribution of benefits and burdens among
citizens

Lawhead, 7th ed. Ch.6

PLATO’S ACCOUNT OF SOCIETY
There are different parts of society, which are:
 the guardians or rulers reason
 the auxiliaries or soldiers spirit
 the workers desires
At the social level, as at the individual level, balance can be
obtained if various parts play their proper role. A moral or just
society has a state of harmonious social-well being, free of
discord, violence, and dissent, a situation that is beneficial to
the people as a whole.
Society is well-ordered and harmonious when the guardians,
who have knowledge of what is in society’s best interests, rule
the workers, assisted in this task by the spirited auxiliaries.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.144
Plato’s Meritocracy
Meritocracy: A society in which political power is
proportionate to merit

Based on his belief that:

• All of life (including the life of society) had to be based on a
correct assessment of what reality is like
• People’s understanding of reality is like a map that guides
them in every decision they make
• Those people who deserve the most political power are
those who are best able to discern the nature of reality
• Ultimate reality can be known only through reason

Lawhead, 7th ed. Ch.6

PLATO’S ACCOUNT OF SOCIETY

Different people have different natures and they fit into the
social roles best fit their natures. When every individual does
the job their nature equips them for, the society will be happy.

Plato’s account of a just society is anti-individualistic and

authoritarian.

Falzon, defines it as “an argument for the complete

subordination of the population to a ruling intellectual elite.”

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.144

PLATO’S ACCOUNT OF SOCIETY

Plato says that: “ Object of our legislation . . . is not the

special welfare of any particular class in our society, but of the
society as a whole; and it uses persuasion or compulsion to
unite all citizens and makes them share together the benefits
which each individually can confer on the community; and its
purpose in fostering this attitude is not to leave everyone to
please himself, but to make each man a link in the unity of the
whole.”

Plato, Republic, Book 7, 520

PLATO’S ACCOUNT OF SOCIETY
There is no room here for individual expression and non-
conformity, no value whatsoever accorded to individuality.

Plato compares his ideal society to a beehive. It is a metaphor

of an insect colony. There is a rigid division of labour and every
one has a specific role to play. There is complete subordination
of the individual to the requirements of the collective.

For Plato, philosophers must “act as leaders and king-bees in a

hive.”
Plato, Republic, Book 7, 520c

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.145

 “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
Spock in Star Trek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNBA8mHFf8
“You are insignificant” AntZ
 Lorenzetti, Allegory of Good Government and the
Effects of Good and Bad Government, 1337-40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3wNadYA7k
Lorenzetti, Allegory of Good Government and the
Effects of Good and Bad Government, 1337-40

Allegory of Justice
THE STATE OF NATURE

What would life be like without society?

What would life be like if there were no law no common
power, no law-enforcement to restrain people?
LIBERALISM
Why do we need government control and social authority?
For Hobbes to avoid “the state of nature.”
Hobbes’ two basic propositions about human nature are:
 “men are necessarily engaged in an incessant struggle for
power over others.”
 “every man . . . shuns what is evil, but chiefly the chiefest of
natural evils, which is death.”
Thus, (1)to provide commodious living and (2) to avoid death,
one has to acknowledge a sovereign power.
Hobbes arrived at this conclusion by evaluating the results of
the “state of nature”.
C.B. Macpherson, “Introduction”, Leviathan, pp.39-40
THE STATE OF NATURE

The “state of nature” is a hypothetical condition where

Hobbes inquires what if there were no law no common
power, no law-enforcement to restrain people?
For Hobbes this is a chaotic situation.
Depending on this investigation/observation (“physiological
postulates plus social observation”) of “man’s necessary
behaviour in society” Hobbes argued that if there is no
restrains than everybody would “be open to violent invasion
of his life and property.”
In such a situation it is not possible to have a life, let alone
any a civilized life.
C.B. Macpherson, “Introduction”, Leviathan, pp.39-40
WHAT IF THERE WHERE NO GOVERMENT INSTITUTIONS TO
ENFORCE SOCIAL RULES? (No laws, no police, no courts)

In Hobbes’ own words:

“no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and
consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of
the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious
building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things
as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no
account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is
worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the
life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
It is in people’s interest to live in civilized conditions and avoid
this “state of nature”. To preserve one’s own life is the right of
nature. And this right fully finds its meaning in the state of
nature.
“And forasmuch as necessity of nature maketh men to will and
desire bonum sibi, that which is good for themselves, and to avoid
that which is hurtful; but most of all that terrible enemy of
nature, death, from whom we expect both the loss of all power,
and also the greatest of bodily pains in the losing; it is not against
reason that a man doth all he can to preserve his own body and
limbs, both from death and pain. And that which is not against
reason, men call RIGHT, or just, or blameless liberty of using
our own natural power and ability.” (Leviathan, Chpt. 14)
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

And because the condition of Man, (. . .) is a condition of Warre

of everyone against everyone; in which case everyone is governed
by his own Reason, and there is nothing he can make use of, that
may not be a help unto him, in preserving his life against his
enemies; It followeth that, in such a condition, every man has a
Right to everything--even to one another's body. And therefore,
as long as this natural Right of every man to everything endureth,
there can be no security to any man, (how strong or wise soever
he be) of living out the time, which Nature ordinarily alloweth
men to live . . .
(Leviathan, Chpt. 14)
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

So, what shall we do?

We must lay down our rights and transfer it to an authority.

“And when a man hath in either manner abandoned or granted

away his right, then is he said to be obliged, or bound, not to
hinder those to whom such right is granted, or abandoned, from
the benefit of it: and that he ought, and it is duty, not to make void
that voluntary act of his own:”
(Leviathan, Chpt. 14)

“The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract.”

(Leviathan, Chpt. 14)
Suppose you and Ayşe have been arrested for robbing the Central Bank and
placed in separate isolation cells. Both of you care much more about your
personal freedom than about the welfare of your accomplice. A prosecutor
makes the following offer:
 If Ayşe does not confess, but you confess and testify against her, they will
release you.You will go free, whereas Ayşe, who did not cooperate, will be
put away for 20 years.
 If Ayşe confesses and you do not, the situation will be reversed – she will go
free while you get 20 years.
 If you both confess, you will each be sentenced to 5 years.
 If neither of you confesses, there won’t be enough evidence to convict
either of you. They can hold you for a year, but then they will have to let
both of you go.
Ayşe is being offered the same deal, but you cannot communicate with her
and you have no way of knowing what she will do.
 PRISONER’S DILEMMA

Confess Don’t Confess

Confess 5,5 0 , 20
A
Don’t
20 , 0 1,1
Confess

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/224893/game-theory
Goal: to spend as little time as possible in prison.

What should you do? Confess or Remain Silent?

1st Round

2nd Round
 What should you do? Confess or Remain Silent?

1st Round Confess Don’t Confess

2nd Round Confess 5,5 0 , 20

A
Don’t
20 , 0 1,1
Confess
What should you do regardless of your opponent’s strategy to achieve a
better result for you?

B
Dominant Strategy
Don’t
Nash Equilibrium Confess
Confess

Confess 5,5 0 , 20
A
Don’t
20 , 0 1,1
Confess

Pareto Optimal
No strategy gives both players a
higher payoff
 The Ultimatum Game
 You and I need to divide $100 between us.
 A makes an offer (propose how to divide).
B rejects the proposal.
each gets nothing.
 A makes an offer (propose how to divide).
B accepts the proposal
each get what was offered.

28
 Fairness

29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
 Problem of politıcal obligatıon
 Does a citizen have an obligation to obey laws?
 Is this obligation absolute or could someone be justified in
disobeying a law under certain circumstances?
These questions are the questions of the problem of political
obligation. Social Contract Theory provides an answer to these
questions.
Humans in the state of nature, being rational, recognize that they
would be better off if agreements could be made and enforced, but
without a state, they are stuck. Without a state to enforce
compliance, neither party has any reason to trust that the other will
hold up her end of the bargain.
In contemporary political philosophy this type of situation is
referred as the prisoner’s dilemma.
Litch, Mary M. Philosophy Through Film, New York: Routledge, 2010, p.176.
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
Morality consists in the rules that rational people will accept, if
and only if other people accept them as well.

1.What moral rules are we bound to follow? The ones that facilitate
harmonious social living.
2.Why is it rational for us to follow moral rules? We agree to follow
moral rules because it is for our benefit to live in a place where
everyone accepts them.
3.Under what circumstances is it rational to break the rules? If someone
breaks the rule s/he release us from our obligation to him/her.
4.How much can morality demand of us? Rational people will not
agree to rules so demanding that others won't follow them.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.87-89

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Lawhead, 6th ed., p.552
 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1760-1840)
SE
SE DE FRENCH R.
GR
GR AWI FDR
BR
KARL MARX (1818-1883)
GR: Glorious Revolution (1688-1689)
John Stuart Mill (1806 -18 73)

Giving parliament more power over

monarchy IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)

JEREMY BENTHAM (1748 - 1832)

First Steam Powered Machine – 1698 ADAM SMITH (1723-1790)

Thomas Savery DAVID HUME (1711-1776)

GEORGE BERKELEY (1685 - 1753)

JOHN LOCKE (1632 -1704)

THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)

1670
1590

1600

1610

1620

1630

1640

1650

1660

1680

1690

1700

1710

1720

1730

1740

1750

1760

1770

1780

1790

1800

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890
 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1760-1840)
SE DE FRENCH R.
GR AWI FDR
BR
KARL MARX (1818-1883)

John Stuart Mill (1806 -18 73)

IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)

Giving parliament more power over JEREMY BENTHAM (1748 - 1832)

monarchy ADAM SMITH (1723-1790)

DAVID HUME (1711-1776)

GEORGE BERKELEY (1685 - 1753)

JOHN LOCKE (1632 -1704)

THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)

1650

1680
1590

1600

1610

1620

1630

1640

1660

1670

1690

1700

1710

1720

1730

1740

1750

1760

1770

1780

1790

1800

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890
GR: Glorious Revolution (1688-1689)
SE: Steam Engine (1698)
AWI: The American War of Independence (1775-1783)
FR: French Revolution (1787-1799)
 First Generation: Political Rights Second Generation: Social Rights

Industrial Revolution
1760 - (1820 - 1840)
For Locke (the individual has certain
‘natural rights’; FR

HRD
GR • the right to live, AWI

• the right to property,

Thomas Hobbes David Hume
(1588-1679) • the right to go about one’s
(1711-1776)
business unmolested
Sir Isaac Newton
(1643 - 1727)

Sir Francis Bacon John Locke

(1561 - 1626) (1632 - 17 04)

Galileo Galilei
(1564 -1642)
1560
1565
1570
1575
1580
1585
1590
1595
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1660
1665
1670
1675
1680
1685
1690
1695
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
1735
1740
1745
1750
1755
1760
1765
1770
1775
1780
1785
1790
1795
1800
1805
1810
1815
1820
1825
1830
1835
1840
1845
1850
1855
1860
1865
1870
1875
1880
1885
1890
1895
1900
GR: Glorious Revolution (1688-1689)
AWI: The American War of Independence (1775-1783)
FR: French Revolution (1787-1799)
HRD:
1789 : French Declaration of the Rights of Man concerning equality, security, and property.
1791 : Bill of Rights in the American constitution, which states that government does not have
power to limit certain conduct, such as freedom of speech or to worship as one pleases.
LIBERALISM
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are the earliest proponents of
liberalism.
For liberalism;
 individuals are the central concern and the starting point for all
thinking about social life,
 human beings are, first of all, individuals and only secondarily
members of society,
 individuals should be as free as possible to pursue their needs
and interests,
 there still needs to be some kind of central government, some
social and legal constraints on what individuals may do.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.148

LIBERALISM
The area of individual freedom must be limited by law in order to
protect individual freedom.

Morality is understood as a set of rules to regulate social relations

amongst basically self-interested individuals.

In social contract account, political authority is based on the consent

of those being governed (the authority of the ruler drives ultimately
from the people).
John Locke emphasises that the government is appointed by the
people, representing their will, and is therefore responsible to them.
But, some area of individual existence must remain independent of
social control ( Public life vs. private life)
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.150-1
LIBERALISM – Doctrine of ındıvıdual rıghts
For Locke (1632 – 1704) , the individual has certain ‘natural rights’;
• the right to live,
• the right to property,
• the right to go about one’s business unmolested

1789 : French Declaration of the Rights of Man concerning

equality, security, and property.
1791 : Bill of Rights in the American constitution, which states
that government does not have power to limit certain conduct,
such as freedom of speech or to worship as one pleases.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.151-2

LIBERALISM – The idea of ındıvıdual freedom
For Kant, the idea of individual freedom is not only a matter of
independence from external influences, but also of self-
determination (of acting in accordance with those wants or goals
that we have rationally formulated for ourselves).
Self-determination is fundamental to human dignity, and
individuals should be respected as the originators of their own life
plan.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.155

LIBERALISM – The idea of ındıvıdual freedom
For Mill, the individual and self-determination are important.
Self-determination is a matter of self-realization.
The principle of maximizing happiness demands that every
individual be free to develop their powers according to their own
will and judgement.
Mill says that : “the free development of individuality is one of the
principal ingredients of human happiness.”
On Liberty

The only constraint that can legitimately be imposed on an

individual’s freedom is if their actions bring harm to others.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.155

Liberal presuppositions
Are human beings presocial as liberalism presupposes?
For example, for Jean-Jacque Rousseau (1712-1778), a society in
which we lose touch with ourselves; we become alienated from
our feelings, (put on masks, play social roles).
But we find ourselves caught up in an already existing framework
of social relations in which we decide and act. We play roles in
different social relationships. We are daughter, wife, mother,
employee, employer, etc.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.158

Liberal presuppositions
Is the primary social reality that individuals have to content
society’s political organization?
To understand our social circumstances we need to look beyond
the political order.
There are forms of economic oppression and exploitation
(between the rich and the poor, between the employee and
employer).

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.158 - 9

 Liberal
presuppositions
(1) Human beings are essentially
presocial,

(2) The primary social reality that

individuals have to contend with is
society’s political organization,

are criticized by Marxist social and

political thinking.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.159

marxısm
Karl Marx (1818-1883) departs from liberal thinking in two
important ways:
(1) In his account of society he shifts attention from the individual
to the social relations in which individuals exist.
(a) Individuals cannot develop their capacities except through
contact with each other.
(b) They live and act in the context of a framework of social
relations, these condition and constrain their activities.
(c) Their wants and capacities are conditioned by their social and
historical circumstances.
By social and historical circumstances Marx means the way our productive,
labouring activity is organised (the division of Labour)
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.159
marxısm

(2) Marx shifts the focus from the political to the economic.
(a) To understand our social existence is to understand its
economic structure.
(b) The economic structure of society is fundamental.
(c) It is in terms of the economic dimension that the rest of
society (even the system of political power) is to be
understood.
(d) The role of the state is to defend and maintain the power of
the economically dominant class.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.159

marxısm
For Marx, in the eighteenth century, the individuals that
asserted their rights against royal power were members of an
emerging capitalist class. Thus, the role of the liberal state
which seems to represent the interest of all, is to defend and
maintain capitalist economic domination and exploitation.
For Marx, in the capitalist form of production, most of the
people, the labourers, work under the capitalist employers in
order to produce the commodities that the capitalists can then
sell for a profit.
Such division of labour, governed by the need to maximize
profit is not concerned for workers and their conditions.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.159-60

The worker

How one conceives the identity of the worker at the

workplace determines one’s views on employee-employer
relationships, the rights of employees as individuals and as
workers.
The economic perspective of the Industrial Revolution has
defined the ‘worker’ as we understand it today. The serf
became first a labourer in agriculture, in trade or in low
production ‘cottage industries’, and finally, with the
development of large-scale industry he is transformed into
capital.
Employee: Value or Cost?

Karl Marx criticizes Smith’s approach to labour arguing that

this formulation leads to the degradation of the worker to the
status of a machine.
But this is a fact of the factory-system for Marx. He says that
the worker “becomes ever more dependent on every
fluctuation in market-price, on the application of capitals, and
on the mood of rich.”

Marx, Karl, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, trans. M. Milligan (New York:
Prometheus Books, 1988); p. 23.
Employee: Value or Cost?

Reduction of necessary labour time by machinery means an

increase in surplus labour, i.e. profit.

“It is [capital’s] tendency … to create as much labour as

possible; just as it is equally its tendency to reduce necessary
labour to a minimum.”

Karl Marx, Grundrisse

Employee: Value or Cost?

For Karl Marx, “the worker need not necessarily gain when the
capitalist does, but he necessarily loses when the latter loses.”
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

Source: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-03-28/

Source: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-26/
marxısm
Profitability requires maximum production with the least cost
(maximize the amount of labour, pay the least possible wage).
The workers are separated from their fellow workers; they are
put into such conditions that their interests lie in competing
with other workers. This prevents them from joining together
to challenge the system.
“If you are not happy with your conditions, someone else will
happily take your place!”
The workers are also separated from the product of their
labour, which are made for sale on the market rather than for
the benefit of or direct consumption by, the workers
themselves.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp.160-2

marxısm
In the context of the workers separation from the product
Marx uses the concept of alienation.
In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Marx says:
“The alienation of the worker in his product means not only
that his labour becomes an object, an external existence, but
that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to
him, and it becomes a power on its own confronting him; it
means that the life which he has conferred on the object
confronts him something hostile and alien.”

Marx, Karl, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, trans. M. Milligan (New
York: Prometheus Books, 1988); p. 72.
marxısm
Marx thinks that social control is effected by shaping people’s
understanding of their situation and hence their very wants and
desires so that they feel content with their situation.
Although Marx did not use the phrase “false consciousness”
himself. This concept is generally used for such situations.
Marx uses the term “ideology” to refer to a system of ideas
through which people understand their world.
“False consciousness is a concept derived from Marxist theory
of social class. The concept refers to the systematic
misrepresentation of dominant social relations in the
consciousness of subordinate classes.

Author: Daniel Little

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/iess%20false%20consciousness%20V2.htm
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.161
marxısm
The mass media, education – even film and popular culture
– have been seen as promoters of a distorted, ideological
view of the world, a major force for inculcating conformist
thinking and preserving the status quo.
The same system (exploitative, alienating social and
economic order) that denies their needs and interests also
produces in them a false understanding of what their needs
and interests are.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp.161-2

Marx’S NOTION OF HUMAN NATURE
There are aspects of human existence that remain invariant or
unchanging.
 Human beings have a fundamental need to express and
develop themselves through labour or productive activity.
 They are essentially communal so they seek to produce
collectively.
 They are rational so they should be able to organize their
collective productivity for themselves.
We live a fully human life if we can determine our existence in
this way, which is collectively controlling our labouring
activity. For Marx, this fully human life is being denied under
capitalism.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp.162-3
Marx’S NOTION OF HUMAN NATURE
For Marxism, unions may serve to limit the exploitation of
workers, but they ultimately remain within the capitalist
system and can themselves become corrupted by it. On the
Marxist account it is necessary to go beyond unionism, to raise
political demands and eventually to engage in revolutionary
struggle.

 It is very difficult to verify the philosophical notions of human

nature. It is hard to decide between different philosophical
conceptions of human nature.
 Our real interests and/or essential human nature may
themselves play a role in forms of political oppression.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp.164-5

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS
If the individual’s real interests are identified with something
wider than the individual, with a communal entity (like race,
religion, state) then this entity is entitled to impose its will on
individuals. It is only by conforming to the dictates of the larger
entity can they follow their real interests and be free.
What would happen if their actual interests are quite different
then those being imposed on them?
They can be seen as ignorant and deluded about what their real
interests are.
But it is also possible to ignore the actual wishes of individuals, to
bully, oppress, torture them, even to forcibly “re-educate” them,
all in the name of their supposed real interests and higher
freedoms.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.166
POSSIBLE PROBLEMS
Another problem could be seeing the economic processes as the
basis for social explanation and understanding of all other aspects
of society only in economic terms. This might fall short of
explaining the non-economic aspects of society
If we consider religion as a non-economic aspect of society is the
above criticism sound?
Religion can be seen as another social organization that supports
the economically powerful or have its own economic power.
What about the gender relations, relations between men and
women?

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp.166-7

1984