Phil 2265: Social / Political Phil 2265: Social / Political PhilosophyPhilosophy

McDaniel CollegeFall 2004Hill 017

MWF 12:40-1:40

One final question:One final question:

• Should there be a state at all?

The central question:The central question:

• If the state is that organization that has some kind of authority over me, what is ‘authority’ anyway?

AuthorityAuthority

• Not power• Not enough to command what I would do

anyway.• Not enough to convince me that what you

want me to do is right (that’s persuasion).

• It’s doing what someone wants you to do precisely because they tell you to do it.

SubmissionSubmission

• Ought I submit to authority?

• Note: ‘Is’ never implies ‘Ought’

AutonomyAutonomy

• Moral responsibility is entailed by the ability to choose otherwise.

• The responsible person is autonomous: he or she submits only to the moral laws that he or she imposes on himself or herself.– Note, one can give up autonomy, but not

responsibility.

Submission & ObedienceSubmission & Obedience• When we agree to follow an order because

it is an order, we do voluntarily submit our autonomy.

• Why, on what grounds, might we give up our autonomy?– Religious reasoning…– Plato: because the philosopher-kings are wiser

than us.– Hobbes: because we’re better off under the

patronage of the sovereign– Locke: because we’re better off under a limited,

liberal government– Rousseau: because the general will is always

right.

The argumentThe argument

• Autonomy of the individual is in staunch contradiction to the very notion of authority.

• Therefore, Anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the autonomy of the individual.

• Solution: unanimous direct democracy.

Problems:Problems:

1. V. strong notion of ‘autonomy’: is it true that I must submit only to moral laws I impose on myself?

1. When, for example, does this autonomy manifest? When I turn 18?

2. When does it disappear? When I’m senile? Crazy? Who is to be the judge?

3. In Wolff’s anarchistic society, do we get to ostracize those those who are senile, crazy, etc? And who gets to be the judge?

The reasoning itself:The reasoning itself:

• Moral responsibility is entailed by the ability to choose otherwise.

• The responsible person is autonomous: he or she submits only to the moral laws that he or she imposes on himself or herself.

• The political person ought to be autonomous.

Practicality…Practicality…

• The idea autonomous agent of Wolff’s anarchic society is wholly rational and educated – about all matters of state and governance. – Is this possible?– Is it desirable?– Do we really want people who went to Bob

Jones university (e.g.) making judgments about what counts as science in the classroom?

The paradox of political The paradox of political philosophyphilosophy

• Autonomous, rational agents are the ideal, but as a matter of fact, most people don’t want to be autonomous and they are not rational.– Is education the key?– Are people deluding themselves?– How can we think that we (that is, the

educated) should have a say, but simultaneously deny that right to those who are irrational?

What is rational, really?What is rational, really?• In the Nazi case, suppose we choose to

collaborate because the penalty of resistance is too great.

• Isn’t that a rational, reasonable choice based on all the information?

• In the restaurant case, either we research each individual restaurant ourselves, record and evaluate over a series of visits and sample dishes, or we listen to the guidebook.

• Isn’t it a rational, reasonable choice (in short, an autonomous choice) to give up our autonomy?

Hold on a minute…Hold on a minute…• How bad is it to give up one’s

autonomy?– Autonomy demands a great deal of

responsibility – to educate oneself, to think critically, etc.

– Why shouldn’t I trust the experts, they are, after all, experts for a reason.

– Being a juvenile isn’t that bad a thing anyway.

– Maybe it’s better (rationally) to be ruled than to rule.

TrustTrust

• If we truly have a benevolent state, giving up one’s autonomy ain’t so bad. Being a baby ain’t so bad, and babies aren’t autonomous.– BUT NOTE: it doesn’t matter what kind of

state: benevolence is the key, not the structure of the Gov’t. A monarchy is just as good as a dictatorship is just as good as a representative democracy.

A paradox once again:A paradox once again:

• There just aren’t any benevolent states.– De facto, not de jure.

What to do?What to do?

Late 19Late 19thth Century Century AnarchismAnarchism

• Goldman’s (1869-1940) “Anarchism” was published in 1910.– She founded Mother Earth magazine

• Tolstoy (1828-1910) in Russia: Christian Anarchism

• Bakunin (1814-1876) & Kropotkin (1842-1921)

• Proudhon in France• Thoreau

HaymarketHaymarket

• May 4th, 1886. Chicago.• May 1st: Thousands of workers protested for

an 8-hour work day• May 3rd: Many of the protesters assulted,

and shot. One killed.• May 4th: A bomb was thrown. One police

officer was killed, 7 died later.• 8 anarchists were tried for being anarchists,

and sentence to death. 4 were executed, 1 committed suicide and 3 were released in 1893.

McKinleyMcKinley

• In 1901, an Anarchist named Leon Czolgosz assassinated William McKinley

• Goldman, along with Berkman and others, were arrested and deported: again for being anarchists.

• In 1920, Sacco and Vanzetti were tried in Boston, found guilty and executed (1927) for a robbery. They case against them was that they were anarchists. (they were, in fact, communists).

MexicoMexico

• Zapata and Flores, leaders of the Mexican revolution in the 1920s were anarchists.

• Anarchists were a major side in the Spanish Civil war.

The QuestionThe Question

• All of this was over 100 years ago!• Is so few of the complaints have

changed (people still hate their jobs, are dehumanized by machinery, don’t own the products a their labor (including intellectual property!)), why have the number of people willing to entertain the ideals of Anarchism and Socialism reduced so greatly?