From
the following three questions, select one question to respond to (1-3), by
applying one of the modern theorists? (A above) positions to possible
situations and/or countries (B above). In completing this assignment (when
complete, upload to Blackboard), consider the central premises of the concept (i.e.,
how do we understand the concept, for example, of ?general will? ? a definition
of sorts), analysis of its efficacy, its application and how you best
understand the idea or theory as applied to modern western states in the
context of the issues mentioned above. If these instructions are complicated
and/or confusing, students should simply pick one of the questions below, and
analyze [perhaps apply] the ideas / philosophies / concepts (e.g. democracy vs.
rule by philosopher kings; what the best form of government is ? e.g.
monarchies ruled by kings appointed by God or democracies, although these can
be tyrannical [or not]; whether or not Rousseau?s general will and the social
contract are good basis for western government and whether we see them
reflected in modern government).
Norfolk State University
College of Liberal Arts
Department of Political Science
POS 431 ? Modern Theory Analysis Assignment
A. Major philosophers and their ideas (for [Modern] Theory Analysis)
1.Thomas Hobbes – Leviathan
Major idea/philosophy: ?social contract theory? – Key contributions:
1.justification of political principles (arrangements) through agreements made by (among) suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons
2.argument that to avoid the chaos of every man looking out for himself (state of nature – a condition without government), humans should submit to the authority of an absolute?undivided and unlimited?sovereign power (otherwise there would be perpetual warre)
3.inclusion of women (consideration of women as persons) to be involved in/when devising a social contract among persons (equality of all persons) – equality derived from possibility of being dominated and possibly dominating others
2.Jean Jacques Rousseau ? The Social Contract
Key contributions / philosophy / idea philosophy (our interest here: the general will)
1.what the citizens of the state have decided together assembled and sovereign (democratic perspective
2.an interested/value-free, transcendent incarnation of the citizens? common interest (abstract, not grounded in anyone’s specific needs)
3.process or deliberative means of seeking outcomes that satisfy the preferences of individuals and render the authority of the state legitimate
4.conditions: ‘the general will must come from all and apply to all.’ that way, citizens, though guided by a consideration of what is in their own private interest, will make laws that secure common interest impartially, are not burdensome or intrusive – the laws citizens make they must live under
3.Jean Bodin & Robert Filmer ? Patriarcha (Divine Right of Kings)
Although it has its origins in Rome, Bodin’s Six Books of the Commonwealth articulate his “theory of sovereignty”, in which he argues for the divinity of the king (the position is reiterated by Robert Filmer in his Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings). Bodin includes ideas such as ?Majesty or sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth, which the Latins call Majestas?… and ‘killing a prince presumed to be a tyrant is forbidden if ?the prince is an absolute sovereign,”‘ he adds, of the sovereign, “whose authority is unquestionably their own, and not shared with any of their subjects, then it is in no circumstances permissible either by any of their subjects in particular, or in general, to attempt anything against the life and honor of their king, either by process of law or force of arms, even though he has committed all the evil, impious and cruel deeds imaginable.” Robert Filmer, in Patriarcha, affirmed this concept.
Key contributions and central tenets of patriarcha are as follows: the king/monarch:
i)derives right to rule directly from God?s will
ii)is not subject to people?s will, aristocracy or other realm (or earthly authority)
iii)can do no wrong;
iv)if unjust, a king can only be judged by God;
v)deposing a monarch or restricting his/her powers is contrary to God?s will (is sacrilegious) and essentially defies God.
4.J. S. Mills ? Utilitarianism. The basic premise of utilitarianism is that the existence of the state should ?maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number in society.? The state is thus justified, if and only if, it can ?yield more happiness than any alternative, more than its absence.?
The creed which accepts as the foundations of morals ?utility? or the ?greatest happiness principle? holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. (JS Mills, Bk. II 2)
5.John Locke ? popular sovereignty. In his Two Treatises on Government, John Locke basically refutes the precepts of patriarcha (Book 1). He argues for popular sovereignty, where consent to govern arises from the people. The people can also change government when they choose to.
B. Some Possible Situations Explained through Modern Theory
1.US representative democracy and the Electoral College as an example of the general will.
2.Switzerland?s direct democracy (where citizens vote on everything through a referendum) vs. the US? representative democracy ? which is the better/fairer version of democracy?
3.United States: democracy vs. monarchy (is the US better off under democracy than under the rule and will of a strong leader, who has unlimited power to do anything?)
4.The presidencies of i) Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton vs. those of ii) Grover Cleveland, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington (similarities, differences and veracity of ‘philosopher kings.’)
5.The Happy Planet Index (HPI) ranks the US 108/140 countries, but is one of the leading nations on the democratic scale. Given that one might associate democracy with satisfaction/happiness, how can one explain the case of the US? In contrast, Costa Rica is #1, Mexico #2, Colombia #3
6.The death penalty and the ?castle doctrine? (as a public policy or rules citizens have agreed to live under) as an element of the general will.
7.Whether or not American citizens, who were born in the country (rather than naturalization, where one has to take an oath), give consent to be governed or if there should be processes to give (or withdraw consent) to be governed.
Norfolk State University
College of Liberal Arts
Department of Political Science
POS 431 ? Modern Theory ? Honors Additional Requirement(s)
From the following three questions, select one question to respond to (1-3), by applying one of the modern theorists? (A above) positions to possible situations and/or countries (B above). In completing this assignment (when complete, upload to Blackboard), consider the central premises of the concept (i.e., how do we understand the concept, for example, of ?general will? ? a definition of sorts), analysis of its efficacy, its application and how you best understand the idea or theory as applied to modern western states in the context of the issues mentioned above. If these instructions are complicated and/or confusing, students should simply pick one of the questions below, and analyze [perhaps apply] the ideas / philosophies / concepts (e.g. democracy vs. rule by philosopher kings; what the best form of government is ? e.g. monarchies ruled by kings appointed by God or democracies, although these can be tyrannical [or not]; whether or not Rousseau?s general will and the social contract are good basis for western government and whether we see them reflected in modern government).
1.Analysis and critical reflection (analysis of democracy vs. rule by philosopher kings)
Your response should be 750 words. Please include any sources you use in your response.
Ruling States: Democracy (demos kratia = rule of majority) or Philosopher Kings?
Plato argues that successful polities are those ruled by philosopher kings, because allowing people to rule (the premise of democracy) ensures that they will rule in their interests, since they are selfish (something that philosopher kings will not do). In essence Plato argues that the loudest among us will become rulers, and that is no way to rule a country. Considering these positions, do you find Plato?s arguments persuasive? What are the strengths of your argument, and what are its weaknesses? What are some of the most persuasive counter-points to the argument?
2.Application and evaluation of critical theory (divine right of kings vs. democracy)
-Divine Right of Kings (Patriarcha) and the form of government in western nations.
Jean Bodin and Robert Filmer are credited with articulating the doctrine of ?Patriarcha?, or the ?divine right of kings,? even though the concept was first asserted based on Rome. Patriarcha is the idea that ?civil society was founded on a divinely sanctioned patriarchalism.? The central premises of Patriarcha is that is that the king/monarch, who i) derives right to rule directly from God?s will, ii) is not subject to people?s will, aristocracy or other realm (or earthly authority), iii) can do no wrong and iv) if unjust, can only be judged by God while v) deposing a monarch or restricting his/her powers is contrary to God?s will (is sacrilegious) and essentially defies God. This contrasts with other popular sovereignty arguments ? that the authority to govern stems from the people. Given the above, do you think that there is merit to Patriarcha? Are monarchies mostly autocratic and badly governed (think Belgium, Netherlands, UK ? all which have monarchs) and nations e.g., Brazil that have elected leaders that exhibit autocratic trends (?) Can democracies be tyrannical? What is the best form of government and why?
3.Evaluation of Jean Jacques Rousseau?s ?general will? and application to western nations
Writing in 1762, Rousseau?s Social Contract predates the major 18th Century revolutions (the American Revolution, the French Revolution and even the Haitian Revolution), yet its premises are reflected in these revolutions, and is considered one of the most informative treatises on government. Among other things, Rousseau articulates the idea of the general will thus:
The law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to contribute personally, or through their representatives, to its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, positions, and employments, according to their capacities, and without any other distinction than that of their virtues and their talents.
Rousseau?s Social Contract holds that the family is the most basic unit of social organization. Rousseau also argues that the ‘general will’ ideally derives from (or should) – all citizens, and should apply equally to all within the state. In part, Rousseau argues that if the general will is the expression of citizens’ ideas and conditions they agree to be bound by and live under, they would not make laws that oppress them and therefore, is just. The state, when it enforces laws, does so with the consent of the people, but also based on ideas and conditions that citizens have agreed to be bound by, thus making the authority of the state legitimate (this is what Rousseau considers the ‘social contract’ between individuals and the state and the foundation of legitimacy of government). With this in mind, consider any western country/state (my suggestion is to consider the US), and evaluate the extent to which the state has legitimacy as based on the social contract. Does the state have a social contract? Does the (selected) state uphold the contract that it has with its citizens? If not, where is the contract violated, and what are some of the examples of violation? What is an effective way to remedy this? If the law as derived from ?general will? is not fair, is this an issue of application or of the law?s conception? [As an example, as part of the ?social contract? between state and citizens and citizens and other citizens, citizens agree to give up private violence in favor of arbitration by the state ? i.e. citizens do not settle disagreements by fighting each other]. What should citizens do if the state fails to respect the social contract?
