Lecture one: Introduction CPP
è Eichmann trial (Jerusalem) trial
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963)
Responsible of many murderers captured by the Mossad è answer she gives Is
controversial è the person in trial was not a monster not embodiment of evil
bumbling a bureaucrat
è the argument he made was persuasive ( this was the new law of land the things
way where he did as far as he could see as a law abiding city ) ( he obeyed the law)
Powerful argument è who hasn’t followed the law simply because its law (blindly)
(not because of deep moral premise)
We learn something deep about nature of authority è to determine whether law is
right can’t come out of internal law it self
We need a preceding theory which is justice è we need to decide what right it è this
show that the problem can’t be solved looking at things legally instead look at it
from political philosophy è one thing to know that it is wrong and to say why it is
wrong
è What is political philosophy?
It is philosophy because it seeks truth è rational argumentation as opposed to
empirical description
What is right should follow principles
It is political because it attains state institutions and people (citizens)
è Swift answer
How the state should act what moral principles what kind of social order
what should we do as individuals / what should and not be of political control è
interested In justification ( what states should and ought to do) è state is a collective
agent of citizens / coercive instrument
what should we do as individuals when the state isn’t doing what it should be doing
Subset of moral philosophy interested in justificationè it is about what people are
morally permitted to do
è Fabre book
è Social justice è what we owe each other è the content of justice
Example: is taxation morally owed to one another
Justification of state policies
,è Why political philosophy ( Justice and fairness) ( Rawls)
1) To uncover deep moral understanding and compatibility
It is through digging deeper into the core of our beliefs that we discover core
similarities s at their root
Liberalism Anglo-American philosophy
How we resolve conflicts
Only we can solve intractable problem is through digging get into bed rock in core
principles we all believe è deep level of moral understanding
2) Reconsider our own institutions
To understand the value and why we should participate
3) By looking at it rationally we understand their own rational fabric
Easy to see law court failing
Ex: me too failure of court system to protect women
When you look at the world It looks like a mess è go back to the core to understand
it than we can see what went wrong
4) The goal is to create a reasonable Eutopia
Accepting the world as it presented it self and to help us structure a better world to
our liking
We have to take the world comes to us
Roseau:
‘The aim is to take men as they are and laws as they should be ‘
è Liberty two different conceptions
What we count as freedom shifts
1) Liberty of ancient:
The roots of our notion of equality comes from Rousseau (liberty that entails equal
positions in society, and equality in daily public life). This is what Constant called the
liberty of the ancients.
2) Liberty of Modern (Locke): Anglo American rights a lot comes from Rosseau you
need equality to have liberty
, liberty from interference, freedom of speech, rights, etc
è Thinking like a political philosopher
è Ideal theory:
The pursuit of ideal principles that should guide society
But we can really approach society this way ?
è Social justice
è Focus on ‘Social Justice’. This follows John Rawls’s proclamation that ‘justice is the first
virtue of social institutions’.
How can we determine one as just or not?
What can the state legitimate us to coercive do? è it is not asking you but coercing
you
How can a state constrain individual action? (court / police)
How can the law be justified? The Eichmann example (problem whether the law
itself was just along what rational principle)
How should society be organized?
è Clearly the world is not ideal
What is the benefit of thinking this way
è Two objections
1) Realism
The claim that pursuit of the ideal is to unreal from reality è purist/ idealist è don’t
understand politics
Pursuing idealist vision misunderstands the nature of politics which distills to vicious
and sometimes irrational struggles for power èIdealism is incentive to power
A different approach èYou don’t begin with moralism and è you begin with real
politics and aim for good outcomes
Raymond Guess è ‘ the realist. Approach is centered on historically instantiated
forms of collective human action with special attention to the variety of ways in
which people can structure and organize their actions so as to limit and control
rooms of disorder that they might find excessive or intolerable for other reasons’
, è Idealist response
How do you know what is intolerable?
2) Non- ideal theory
Even if perfect ideal theories don’t apply well with societies
Ideal theories of justice cannot apply to actual societies
Perfect example compliance è there is something about the nature of court that is
lacking
Idealism doesn’t provide answers that deal with actual society
Unpragmatic
è Why do we do this ? think in ideal terms / why do ideal theory ?
1) Generate principles to guide society towards moral ends
BLM brutality è once you have these reasons you build institutions to embody these
principles è The lighthouse function
2) Figure out why it is wrong è why is the alternative ideal
Racial prejudice
Class concerns
Segregation
3) How certain values prevail over others
Curfew è effectiveness / liberty
Looking at institutions won’t help you understand this
4) What is at stake morally
To suggest to look at thing only political è ends up gutting what really matters è
might be justified politically è all these issues don’t answer these core questions è
what kind of value does this embody
è Aims of the course:
è Foundations
Five core concepts in political philosophy
1) Justice
2) Liberty
3) Equality
4) Community
5) Democracy
è Eichmann trial (Jerusalem) trial
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963)
Responsible of many murderers captured by the Mossad è answer she gives Is
controversial è the person in trial was not a monster not embodiment of evil
bumbling a bureaucrat
è the argument he made was persuasive ( this was the new law of land the things
way where he did as far as he could see as a law abiding city ) ( he obeyed the law)
Powerful argument è who hasn’t followed the law simply because its law (blindly)
(not because of deep moral premise)
We learn something deep about nature of authority è to determine whether law is
right can’t come out of internal law it self
We need a preceding theory which is justice è we need to decide what right it è this
show that the problem can’t be solved looking at things legally instead look at it
from political philosophy è one thing to know that it is wrong and to say why it is
wrong
è What is political philosophy?
It is philosophy because it seeks truth è rational argumentation as opposed to
empirical description
What is right should follow principles
It is political because it attains state institutions and people (citizens)
è Swift answer
How the state should act what moral principles what kind of social order
what should we do as individuals / what should and not be of political control è
interested In justification ( what states should and ought to do) è state is a collective
agent of citizens / coercive instrument
what should we do as individuals when the state isn’t doing what it should be doing
Subset of moral philosophy interested in justificationè it is about what people are
morally permitted to do
è Fabre book
è Social justice è what we owe each other è the content of justice
Example: is taxation morally owed to one another
Justification of state policies
,è Why political philosophy ( Justice and fairness) ( Rawls)
1) To uncover deep moral understanding and compatibility
It is through digging deeper into the core of our beliefs that we discover core
similarities s at their root
Liberalism Anglo-American philosophy
How we resolve conflicts
Only we can solve intractable problem is through digging get into bed rock in core
principles we all believe è deep level of moral understanding
2) Reconsider our own institutions
To understand the value and why we should participate
3) By looking at it rationally we understand their own rational fabric
Easy to see law court failing
Ex: me too failure of court system to protect women
When you look at the world It looks like a mess è go back to the core to understand
it than we can see what went wrong
4) The goal is to create a reasonable Eutopia
Accepting the world as it presented it self and to help us structure a better world to
our liking
We have to take the world comes to us
Roseau:
‘The aim is to take men as they are and laws as they should be ‘
è Liberty two different conceptions
What we count as freedom shifts
1) Liberty of ancient:
The roots of our notion of equality comes from Rousseau (liberty that entails equal
positions in society, and equality in daily public life). This is what Constant called the
liberty of the ancients.
2) Liberty of Modern (Locke): Anglo American rights a lot comes from Rosseau you
need equality to have liberty
, liberty from interference, freedom of speech, rights, etc
è Thinking like a political philosopher
è Ideal theory:
The pursuit of ideal principles that should guide society
But we can really approach society this way ?
è Social justice
è Focus on ‘Social Justice’. This follows John Rawls’s proclamation that ‘justice is the first
virtue of social institutions’.
How can we determine one as just or not?
What can the state legitimate us to coercive do? è it is not asking you but coercing
you
How can a state constrain individual action? (court / police)
How can the law be justified? The Eichmann example (problem whether the law
itself was just along what rational principle)
How should society be organized?
è Clearly the world is not ideal
What is the benefit of thinking this way
è Two objections
1) Realism
The claim that pursuit of the ideal is to unreal from reality è purist/ idealist è don’t
understand politics
Pursuing idealist vision misunderstands the nature of politics which distills to vicious
and sometimes irrational struggles for power èIdealism is incentive to power
A different approach èYou don’t begin with moralism and è you begin with real
politics and aim for good outcomes
Raymond Guess è ‘ the realist. Approach is centered on historically instantiated
forms of collective human action with special attention to the variety of ways in
which people can structure and organize their actions so as to limit and control
rooms of disorder that they might find excessive or intolerable for other reasons’
, è Idealist response
How do you know what is intolerable?
2) Non- ideal theory
Even if perfect ideal theories don’t apply well with societies
Ideal theories of justice cannot apply to actual societies
Perfect example compliance è there is something about the nature of court that is
lacking
Idealism doesn’t provide answers that deal with actual society
Unpragmatic
è Why do we do this ? think in ideal terms / why do ideal theory ?
1) Generate principles to guide society towards moral ends
BLM brutality è once you have these reasons you build institutions to embody these
principles è The lighthouse function
2) Figure out why it is wrong è why is the alternative ideal
Racial prejudice
Class concerns
Segregation
3) How certain values prevail over others
Curfew è effectiveness / liberty
Looking at institutions won’t help you understand this
4) What is at stake morally
To suggest to look at thing only political è ends up gutting what really matters è
might be justified politically è all these issues don’t answer these core questions è
what kind of value does this embody
è Aims of the course:
è Foundations
Five core concepts in political philosophy
1) Justice
2) Liberty
3) Equality
4) Community
5) Democracy
