Page 1
1 1
LIBERALISM
Unit Structure :
1.0 Objective
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Liberalism
1.3 Socialism
1.4 Anarchism
1.5 The Concept Of Autonimy
1.6 Totalitarianism
1.7 Cosmopolitanism
1.8 Nationalism
1.9 Summary
1.10 Questions
1.0 OBJECTIVE
1) To study liberalism in detail.
2) To understand liberalism a district political movement.
3) To explain socialism is an ideology.
4) To understand how socialism arose as a reaction against the social
and economic conditions.
5) To explain anarchism.
6) To explain the concept of qutonimy.
7) To throw light on to talitarianism.
8) To study cosmopolitanism is the ideology.
9) To understand how nationalism is not the same as patriotism.
10) To study how nationalism as ideology includes ethical principles.
munotes.in
Page 2
Political Philosophy
2 1.1 INTRODCTION
Liberalism is a political and m oral philosophy based on the rights of the
individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality
before the law.
Liberalism is a also political theory that places the individual and
individual rights as the highest priority and reli es on the consept of
citizenry for the legitimacy of government power and political leadership.
1.2 LIBERALISM
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of
liberty and equality . Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on
their unde rstanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas
and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
freedom of religion , free markets , civil .rights , democratic societies,
secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation .
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of
Enlightenment , when it became popular among philosophers and
economists in the Western world . Liberalism rejected the prevailing social
and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion , absolute
monarchy and the divine right of kings . The 17th-century philosopher
John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct
philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to
life, liberty and property , while adding that governments must not violate
these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional
conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with
representative democracy and the rule of law.
Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of
1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used libera l philosophy to justify
the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread rapidly
especially after the French Revolution. The nineteenth century saw liberal
governments established in nations across Europe and South America,
whereas it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United
States .[13] In Victorian Britain it was used to critique the political
establishment, appealing to science and reason on behalf of the
people.[14] Before 1920, the main ideological opponent of classical
liberalism was conservatism , but liberalism then faced major ideological
challenges from new opponents: fascism and communism . During 19th
and early 20th century liberalism in the Ottoman Empire and Middle East
influenced periods of reform such as the Tanzimat and Al- Nahda, as well
as the rise of secularism, constituti onalism and nationalism . These
changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within
Islam, which continues to this day. This led to Islamic revivalism .
During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal
democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars.
Historian Martin Conway argues: "Liberalism, liberal values and liberal
institutions formed an integral part of that process of European munotes.in
Page 3
Liberalism
3 consolidation. Fifteen years after the end of the Second Wor ld War, the
liberal and democratic identity of Western Europe had been reinforced on
almost all sides by the definition of the West as a place of freedom. Set
against the oppression in the Communist East, by the slow development of
a greater understanding of the moral horror of Nazism, and by the
engagement of intellectuals and others with the new states (and social and
political systems) emerging in the non-European world to the South".
As a consequence, liberal values were acquiring a wider
currency, tran scending the limited contours of liberal parties and
electorates, thus becoming part of how West Europeans recognize and
communicated with each other.
In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism (often
called simply "liberalism" in the United States) became a key component
in the expansion of the welfare state.[16] Today, liberal parties continue to
wield power and influence throughout the world. However, liberalism still
has challenges to overcome in Africa and Asia. The fundamental elements
of contemporary society have liberal roots. The earl y waves of liberalism
popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional
government and parliamentary authority. One of the greatest liberal
triumphs involved replacing the capricious nature of absolute royal rule
with a decision -making process encoded in written law. Liberals sought
and established a constitutional order that prized important individual
freedoms , such as freedom of speech and freedom of association ; an
independent judiciary and public trial by jury ; and the abolition of
aristocratic privileges.
These sweeping changes in political authority marked the modern
transition from absolutism to constitutional rule.[17] The expansion and
promotion of free markets was another major liberal achievement.
However, before they could establish markets liberals had to destroy the
old economic structures of the world. In tha t vein, liberals ended
mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and variou s other restraints on
economic activities. They also sought to abolish internal barriers to trade –
eliminating guilds , local tariffs, the Commons and prohibitions on the sale
of land along the way. Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle
were strongly influenced by t he need to expand civil rights . Liberals have
advocated gender equality and racial equality in their drive to promote
civil rights and a global civil rights movement in the 20th century
achieved sever al objectives towards both goals.
In Europe, liberalism has a long tradition dating back to the 17th century.
Scholars often split those traditions into British and French versions, with
the former version of liberalism emphasising the expansion of democratic
values and constitutional reform and the latter rejecting authoritarian
political and economic structures, as well as being involved with nation -
building . The continental French version was deeply divided between
moderates and progressives , with the moderates tending to elitism and the
progressives supporting the universalisation of fundamental institutions,
such as universal suffrage, universal education and the expansion of
property rights. Over time, the moderates displaced the progressives as the munotes.in
Page 4
Political Philosophy
4 main guardians of continental European liberalism. A prominent example
of these divisions is the German Free Democratic Party, which was
historically divided between national liberal and social liberal factions.
Liberalism – both as a political current and an intellectual tradition – is
mostly a modern phenomenon that st arted in the 17th century, although
some liberal philosophical ideas had precursors in classical antiquity and
in the Imperial China . The Roman Emperor Marcus Aureliu s praised, "the
idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom
of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of
all the freedom of the
governed".[ Scholars have also recognised a number of principles familiar
to contemporary liberals in the works of several Sophists and in the
Funeral Oration by Pericles .Liberal philosophy symbolises an extensive
intellectual tradition that has examined and popularised some of the most
important and controversial principles of the modern world. Its immense
scholarly and academic output has b een characterised as containing
"richness and diversity", but that diversity often has meant that liberalism
comes in different formulations and presents a challenge to anyone
looking for a clear definition.
1.3 SOCIALISM
Socialism is an ideology that is d efined by its opposition to capitalism and
its attempt to provide a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative.
The core of socialism is a vision of human beings as social creatures united
by their common humanity; as the poet John Donne put it, 'No man is an
Island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the
main'. This highlights the degree to which individual identity is fashioned
by social interaction and the membership of social groups and collective
bodies. Socialists t herefore prefer cooperation to competition, and favour
collectivism over individualism. The central, and some would say defining,
value of socialism is equality, socialism sometimes being portrayed as a
form of egalitarianism. Socialists believe that a mea sure of social equality
is the essential guarantee of social stability and cohesion, and that it
promotes freedom in the sense that it satisfies material needs and provides
the basis for personal development. The socialist movement has traditionally
articu lated the interests of the industrial working class, seen as
systematically oppressed or structurally disadvantaged within the capitalist
system. The goal of socialism is thus to reduce or abolish class divisions.
Socialism, however, contains a bewildering variety of divisions and rival
traditions.Utopian socialism, or ethical socialism, advances an essentially
moral critique of capitalism. In short, socialism is portrayed as morally
superior to capitalism because human beings are ethical creatures, bound t o
one another by the ties of love, sympathy and compassion. Scientific
socialism, undertakes a scientific analysis of historical and social
development, which, in the form of Marxism, suggests not that socialism
'should' replace capitalism, but predicts th at it inevitably 'would' replace
capitalism. A second distinction is about the 'means' of achieving
socialism, namely the difference between revolution and reform. munotes.in
Page 5
Liberalism
5 Revolutionary socialism, most clearly reflected in the communist tradition,
holds that socia lism can only be introduced by the revolutionary
overthrow of the existing political and social system, usually based upon
the belief that the existing state structures are irredeemably linked to
capitalism and the interests of the ruling class. Reformist socialism
(sometimes termed evolutionary, parliamentary or democratic socialism),
on the other hand, believes in 'socialism through the ballot box', and thus
accepts basic liberal democratic principles such as consent,
constitutionalism and party competiti on. Finally, there are profound
divisions over the 'end' of socialism, that is, the nature of the socialist
project. Fundamentalist socialism aims to abolish and replace the capitalist
system, viewing socialism as qualitatively different from capitalism.
Fundamentalist socialists, such as Marxists and communists, generally
equate socialism with common ownership of some form. Revisionist
socialism aims not to abolish capitalism but to reform it, looking to reach
an accommodation between the efficiency of the market and the enduring
moral vision of socialism. This is most clearly expressed in social
democracy.
Socialism arose as a reaction against the social and economic conditions
generated in Europe by the growth of industrial capitalism. The birth of
social ist ideas was closely linked to the development of a new but growing
class of industrial workers, who suffered the poverty and degradation that
are so often a feature of early industrialisation. For over two hundred years,
socialism has constituted the pri ncipal oppositional force within capitalist
societies, and has articulated the interests of oppressed and disadvantaged
peoples in many parts of the world. The principal impact of socialism has
been in the form of the twentieth -century communist and social -
democratic movements. However, in the late twentieth century, socialism
suffered a number of spectacular reverses, leading some to proclaim the
'death of socialism'. The most spectacular of these reverses was the
collapse of communism in the Eastern Europ ean Revolutions of 1989 -91.
Partly in response to this, and partly as a result of globalisation and
changing social structures, parliamentary socialist parties in many parts of
the world re -examined, and sometime rejected, traditional socialist
principles.
The moral strength of socialism derives not from its concern with what
people are like, but with what they have the capacity to become. This has led
socialists to develop utopian visions of a better society in which human
beings can achieve genuine emanci pation and fulfilment as members of a
community. In that sense, despite its late -twentieth century setbacks,
socialism is destined to survive if only because it serves as a reminder that
human development can extend beyond market individualism. Critics of
socialism nevertheless advance one of two lines of argument. The first is
that socialism is irrevocably tainted by its association with statism. The
emphasis upon collectivism leads to an endorsement of the state as the
embodiment of the public interest. B oth communism and social
democracy are in that sense 'top -down' versions of socialism, meaning that
socialism amounts to an extension of state control and a restriction of
freedom. The second line of argument highlights the incoherence and munotes.in
Page 6
Political Philosophy
6 confusion inhere nt in modern socialist theory. In this view, socialism was
only ever meaningful as a critique of, or alternative to, capitalism. The
acceptance by socialists of market principles therefore demonstrates either
that socialism itself is flawed or that their a nalysis is no longer rooted in
genuinely socialist ideas and theories.
1.4 ANARCHISM
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes
which support the elimination of all compulsory government, i.e. the state.
The term anarchism derives from the Greek word anarcho, meaning
"without archons " or "without rulers", it is defined as "the view that
society can and should be organized without a coercive state." Specific
anarchists may have additional criteri a for what constitutes anarchism, and
they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are."There is
no single defining position that all anarchists hold, beyond their rejection
of compulsory government, and those considered anarchists at best sh are a
certain family resemblance ".
There are many types and traditions of anarchism , not all of which are
mutually exclusive. Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left -
wing ideology, and as such much of anarchist economics and legal
philosophy reflect ant i-authoritarian interpretations of communism ,
collectivism , or participatory economics ; however, anarchism has always
included an individualist strain, including those who support capitalism
and other market - orientated economic structures, e.g. mutualists .,
anarchism is a "political tradition that has consistently grappled with the
tension between the individual and society ." Anarchist schools of thought
differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to
complete collectivism . Some anarchists fundamentally oppose all types of
coercion , while others have supported the use of some coercive measures,
including violent revolution, on the path to anarchy.
Social anarchism is one of two different broad categories of anarchism, the
other cate gory being individualist anarchism. The term social anarchism is
often used to identify communitarian forms of anarchism that emphasize
cooperation and mutual aid. Social anarchism includes anarcho -
collectivism, anarcho -communism, Libertarian socialism, anarcho -
syndicalism, social ecology and sometimes mutualism.
Social anarchism , or socialist anarchism , is an umbrella term used
to differentiate two broad categories of anarchism, this one being the
collectivist , with the other being individualist anarchism . Where
individualist forms of anarchism emphasize personal autonomy and the
rational nature of human beings, social anarchism s ees "individual
freedom as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize
community and mutual aid." Social anarchism is used to specifically
describe anarchist tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on
the communitarian and cooperati ve aspects of anarchist theory and
practice. munotes.in
Page 7
Liberalism
7 Collectivist anarchism is a revolutionary form of anarchism collectivist
anarchists oppose all private ownership of the means of production, instead
advocating that ownership be collectivized. This was to be initiated by
small cohesive group through acts of violence,
Social anarchism aims for "free association of people living together
and cooperating in free communities."
Anarchism is a philosophy which embodies many diverse attitudes,
tendencies and schools of thought; as such, disagreement over questions of
values, ideology and tactics is common. The compatibility of capitalism ,
nationalism and religion with anarchism is widely disputed. Similarly,
anarchism enjoys a complex relationship with ideologies such as
Marxism , communism and anarcho -capitalism . Anarchists may be
motivated by humanism , divine authority , enlightened self-interest or
any number of alternative ethical doctrines.
Phenomena such as civilization , technology , and the democratic process
may be sharply criticized within some anarchist tendencies and
simultaneously lauded in others. Anarchist attitudes towa rds race, gender
and the environment have changed significantly since the modern origin of
the philosophy in the 18th century.
On a tactical level, while propaganda of the deed was a tactic used by
anarchists in the 19th century (e.g. the Nihilist movement ), contemporary
anarchists espouse alternative methods such as nonviolence, counter -
economics and anti-state cryptography to bring about an anarchist society.
The diversity in anarchism has led to widely diffe rent use of identical
terms among different anarchist traditions, which has led to many
definitional concerns in anarchist theory
Robert Paul Wolff (born 1933) is a contemporary political ph ilosopher .
Wolff has written widely on many topics in political philosophy such as
Marxism, tolerance, liberalism , political justification and democracy.
Wolff is also well known for his work on Kant .
After the enormous renewal of interest in normative political philosophy
in the Anglo - American world after the publication of John Rawls 's A
Theory of Justice , Wolff made pointed criticisms of this work from a
roughly Marxist perspective
1.5 THE CONCEPT OF AUTONIMY
The arguments of these ph ilosophical anarchists take either an “a priori”
or an “a posteriori” form . Arguments of the first kind maintain that it is
impossible to provide a satisfactory account of a general obligation to
obey the law. According to Robert Paul Wolff, the principal advocate of
this view, there can be no general obligation to obey the law because any
such obligation would violate the “primary obligation” of autonomy,
which is “the refusal to be ruled. As Wolff defines it, autonomy
combines freedom with responsibility . To be autonomous, someone munotes.in
Page 8
Political Philosophy
8 must have the capacity for choice, and therefore for freedom; but the
person who has this capacity also has the responsibility to exercise it
— to act autonomously. Failing to do so is to fail to fulfill this
“primary obligation ” of autonomy.
This primary obligation dooms any attempt to develop a theory of political
obligation, Wolff argues, except in the highly unlikely case of a direct
democracy in which every law has the unanimous approval of the
citizenry. Under any other for m of government, autonomy and authority
are simply incompatible. Authority is “the right to command, and
correlatively, the right to be obeyed” , which entails that anyone subject to
authority has an obligation to obey those who have the right to be obeyed .
But if we acknowledge such an authority, we allow someone else to
rule us, thereby violating our fundamental obligation to act
utonomously . We must therefore reject the claim that we have an
obligation to obey the orders of those who purport to hold authority
over us and conclude that there can be no general obligation to obey
the laws of any polity that falls short of a unanimous direct democracy.
Arguments of the second, a posteriori form are more modest in their
aims but no less devastating in their co nclusions. In this case the aim is
not to show that a satisfactory defense of political obligation is impossible
but that no defense has proven satisfactory, despite the efforts of some of
the best minds in the history of philosophy. All such attempts have failed,
according to those who take this line, so we must conclude that only those
relatively few people who have explicitly committed themselves to obey
the law, perhaps by swearing allegiance as part of an oath of citizenship,
have anything like a gener al obligation to obey the laws under which they
live
In the end, of course, the best response to philosophical anarchists,
especially those of the a posteriori kind, will be to produce or defend a
theory of political obligation that proves to be immune to their
objections. At present, though, no single theory has the support of all
of those who continue to believe in political obligation, let alone the assent
of philosophical anarchists. Several theories remain in contention,
however, as the next section will attest.
1.6 TOTALITARIANISM
The concept of totalitarianism as a "total" political power stated and
formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola, First conceptually developed
in the 1920's by Italian fascists, primarily Giovanni Amendola,
totalitarianism has been present in a variety of movements throughout
history. Giovanni Amendola described Italian Fascism as a system
fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships. The term was
later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile,
Italy’s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He
used the term “totalitario” to refer to the structure and goals of the new munotes.in
Page 9
Liberalism
9 state, which were to provide the “total representation of the nation and
total guidance of national goals.
Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to
its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life
wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an
all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through
the state -controlled mass media , a single party that is often marked by
political repression, personality cultism , control over the economy ,
regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread
use of terror. A distinctive feature of totalitarian governments is an
"elaborate ideology, a set of ideas that gives meaning and direction to the
whole society."
According to Benito Mussolini , this system politicizes everything spiritual
and human: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state,
nothing against the state." Schmitt used the term, Totalstaat, in his
influential work on the legal basis o f an all -powerful state, The Concept of
the Political (1927).
Totalitarian regimes are different from authoritarian ones. The latter
denotes a state in which the single power holder – an individual " dictator ",
a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite –
monopolizes political power. "[The] authoritarian state ... is only
concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives
society a certain degree of liberty."[4] Authoritarianism "does not attempt
to change the world and human nature."[4] In contrast, a totalitarian regime
attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the
economy , education, art, science, private life, and morals of citizens. "The
officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of
societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely
control the thoughts and actions o f its citizens."[5] It also mobilizes the
whole population in pursuit of its goals. Carl Joachim Fri edrich writes that
"a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly
control of [...] industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian
regimes that disting uish them from other autocracies.
Some governments and movements that Westerners have accused of being
totalitarian in nature include Nazi Germany, Soviets during communism,
and the Stalinist movement in particular.
The difference between totalitarianism and authoritarian regimes is
important to note.
While authoritarian commands place all of the power into a single
dictator or group, that power is only political.
Within totalitarian rules, the leadership controls nearly all aspects of
the state from econom ical to political to social and cultural.
Totalitarian regimes control science, education, art and private lives of
residents to the degree of dictation proper morality. The reach of the
government is limitless. munotes.in
Page 10
Political Philosophy
10 Strategies to Implement Totalitarianism
Exam ples of totalitarian regime strategies to gain control of the nation
include:
Having a dictatorship
Employing only one ruling party
Rule through fear
Censorship of media
Propaganda in media, government speeches and through education
Criticism of the state is prohibited
Mandatory military sign up
Secret police forces
Controlling reproduction of the population (either in hopes to increase
or to decrease)
Targeting of specific religious or political populations
Development of a nationalist party
Totalitarianis m as a society in which the ideology of the state had
influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to Benito
Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human:
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the
state."
Totalitarian Systems, Leaders and Countries
Examples of totalitarian leaders/regimes/countries include:
Joseph Stalin – In the Soviet Union, after the conclusion of Civil
War, Stalin took over the country and began executing any people who
were not in alignment with the goals of the state.
Benito Mussolini – Having seized power in Italy in 1922, Mussolini
become the leader of the nation and immediately began to rule in a
totalitarian manner.
Adolf Hitler – Notorious for his reign in German, Hitler employed
totalitarianism as a means to attempt to achieve an obedient nation that
was his personal vision for the country.
North Korea – North Korea has been ruled by the same family since
1948. The family has been running the country based on the concept of
self-reliance. However, severe economic declines have contributed to
the country's struggle to maintain totalitarianism. munotes.in
Page 11
Liberalism
11 1.7 COSMOPOLITANISM
Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all human beings belong to a
single community , based on a shared morality. A perso n who adheres to
the idea of cosmopolitanism in any of its forms is called a cosmopolitan
or cosmopolite . A cosmopolitan community might be based on an
inclusive morality, a shared economic relationship, or a political structure
that encompasses different nations. In a cosmopolitan community
individuals from different places (e.g. nation - states) form relationships of
mutual respect. As an example, Kwame Anthony Appiah suggests the
possibil ity of a cosmopolitan community in which individuals from
varying locations (physical, economic, etc.) enter relationships of mutual
respect despite their differing beliefs (religious, political, etc.)
Various cities and locales, past or present, have or a re defined as
"cosmopolitan"; that does not necessarily mean that all or most of their
inhabitants consciously embrace the above philosophy. Rather, locales
could be defined as "cosmopolitan" simply by the fact of being where
people of various ethnic, cult ural and/or religious background live in
proximity and interact with each other.
In his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Immanuel
Kant stages a ius cosmopoliticum (cosmopolitan law/right) as a guiding
principle to protect people from war, and morally grounds this
cosmopolitan right by the principle of universal hospitality. Kant there
claimed that the expansion of hospitality with regard to "use of the right to
the earth's surfa ce which belongs to the human race in common" (see
common heritage of humanity ) would "finally bring the human race ever
closer to a cosmopolitan constitution".
The philosophical co ncepts of Emmanuel Levinas , on ethics, and Jacques
Derrida , on hospitality, provide a theoretical framework for the
relationships between people in their everyday lives and apart from any
form of written laws or codes. For Levinas, the foundation of ethics
consists in the obligation to respond to the Other. In Being for the Other,
he writes that there is no "universal moral law," on ly the sense of
responsibility (goodness, mercy, charity) that the Other, in a state of
vulnerability, calls forth. The proximity of the Other is an important part
of Levinas's concept: the face of the Other is what compels the response.
For Derrida, the f oundation of ethics is hospitality, the readiness and the
inclination to welcome the Other into one's home. Ethics, he claims, is
hospitality. Pure, unconditional hospitality is a desire that underscores the
conditional hospitality necessary in our relatio nships with others.
Levinas's and Derrida's theories of ethics and hospitality hold out the
possibility of an acceptance of the Other as different but of equal standing.
Isolation is not a feasible alternative in the world, therefore, it is important
to co nsider how best to approach these interactions, and to determine what
is at stake for ourselves and the others: what conditions of hospitality to
impose, and whether or not we have responded to the call of the Other. munotes.in
Page 12
Political Philosophy
12 Further, both theories reveal the impor tance of considering how best to
interact with the Other and others, and what is at stake.
Contemporary Cosmopolitanisms
Even this brief glance backwards reveals a wide variety of views that can
be called cosmopolitan. Every cosmopolitan argues for some community
among all human beings, regardless of social and political affiliation. For
some, what should be shared is simply moral community, which means
only that living a good human life requires serving the universal
community by helping human beings as su ch, perhaps by promoting the
realization of justice and the guarantee of human rights. Others
conceptualize the universal community in terms of political institutions to
be shared by all, in terms of cultural expressions that can be shared or
appreciated by all, or in terms of economic markets that should be open to
all.
The most common cosmopolitanism — moral cosmopolitanism — does
not always call itself such. But just as ancient cosmopolitanism was
fundamentally a ‘moral’ commitment to helping human being s as such,
much contemporary moral philosophy insists on the duty to aid foreigners
who are starving or otherwise suffering, or at least on the duty to respect
and promote basic human rights and justice. One can here distinguish
between strict and moderate forms of cosmopolitanism. The strict
cosmopolitans in this sphere operate sometimes from utilitarian
assumptions (e.g., Singer, Unger), sometimes from Kantian assumptions
(e.g., O'Neill), and sometimes from more ancient assumptions (e.g.,
Nussbaum), but a lways with the claim that the duty to provide aid neither
gets weighed against any extra duty to help locals or compatriots nor
increases in strength when locals or compatriots are in question. Among
these strict cosmopolitans some will say that it is perm issible, at least
in some situations, to concentrate one's charitable efforts on one's
compatriots, while others deny this — their position will depend on the
details of their moral theory. Other philosophers whom we may call
moderate cosmopolitans (includ ing, e.g., Scheffler) acknowledge the
cosmopolitan scope of a duty to provide aid, but insist that we also have
special duties to compatriots. Among the moderate cosmopolitans, many
further distinctions can be drawn, depending on the reasons that are
admit ted for recognizing special responsibilities to compatriots and
depending on how the special responsibilities are balanced with the
cosmopolitan duties to human beings generally. Anti-cosmopolitanism in
the moral sphere best describes the position of those communitarians (e.g.,
MacIntyre) who believe either that our obligations to compatriots and
more local people crowd out any obligations to benefit human beings as
such or that there are no obligations except where there are close,
communal relationships.
Moral cosmopolitanism has sometimes led to political cosmopolitanism.
Again, we can draw useful distinctions among the political cosmopolitans.
Some advocate a centralized world state, some favor a federal system with
a comprehensive global body of limited coercive power, some would munotes.in
Page 13
Liberalism
13 prefer international political institutions that are limited in scope and focus
on particular concerns (e.g., war crimes, environmental preservation), and
some defend a different alternative altogether. Prominent philosophical
discussions of international political arrangements have recently clustered
around the heirs of Kant (e.g., Habermas, Rawls, Beitz, and Pogge) and
around advocates of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ (e.g., Held) or ‘republican
cosmopolitanism’ (Bohman 2001). Again , there are anti-cosmopolitans,
who are skeptical of all international political institutions.
A number of theorists have objected to the focus, in much of the debate
over political cosmopolitanism, on the role of states. In their view, a
genuinely cosmopo litan theory should address the needs and interests of
human individuals directly —as world citizens —instead of indirectly, as
state citizens, that is via their membership in particular states. What is
needed instead is a theory that focuses not merely on t he moral duties of
individuals or on the political relations among states, but on the justice of
social institutions world -wide and the measures required to attain it. The
‘cosmopolitan’ position in the debate over global distributive justice, is
especiall y critical of what they see as John Rawls' privileging of the
interests of states over those of individuals, in his Theory of Justice as well
as in his subsequent Law of Peoples. In order to establish principles of
global justice, Rawls should have applied his famous thought experiment
of the ‘original position’ at the global level of all human individuals, they
charge, instead of arguing, as Rawls does, for a second original position,
one that involves representatives of all ‘peoples’. The debate between
Rawls and his cosmopolitan critics points to the issue of the proper role
and status of states: are they indispensable instruments in the pursuit of
justice (ideally embodying the principle of the democratic self -
determination of peoples), or are they rathe r inimical to it, because they
entrench state interests at the expense of individuals in need?
Furthermore, there has been a good deal of debate over cultural
cosmopolitanism. Especially with disputes over multiculturalism in
educational curricula and with resurgent nationalisms, cultural claims and
counter -claims have received much attention. The cosmopolitan position
in both of these kinds of disputes rejects exclusive attachments to a
particular culture. So on the one hand, the cosmopolitan encourages
cultural diversity and appreciates a multicultural mélange, and on the
other hand, the cosmopolitan rejects a strong nationalism. In staking out
these claims, the cosmopolitan must be wary about very strong ‘rights to
culture,’ respecting the rights of minor ity cultures while rebuffing the right
to unconditional national self -determination. Hence, recent advocates of
‘liberal nationalism’ (e.g., Margalit and Raz, Tamir) or of the rights of
minority cultures (e.g., Kymlicka) generally seem to be anti-cosmopoli tan.
But the cosmopolitan's wariness towards very strong rights to culture and
towards national self- determination need not be grounded in a wholesale
skepticism about the importance of particular cultural attachments.
Cosmopolitanism can acknowledge the importance of (at least some kinds
of) cultural attachments for the good human life (at least within certain
limits), while denying that this implies that a person's cultural identity munotes.in
Page 14
Political Philosophy
14 should be defined by any bounded or homogeneous subset of the cultural
resources available in the world (e.g., Waldron).
Economic cosmopolitanism is perhaps less often defended among
philosophers and more often among economists (e.g., Hayek, Friedman)
and certain politicians, especially in the richer countries of this world. I t is
the view that one ought to cultivate a single global economic market with
free trade and minimal political involvement. It tends to be criticized
rather than advanced by philosophical cosmopolitans, as many of them
regard it as at least a partial caus e of the problem of vast international
economic inequality. These debates about the desirability of a fully
globalized market have intensified in recent years, as a result of the end of
the Cold War and the increasing reach of the market economy.
Political cosmopolitanism
It is often argued that it is impossible to change the current system of
states and to form a world - state or a global federation of states. This claim
is hard to maintain, however, in the face of the existence of the United
Nations, the e xistence of states with more than a billion people of
heterogeneous backgrounds, and the experience with the United States and
the European Union. So in order to be taken seriously, the objection must
instead be that it is impossible to form a good state or federation of that
magnitude, i.e., that it is impossible to realize or even approximate the
cosmopolitan ideal in a way that makes it worth pursuing and that does not
carry prohibitive risks. Here political cosmopolitans disagree among
themselves. On on e end of the spectrum we find those who argue in favor
of a strong world -state, on the other end we find the defenders of a loose
and voluntary federation, or a different system altogether.
The defenders of the loose, voluntary and no coercive federation w arn that
a world -state easily becomes despotic without there being any competing
power left to break the hold of despotism (Rawls). Defenders of the world -
state reply that a stronger form of federation, or even merger, is the only
way to truly exit the sta te of nature between states, or the only way to
bring about international distributive justice (Nielsen, Cabrera). Other
authors have argued that the focus among many political cosmopolitans on
only these two alternatives overlooks a third, and that a conc ern for human
rights should lead one to focus instead on institutional reform that
disperses sovereignty vertically, rather than concentrating it in all -
encompassing international institutions. On this view, peace, democracy,
prosperity, and the environmen t would be better served by a system in
which the political allegiance and loyalties of persons are widely dispersed
over a number of political units of various sizes, without any one unit
being dominant and thus occupying the traditional role of the state .
Of the objections brought up by non - or anti -cosmopolitans, two deserve
special mention. First, some authors argue that the (partial or whole)
surrender of state sovereignty required by the cosmopolitan scheme is an
undue violation of the principle of t he autonomy of states or the principle
of democratic self -determination of their citizens. Second, so -called munotes.in
Page 15
Liberalism
15 ‘realists’ argue that states are in a Hobbesian state of nature as far as the
relations among them are concerned, and that it is as inappropriate a s it is
futile to subject states to normative constraints. To these objections
cosmopolitans have various kinds of response, ranging from developing
their alternative normative theory (e.g., by arguing that global democracy
increases rather than diminishes the democratic control of individual
world citizens) to pointing out, as has been done at least since Grotius, that
states have good reasons even on Hobbesian grounds to submit to certain
forms of international legal arrangements.
1.8 NATIONALISM
National ism is defined as "loyalty and devotion to a nation, especially a
sense of national consciousness," and "exalting one nation above all others
and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as
opposed to those of other nations or sup ranational groups."
Nationalism centers on a country's culture, language, and often race. It may
also include shared literature, sports, or the arts, but is primarily driven by
cultural associations. And, it promotes the nation at the expense of others.
Nationalist countries or leaders don't join international organizations or
associations, and maintain a superior view of themselves to the detriment of
other nations. Nationalism has a positive view of conquering other nations
as it sees itself as the ultima te nation. Any ideologies that undercut or
contradict the nation are opposed.
Nationalism is not the same as patriotism. While patriotism is a bit more of
a vague word to describe the love and devotion to a country, its ideals and
values, nationalism is mo re the promotion of a nation's culture, language,
and supremacy above others. In this sense, nationalism is often race or
ethnicity -driven, which can have dangerous implications.
Patriotism can be seen in things like the singing of the national anthem
at a World Cup soccer game, the decorations on a table for the 4th of July,
or the dedication service men and women show through their heroism. It is
far less ideologically destructive than nationalism and doesn't necessitate the
same devotions.
Nationalism is an ideology that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit
for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and
political principles. Nationalism typically makes certain political claim s
based upon this belief.
Nationalism refers to both a political doctrine and any collective action by
political and social movements on behalf of specific nations.
Nationalism has had an enormous influence upon world history , since
the nation -state has become the dominant form of state organization.
Nationalist movements see themselves as the representative of an existing,
centuries -old nation. However, some theories of nationalism imply the
reverse order - that the nationalist movements created the sense of national munotes.in
Page 16
Political Philosophy
16 identity, and then a political unit corresponding to it, or that an existing
state promoted a 'national' identity for itself.
Nationalists see nations as an inclusive categorisation of human beings -
assigning every individual to one specific nation. In fact, nationalism
sees most human activity as national in
character. Nations have national symbols, a national culture , a national
music and national literature ; national folklore, a national mythology and -
in some cases - even a national religion . Individuals share national values
and a national identity , admire the national hero, eat the national dish and
play the national sport.
Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which
distinguish one nation from another; and determine who is a member of
each nation. These criteria typically include a shared language, culture,
and/or shared values which are predominantly represented within a specific
ethnic group.
Nationalism has a strong territorial component, with an inclusive
categorisation of territory corresponding to the categorisation of
individuals. For each nation, there is a territory which is uniquely
associated with it, the national homeland, and together they account for
most habitable land. This is reflected in the geopolitical claims of
nationalism, which seeks to order the world as a series of nation -states, each
based on the national homeland of its respective nation. Territorial claims
characterise the politics of nationalist movements. Established nation -states
also make an implicit territorial claim, to secure their own continued
existence: sometimes it is specified in the national con stitution. In the
nationalist view, each nation has a moral entitlement to a sovereign state:
this is usually taken as a given.
The nation -state is intended to guarantee the existence of a nation, to
preserve its distinct identity, and to provide a territo ry where the national
culture and ethos are dominant - nationalism is also a philosophy of the
state. It sees a nation -state as a necessity for each nation: secessionist
national movements often complain about their second -class status as a
minority within another nation. This specific view of the duties of the state
influenced the introduction of national education systems, often teaching a
standard curriculum, national cultura l policy, and national language policy.
In turn, nation -states appeal to a national cultural -historical mythos to
justify their existence, and to confer political legitimacy - acquiescence of
the population in the authority of the government.
Nationalism a s ideology includes ethical principles : that the moral duties of
individuals to fellow members of the nation override those to non -
members. Nationalism claims that national loyalt y, in case of conflict,
overrides local loyalties, and all other loyalties to family, friends,
profession, religion, or class.
munotes.in
Page 17
Liberalism
17 1.9 SUMMARY
Liberalism a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the
freedom of the individual to the central pr oblem of politics.
Underlying the liberal belief in adversariality is the conviction that human
belings are essentially retional animal capable of the settings political
dispates through dialogue and compromise.
1.10 QUESTIONS
1) Define Anarchism. What does Wolf means by the concept of authority
and autonomy ?
2) State the theory of Marxism.
3) Explain democratic socialism of Nehru in Brief.
4) State the meaning of anarchism and what do you understand by the
term quthority.
5) Explain how Wolf tries to give solution to t he conflict of autonomy and
authority.
Short Notes.
a) Contemporary cosmopolitanisms
b) Nationalism
c) Totalitarianism – A political System
d) Autonomy
e) Socialism and Anarchism
munotes.in
Page 18
18 2
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE LIBERTY
ISAIAH BERLIN
Unit Structure :
2.0 Objective
2.1 Introductio
2.2 Positive and Negative Liberty Isaiah Berlin
2.3 Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Disobedience
2.4 Thomas Hobbes – Negative Liberty
2.5 Rousseau - Posiitve Liber ty
2.6 Third Concept of Liberty: Republican Theory of Liberty (Liberty As
Non-Domination)
2.7 Summary
2.8 Questions
2.0 OBJECTIVE
1) To study positive liberty.
2) To understand negative Liberty
3) To explain positive and negative liberty of Isaian Berlin.
4) To unders tand civil disobedience
5) To study negative liberty of Thomas Hobbes.
6) To understand positive Liberty of Rousseau.
7) To understand third concept of Liberty.
2.1 INTRODUCTIO
Positive Liberty means that freedom is the ability of society to achieve an
and negative liberty means a ‘realm’ or ‘zone’ of freedom. Thus, negative
liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has
negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this
negative sense.
munotes.in
Page 19
Positive and Negative Liberty Isaiah Berlin
19 2.2 POSITIVE AND NEG ATIVE LIBERTY ISAIAH
BERLIN
Isaiah Berlin (1909 –97) was a British philosopher, historian of ideas,
political theorist, educator and essayist. His essay ‘Two Concepts of
Liberty’ (1958) contributed to a revival of interest in political theory in the
English -speaking world, and remains one of the most influential and
widely discussed texts in that field. Over the years Berlin's distinction
between positive and negative liberty has remained a basic starting -point
for theoretical discussions about the meaning a nd value of political
freedom.
Isaiah Berlin's 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty," which was later
published in Four Essays on Liberty (1969) formally framed the
differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two
opposite concept s of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty Berlin
distinguished between positive and negative liberty. Positive liberty
denotes rational self - determination or autonomy, while negative liberty
denotes the absence of constraints imposed by others. Despite its
simplicity, however, Berlin's conceptualization was controversial and
required further clarification. In 1969 he reformulated the concept by
introducing two questions.
Negative freedom can be determined by answering the question: "How
much am I governed?" By contrast, the positive concept can be
determined by the answer to the question: "By whom am I governed?"
Thus Berlin offered a revised definition of negative liberty: "not simply
the absence of frustration (which may be obtained by killing d esires), but
the absence of obstacles to possible choices and activities." Berlin's
negative freedom concerns "opportunity for action rather than action
itself," which was labeled later by Charles Taylor as an "opportunity -
concept."
Positive liberty assert s that freedom is the ability of society to achieve an
end. In the negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no
person interferes with his or her activity. This is in consonance with John
Stuart Mill’s idea of differentiating between li berty as the freedom to act
and liberty as the absence of coercion. The absence of coercion designates
a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and
the arbitrary exercise of authority , while freedom refers to having the
means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things.
Negative liberty defines a realm or "zone" of freedom (in the "silence of
law"). In Berlin's words, "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer
to the question 'What is the area within which the subject -- a person or
group of persons -- is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or
be, without interference by other persons." Some philosophers have
disagreed on the extent of this realm while accepting the main point that
liberty defines that realm in which one may act unobstructed by others.
Second, the restriction (on the freedom to act) implicit in negative liberty
is imposed by a person or persons and not due to causes such as nature, munotes.in
Page 20
Political Philosophy
20 lack, or incapacity. As Berlin showed, negative and positive liberty are not
merely two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival,
incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. Since few people
claim to be against liberty, the way this term is interpreted and defined can
have important political implications. Political liberalism tends to
presuppose a negative definition of liberty: liberals generally claim that if
one favors individual liberty one should place strong limitations on the
activities of the state. Positive liberty, for Berlin, is an active principle. It is
the possibility of freely acting out one’s ends, or self -realization, and
“derives from the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master.”
Negative liberty, on the other hand, is the absence of constraints to one’s
will.
Berlin’s negative conception is essentially a freedom from interference,
but according to Philip Pettit there is a third conception of liberty which is
that of liberty as non -domination, where “freedom as non -domination is
defined by reference to how far and how well the bearer is protected
against arbitrary interference
2.3 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. CIVIL
DISOBEDIENCE
Martin Luther King was an American clergyman, activist and prominent
leader in Afro -American civil rights movement. Hi s mission was to secure
progress on civil rights in the United States of America. He was the first
president of Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Inspired by
Gandhi's success with non -violent activism, King visited in India in 1959.
The trip to Ind ia affected King in a profound way, deepening his
understanding of Civil Disobedience and his commitment to America's
struggle for civil rights.
In a radio address Martin Luther King said, "The method of nonviolent
resistance is the most potent weapon avai lable to oppressed people in their
struggle for justice and human dignity. In a real sense, Mahatma Gandhi
embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the
moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable a s
the law of gravitation. Bayard Rustin counseled King to dedicate himself
to the principles of non -violence. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was
arrested for refusing to give up her seat. The Montgomery Bus Boycott
urged and planned by Nixon and led by Ki ng, soon followed. The boycott
lasted for 385 days and the situation became so tense that King's house was
bombed.
King was arrested during this campaign, which ended racial segregation
on all Montgomery public buses.
His "Letter from Birmingham Jail", wri tten in 1963, is a "passionate"
statement of his crusade for justice. This letter gives a detailed account of
King’s views about Civil Disobedience. In this letter, King argues that it is
unfortunate that the demonstrations for Civil Rights are going on in munotes.in
Page 21
Positive and Negative Liberty Isaiah Berlin
21 Birmingham. He further says, “It is even more unfortunate that the city’s
white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.” King
maintains that the non -violent movement of Civil Disobedience has Four
basic steps ----
1. Collection of the facts to determine whether injustice really exists.
2. The negotiations must be carried out with the opposite party. The
authorities must be made aware of the condemnation of unjust laws.
The efforts must be done to amend or change the laws in a peaceful
manner .
3. Self- purification is a necessary condition in the struggle for justice. It
involves selflessness. The concept of Self -purification is connected
with the law of Suffering. The protesters should be ready to accept the
pains or punishments imposed on them.
4. Direct Action is the last stage when the negotiations fail. Without
selfish or personal interests, the protestors actively refuse to obey the
unjust law. The protest is shown in marches, demonstrations, picketing
and even by boycott.
The principle of Non -violence is the fundamental principle of the protest.
Martin Luther King explains how a law can be unjust. A law is unjust when
it is inflicted upon a minority without
allowing the minority to enact or devise the law. The law that is imposed
by some people in power with an intention to exploit and to deprive of the
privileges of some other people is unjust law. The law that authenticates
discrimination is unjust law. For example, the right to vote was denied to
black people.
He further adds that sometimes a law is just on its face and it is unjust in
its application. King was arrested on the charge of parading without a
permit. When the law maintains segregation in its citizens, it becomes
unjust in its application. The unjust laws must be broken. But it sho uld be
done openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty. King
maintains that an individual who breaks the law which is unjust law as per
his conscience and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment; is
in reality expressing the hi ghest respect for law. This is Civil
Disobedience.
However, Civil Disobedience is not a new technique. King argues that this
technique is ancient. It was used by Socrates, by the early Christians
against Roman Empire. In America itself, the Boston Tea Part y was a
massive act of Civil Disobedience. Martin Luther King had an intensive
influence of Mahatma Gandhi.
The success of Civil Disobedience in the form of Indian Independence
was an open secret. Martin Luther King had a hope that the clouds of
racial pre judice will soon pass away. The deep fog of misunderstanding
will be lifted from our fear -drenched communities and the radiant stars of
love and brotherhood will shine over America. Mahatma Gandhi's munotes.in
Page 22
Political Philosophy
22 nonviolent techniques were useful to King's campaign to c orrect the civil
rights laws implemented in Alabama. King applied non-violent philosophy
to the protests organized by him. King’s organized, nonviolent protest
against the system of southern segregation had extensive media coverage.
The Civil Rights Moveme nt was the most important issue in American
politics in the early 1960s. King organized and led marches for blacks'
right to vote, desegregation, labor rights and other basic civil rights. The
struggle for black equality and voting rights was noticed by th e American
citizens. The publicity of the daily deprivation and indignities suffered by
southern blacks, and of segregationist violence and harassment of civil
rights workers and marchers, produced a wave of sympathetic public
opinion. Most of the demanded rights were successfully enacted into the
law of the United States.
The Albany Movement mobilized thousands of citizens for a broad -front
nonviolent attack on every aspect of segregation within the city and
attracted nationwide attention. The Birmingham campaign was a strategic
effort to promote civil rights for African Americans. During the protests,
the Birmingham Police Department used high -pressure water jets and
police dogs to control protesters, including children. At the end of the
protest, public p laces became more open to blacks. The Washington
March made specific demands: an end to racial segregation in public
school; meaningful civil rights legislation, including a law prohibiting
racial discrimination in employment; protection of civil rights wo rkers
from police brutality; the minimum wage of two dollars for all workers.
King's "I Have a Dream" speech was so influential that it is regarded as
one of the finest speeches in the history of American oratory. King began
to speak of the need for fundam ental changes in the political and economic
life of the nation. He frequently expressed his opposition to the Vietnam
War and his desire to see a redistribution of resources to correct racial and
economic injustice. On October 14, 1964, King became the you ngest
recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to him for leading
non-violent resistance to racial prejudice in
the United States. King's main legacy was to secure progress on civil
rights in the United States, which has enabled more Americans to reach
their potential. He is frequently referenced as a human rights icon. On the
international scene, King's legacy included influences on the Black
Consciousness Movement and Civil Rights Movement in South Africa.
Martin Luther King (Jr) followed the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi in his
mission of life to secure Civil Rights of Black people. He wanted justice
and dignified life for all the people. King followed the footsteps of
Mahatma Gandhi at the time of his death too. Like Mahatma Gandhi, he
was the soldier of Non -violent movement. Like Mahatma Gandhi, King
too, was shot dead on 4th April 1968 in Memphis. The assassination led to
a nationwide wave of riots in more than 100 cities. The same thing
happened in India after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. munotes.in
Page 23
Positive and Negative Liberty Isaiah Berlin
23 2.4 THOMAS HOBBES – NEGATIVE LIBERTY
Thomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679) was an English
philosopher , considered to b e one of the founders of modern political
philosophy .
Hobbes is best known for his 1651 book Leviathan, in which he e xpounds
an influential formulation of social contract theory
Leviathan, Hobbes's most important work and one of the most influential
philosophical texts produced during the seventeenth century, was written
partly as a response to the fear Hobbes experienced during the political
turmoil of the English Civil Wars.
In the 1640s, it was clear to Hobbes that Parliament was going to turn
against King Charles I, so he fled to France for eleven years, t errified that,
as a Royalist, he would be persecuted for his support of the king.
Hobbes composed Leviathan while in France, brilliantly articulating the
philosophy of political and natural science that he had been developing
since the 1630s.
Hobbes's mast erwork was finally published in 1651, two years after
Parliament ordered the beheading of Charles I and took over
administration of the English nation in the name of the Commonwealth.
Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative
liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and
contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources
to fulfil one's own potential).
According to Thomas Hobbes, "a free man is he that in those things which
by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath
the will to do" ( Leviathan, Part 2, Ch. XXI Leviathan, portrays the
commonwealth as a gigantic human form built out of the bodies of its
citizens, the sovereign as its head.
Hobbes calls this figure the "Leviathan," a word derived from the Hebr ew
for "sea monster" and the name of a monstrous sea creature appearing in
the Bible; the image constitutes the definitive metaphor for Hobbes's
perfect government.
His text attempts to prove the necessity of the Leviathan for preserving
peace and preventi ng civil war.
“How is men’s desire for liberty to be reconciled with the assumed need
for authority?”
Leviathan rigorously argues that civil peace and social unity are best
achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through social contract.
Hobbes's i deal commonwealth is ruled by a sovereign power responsible
for protecting the security of the commonwealth and granted absolute munotes.in
Page 24
Political Philosophy
24 authority to ensure the common defense The work concerns the structure of
society and legitimate government,
Written during the English Civil War (1642 –1651), it argues for a social
contract and rule by an absolute sovereign.
Hobbes wrote that civil war and t he brute situation of a state of nature
(“the war of all against all”) could be avoided only by strong, undivided
government.
Hobbes begins his treatise on politics with an account of human nature.
He presents an image of man as matter in motion, attemptin g to show
through example how everything about humanity can be explained
materialistically.
Hobbes describes human psychology without any reference to the
summum bonum , or greatest good, as previous thought had done.
Not only is the concept of a summum bonum superfluous, but given the
variability of human desires, there could be no such thing.
Consequently, any political community that sou ght to provide the greatest
good to its members would find itself driven by competing conceptions of
that good with no way to decide among them. The result would be civil
war.
However, Hobbes states that there is a summum malum, or greatest evil.
This is the fear of violent death. A political community can be oriented
around this fear.
Since there is no summum bonum, the natural state of man is not to be
found in a political community that pursues the greatest good.
But to be outside of a political community is to be in an anarchic
condition. (STATE OF SOCIETY WITHOUT AUTHORITIES)
Given human nature, the variability of human desires, and need for scarce
resources to fulfill those desires, the state of nature, as Hobbes calls this
anarchic condition, must be a war of all against all.
Even when two men are not fighting, there is no guarantee that the other
will not try to kill him for his property or just out of an aggrieved sense of
honour, and so they must constantly be on guard against one anothe r.
Hobbes is explicit that in the state of nature nothing can be considered just
or unjust, and every man must be considered to have a right to all things
The second law of nature is that one ought to be willing to renounce one's
right to all things where others are willing to do the same, to quit the state
of nature, and to erect a commonwealth with the authority to command
them in all things.
Hobbes and Locke give two influential and representative solutions to this
question. munotes.in
Page 25
Positive and Negative Liberty Isaiah Berlin
25 As a starting point, both agr ee that a line must be drawn and a space
sharply delineated where each individual can act unhindered according to
their tastes, desires, and inclinations.
This zone defines the space of personal liberty.
But, they believe no society is possible without som e authority, where the
intended purpose of authority is to prevent collisions among the different
ends and, thereby, to demarcate the boundaries where each person's zone
of liberty begins and ends.
Hobbes, who took a rather negative view of human nature, a rgued that a
strong authority was needed to curb men's intrinsically wild, savage, and
corrupt impulses.
Only a powerful authority can keep at bay the permanent and always
looming threat of anarchy.
Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan outlines a commonwealth based upon a
monarchy to whom citizens have ceded their rights. The basic reasoning
for Hobbes' assertion that this system was most ideal relates more to
Hobbes' value of order and simplicity in government.
The monarchy provides for its subjects, and its subjects go about their
day-to-day lives without interaction with the government:
The purpose of a commonwealth as given at the start of Part II:
The commonwealth is instituted when all agree in the following manner:
1. Because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the
subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.
2. Because the covenant forming the commonwealth results from subject
giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot
possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never
argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the
sovereign.
3. The sovereign exists because the majority has consented to his rule;
the minority ha ve agreed to abide by this arrangement and must then
assent to the sovereign’s actions.
4. Every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the
sovereign cannot injureany of his subjects and cannot be accused of
injustice.
5. Following this, the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the
subjects.
6. The sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, who
shall be allowed to speak to multitudes, and who shall examine the
doctrines of all books before they are published. munotes.in
Page 26
Political Philosophy
26 7. To prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
8. To be judge in all cases.
9. .To make war and peace as he sees fit and to command the army.
10. To choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
11. To reward with riches and honour or to punish
12. To establish laws about honour and a scale of worth.
2.5 ROUSSEAU - POSIITVE LIBERTY
Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will,
It include freedom from internal constraints. The concepts of struc ture and
agency are central to the concept of positive liberty. In order to be free, a
person should be free from inhibitions of the social structure in carrying
out their free will.
The first man w ho, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine',
and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true
founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from
how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have s aved
mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his
fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once
forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to
nobody.
— Rousseau 1754
Rousseau criticized Thomas Hobbes for asserting that since man in the
"state of nature... has no idea of goodness he must b e naturally wicked;
that he is vicious because he does not know virtue".
On the contrary, Rousseau holds that "uncorrupted morals" prevail in the
"state of nature" "...[N]othing is so gentle as man in his primitive state,
when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and
the fatal enlightenment of civil man"
This has led some critics to attribute to Rousseau the invention of the idea
of the noble savage
Rousseau's ideas of human development were highly interconnected with
forms of mediation, or the processes that individual humans use to interact
with themselves and others while using an alternate perspecti ve or thought
process . In Rousseau's philosophy, society's negative influence on men
centers on its transformation of amour de soi, a po sitive self -love, into
amour -propre , or pride . Amour de soi represents the instinctive human
desire for self-preservation , combined with the human power of reason .
Individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process
whereby one's community exercises collective con trol over its own affairs munotes.in
Page 27
Positive and Negative Liberty Isaiah Berlin
27 in accordance with the " general will - the will of the people as a whole . The
phrase "general will," as Ro usseau used it, occurs in Article Six of the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration
des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen), composed in 1789 during the French
Revolution :
The law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to
contribute personally, or through their representative, to its formation. It
must be the same for all, whether it protects punishes. All citizens, being
equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, posi tions,
and employments, according to their capacities, and without any other
distinction than that of their virtues and their talents Rousseau believed
that liberty was the power of individual citizens to act in the government
to bring about changes; this is essentially the power for self-governance
and democracy . Rousseau himself said, "the mere impulse to appetite is
slavery, while obedi ence to law we prescribe ourselves is liberty
2.6 THIRD CONCEPT OF LIBERTY: REPUBLICAN
THEORY OF LIBERTY (LIBERTY AS NON -
DOMINATION)
“A Third Concept of Liberty” is Quentin Skinner’s Isaiah Berlin Lecture
(Published 2002, Proceedings of the British Academy 117, pp. 237-68)
Skinner accepts Berlin’s distinction: there are, indeed, at least two
concepts of freedom, one positive and one negative. Skinner will try to
add a third: a conception of negative freedom as non-domination.
Hobbes was, Skinner notes, responding to a particular set of historical
circumstances: early Seventeenth century critics of the ‘royal prerogative’.
These critics employed a powerful alternative conception of freedom,
according to which one is unfree – indeed, in a state of servitude insofar as
one is dependent on the will of another.
On this view, freedom is not only restricted by actual interference, but by
the mere knowledge that one is dependent on another. Berlin, Skinner
notes, did consider whether there was a ‘third concept of lib erty’. Berlin
thought the answer was no: for there to be unfreedom, there must be actual
interference.
The republican critics Skinner discusses rejected this very idea. They
thought that the mere fact of living under domination leads one to make
different kinds of choices that constrain one’s freedom. Of course, these
are ‘self -constraints’, in a sense, for they are indeed choices. But they same
is true, Skinner thinks, in cases of coercion . The republican critics noted
certain ‘psychological impacts’ assoc iated with two kinds of responses
subjects of domination tend to have to the fact of their being dominated.
First, such subjects refrain from doing certain things — not only
expressing their disagreement with their lord, but also exercising their
talents a nd virtues, for fear that this will inspire jealousy or be perceived as munotes.in
Page 28
Political Philosophy
28 a threat. Second, such subjects are compelled to do certain things — to
agree with the king, and to flatter him.
A Third Concept
republican idea really expresses a third concept of fre edom. freedom as
non-interference holds that one is autonomous if one is not coerced or
threatened, freedom as non -domination adds the further condition that one
must not be subject to the will of another.
The difference between democracy and republic is t hat in a democracy,
the people meet and exercise the government
Imagine a group of slaves with a generally well -meaning master. While
the latter has an institutionally -protected right to treat his slaves more or
less as he pleases (he might start whipping them just for the heck of it,
say), let us suppose that this master in particular leaves his slaves for the
most part alone. Now to the extent that he does not in fact interfere with
his slaves on a day -to-day basis, we are committed to saying —on the non -
interference view of liberty —that they enjoy some measure of freedom.
We are committed to saying that the slaves of our well -meaning master
enjoy greater freedom than the slaves of an abusive master down the road.
Of course, the former slaves are better off in some respect than the latter,
but do we really want to say that they are more free?
It defines freedom as a sort of structural independence —as the condition
of not being subject to the arbitrary or uncontrolled power of a master.
Freedom in the republi can sense consists in the secure enjoyment of non -
domination
In sum, according to the third concept of liberty, One can enjoy non -
interference without enjoying non -domination; conversely, according to
Pettit, one can enjoy non -domination while nevertheless being interfered
with, just as long as the interference in question is constrained, through
republican power structures, to track one's interests. Only arbitrary power
can obstruct freedom, not power as such.
2.7 SUMMARY
Positive liberty is the possession of the power and resources to act in the
context of the structural limitations of the broader society which impacts a
person’s ability to act, as apposed to negative liberty, which is freedom
from axternal restraint on one’s actions.
2.8 QUESTIONS
1) What are the two concepts of liberty put forth by Issiah Berlin ?
2) What are Dwo rkin’s views on Liberty ?
3) What are the three main parts of what Mills calls “the appropriate
region of human liberty ”? munotes.in
Page 29
Positive and Negative Liberty Isaiah Berlin
29 4) Why is liberty considered as value ? Discuss .
5) Negative libe rty in the light of Thomas Hobbes : Explain .
6) Discuss : Martin Luther King ’s Civil disobedience .
Short Not es
a) Possitive liberty – Rousseau
b) Republican theory of liberty
c) Civil Disobedience
d) Negative Liberty
munotes.in
Page 30
30 3
EQUALITY
Unit Structure :
3.0 Objective
3.1 Introductio n
3.2 Equality
3.3 Summary
3.4 Questions
3.0 OBJECTIVE
1) To understand the modern concept of equality.
2) To know individual freedom and human rights.
3) To understand what exactly equality is.
4) To understand different typ es of equality.
5) To thing about sarvoday.
6) To consider the principles of Sarvoday.
7) To discuss the benefits of Sarvoday.
8) To study the drawbacks of Sarvoday.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Human being is a social animal he/ she can not live alone. Therefore this
or more than two human beings come together and there is a formation of
different types of relationships among human beings. This relationship it
self called as society. If these relationships are healthy then we can call
healthy society. For this purpose there i s a need of equality. But when
there is formation of society, due to human nature, there are different types
of discrimination with the help of equality, there is a need to destroy all
these discriminations.
After establishment of equality, then there is a possibility of integrated
development of all human beings, in society. This is called “Sarvoday”.
3.2 EQUALITY
The modern concept of equality was introduced in the 17th century. It
evolved after scientific research. The concept of 'equality' was first
deliver by the British philosopher John Locke. The first human condition munotes.in
Page 31
Equality
31 is a natural state in which all human beings were independent and all had
equal rights. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of circumscription. The only limit to
individual freedom was natural law. Natural freedom means we must
protect our lives and the lives of our brothers and sisters, and no one
should try to take away the freedom and power of others, Locke says. A
government appointed by the people is right. Thomas Jefferson was a
follower of John Locke. John Locke's principle of equality was openly
advocated by Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of
Independence of 1776. The protection of human rights was the main
objective.
The French Declaration of the Rights of the individual freedom and Civil
Rights was published in 1789, and the principle of equa lity gained
prominence. The French Revolution was inspired by human rights. In the
19th century, after the 1870s, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution
gave bondman the right to vote. Further complete freedom to slaves, as
well as to women Equality was pr ovided by the 23rd and 24th
Amendments in the 20th century. Therefore, the distinction between rich
and poor, black and white or male and female did not remain in
accordance with the law.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the United
Nations in 1948 after World War 2nd. This also gave impetus to the value
of equality. Criticism of apartheid began in South Africa through the
United Nations. Steps were taken firmly against inequality. So the global
referendum was affected. The importance of equality is enshrined in the
human rights enshrined in the Constitution of India and the government
is committed to protecting the fundamental rights of the individual.
All should be given equal opportunity without any discrimination on the
basis of religion, sect, caste or wealth. This is called social equality. Also
political equality is the main principle of representative democracy. All
citizens should have equal opportunity to get political rights, citizens
should be able to protect their rights, equal opportunities for all citizens
across the state is the main sign of political equality.
No one should have the opportunity to live without work and the one who
works should get a fair return for his performance, these two important
things are related to economic equality. Because equality is justice. In a
society where there is inequality, there can be no justice.
Aristotle, the famous philosopher, says that inequality leads to
revolution. Too much poverty or too much wealth leads to moral
degradation. In government.The desire to have equal opportunities and
equal rights with others is behind the revolution. The feeling that the class
that is considered inferior to others is getting stronger and stronger, is
leading to political upheaval. If the surgery of inequality continues in the
society for a long time, it becomes detrimental to the society. Inequality munotes.in
Page 32
Political Philosophy
32 in the social sphere is man -made. So man must try to eliminate it, this
principle is important in the context of equality. The essence of 20th
century history is the discovery of the principle of equality. For this,
people fought, died and by gaining this principle, they strengthened
democracy. Equality was the main motivation behind the social
movement during this period. She conquered the continent of Europe and
also inspired the communist movement in European countries. Although
the principle of equality has been formally accepted without any
discrimination between men and women, it does not seem to have given
full equality in practice.
Equality is not a lack of diversity. Society needs a variety of qualities,
attitudes and inventions. That's where the progress comes from. In the
same way, equality is not a lifeless mold. Mold closure strangles
independent thinking and the goal of equality fails. It is impractical and
impossible to apply the principle of equality in the economic field on the
basis of any reality and emotionally, without taking into account the
intelligence and intellectual capacity, efficiency, etc. of the individual.
The right of all su ch persons to be paid according to their ability and
efficiency cannot be denied.
Equality: -
In political thought, the French Revolution of 1789 proclaimed the
principles of freedom, equality and fraternity. The Declaration of the
French Revolution clearly states that every person is born free and has
the right to freedom and equality. The US Constitution makes it clear that
all people are equal. The principle of equality is enshrined in the Indian
Constitution.
What is equality?
Equality means everyday equal treatment. But without considering such a
narrow meaning, equality is to create equality in various fields like
politics,economic, social etc. from a broad point of view. Equality is an
abstract concept so it is impossible to establish complete equality .
Whether equality should be created or establish, Human beings accepted
a goal to establish or creat complete equality it is political ideal & social
value.
Definition: -
Equality means eliminating man-made inequality. Equality means
eliminating inequalit y in various fields such as political, social, economic
and treating everyone equally, giving everyone equal opportunity for
development.
Pvt. According to Lasky, "equality is basically a levelling process. This
means that as long as individuals continue t o enjoy privileges in society,
equality will not be established. Hence the privileges that are given to
individuals in the society on the basis of birth, caste, ethnicity, language
and wealth. Equality must be established by eliminating inequalities in
various areas, political, economic and social. " munotes.in
Page 33
Equality
33 "Equality means the absence of privileges and equal opportunities for all."
Types of equality:
1) Numerical Equality & Proportional Equality: -
Aristotle considered two types of equality, numerical and proportiona l
equality. When we treat all individuals together or treat them as equals
without separating them from each other, it is a way of treating others
and from that the distribution of equality is numerically equal. Equality
in the treatment that is given to each person needs to be given to that
person. So there is a fair and equal distribution of equality. Numerical
similarity is an important aspect of quantitative similarity. The
characteristic of numerical similarity is that it exists only in special
circums tances. When all the persons present will be the same in this
particular case, the numerical similarity will be the same is proportional.
Proportional similarity further specifies formal similarity. It is a more
accurate and comprehensive formula of formal equality and is indicative
of sufficient equality.
To have proportional similarity is to distribute two or more objects
between two or more persons in equal proportions. In a particular case
when individuals are unequal and in such cases when there is une qual
distribution of elements, the distribution of elements is just. Unequal
claims for distribution must be considered proportionately. This is a
prerequisite for a person considered equally. This principle can also be
incorporated into hierarchical inequ ality theory. The same output with the
same input is demanded. Classical perfectionists and meritorious people all
believe that individuals should be judged according to their different
needs. It should be in the form of rewards and punishments, advantages
and disadvantages. Both Plato and Aristotle are of the opinion that the
inequality and value of natural rights can lead to great inequality.
Aristotle's idea of proportional equality has a fundamental insight. This
idea provides a framework for rational individualism between the
egalitarian and non -egalitarian notions of justice. Its focus is on the
question of adequate equality. Both sides accept justice as proportional
equality. Aristotle explains that individualism includes features that
determine wheth er two persons are equal or unequal.
At the level of pure conceptual explanation, the two concepts of justice
and equality are connected by formal and quantitative principles. Justice
cannot be explained by these principles of equality. Formal and
proporti onal equality is a conceptual scheme. That’s where the facts need
to be implemented.
I.e. its unit must be determined. The hypothesis persists until it is clear by
what characteristics two or more persons or cases should be considered
equal. All disputes over the concept of justice can be understood as
disputes over who is munotes.in
Page 34
Political Philosophy
34 responsible for what, which cases are equal and which are unequal. Only
when one knows or is told what kind of equality is being given can the
process of giving equality be considered tru e? It is necessary to identify
the basic principles of the concept of equality. Each theory of equality
suggests different aspects of equality. To understand that aspect,
egalitarians must consider the specific concept of equality. For that, they
should identify the basic principles of equality and discuss it.
2) Ethical equality:
Human were unequal in nature till 8th century. But the idea of a natural
human right undermined it. A sequence of natural rights was assumed, in
which all human beings were considere d equal. When an action helps each
person determine his or her worthiness, there is a sense of equality.
Everyone have equal respect. it is a widely articulated concept of
objective universal moral equality.
In Christianity, the idea that all human beings are equal before God was
first proposed. But this principle was not followed in later times. This
idea was also taken up in Islam. It was based on both Greek and Hebrew
elements. In modern times beginning in the sixteenth century, there was a
strong notion of natural equality in the tradition of natural law and social
contract theory. Hobbes (1651) stated that individuals have equal rights in
their natural state. This is because they have the same ability to harm
each other over time.
John Locke states that all human beings have the same natural right to
both ownership and liberty. Rousseau declared that social inequality is
the result of an element of natural equality. According to Rousseau, the
inequality of outcome and the rules of violence can only be ov ercome by
binding individual personalities to equal civic existence and popular
sovereignty. Kant's moral principle recognizes equal freedom for all
animals. Enlightenment ideas led to
the great modern social movement and revolution. It was taken up in the
modern constitution and in the Declaration of Human Rights.
Natural differences between humans, they should be considered equal to
each other, a principle often referred to as human equality or basic
equality or equal value or human dignity. To create a p owerful principle
of this term Come together. Moral equality can be understood as an often
unimaginable principle of providing equal treatment to individuals.
The principle of moral equality is very abstract and if we want to reach
clear moral standards, i t must be solidified. Yet no concept of justice
equality can be deduced from the notion of moral equality. On the
contrary, we find competing philosophical concepts of equal treatment
that mean moral equality. They must be evaluated according to their
comm itment to the deep ideals of moral equality.
Ronald Dworkins View on the Equality of Resources: - munotes.in
Page 35
Equality
35 Ronald Docking was born in Worcester, Massachusetts. He completed
his undergraduate education from Torward Law School. He was
Professor Juris Prudence at Oxfo rd University. He made significant
contributions to the philosophy of law and political philosophy. Ronald
Darking's political philosophy is consistent with his legal ideas. ‘Unless
political power treats citizens equally, they have no rights. They should
give equal status to everyone, "he said. Darking advocates a freedom in
which the right to equality is the highest political principle.
According to Darking, there seems to be a conflict between the right to
equality and the right to freedom. But that is n ot the case. Equality is the
basis of civil and political freedom. As is the right to equality It is
doubtful whether there is a right to freedom. Everyone has the right to
equality. Everyone has the right to equality, regardless of caste, creed
or ethnici ty, rich or poor,
educated or uneducated. Everyone is expected to be treated equally. The
right to equality and the right to freedom are compromised. Everyone is
expected to receive equal treatment, and this is their right.
Dorking makes a difference in re source equality. According to him,
resources are of two types. 1. External resources and 2. Internal
resources. External resources are social and economic. They are outside
the personality of the person, while the internal resources are within the
personal ity of the person. Natural talent or physical fitness as well as
mental toughness are internal resources. Internal resources are useful for
balancing one's personality and thinking process in adverse situations,
while external resources are useful for leading one's life in an emergency
situation. In any of these adverse situations, the individual tries to
maintain a balance at the social and mental level by using the right
amount of internal and external resources.
Sarvodaya: -
Mahatma Gandhi was an idealist ic thinker and politician. Along with
idealism, Gandhiji was also a pragmatist. Gandhiji had traveled all over
India on the occasion of India's freedom struggle. He was of the view that
development of all should be achieved in our country, which is at the
lowest level of society, its development should be given priority. With
this in mind, he gave India independence on 15th August 1947.
The philosophies of John Ruskin Thoto and Tolstoy have a special
influence on the thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi says that Ruskin's
book 'Unto This Last' gave us a new vision. Ruskin has built his ideology
on the idea that the fruits of development should reach the last element of
society. He was of the opinion that the progress made in human society
should reach the last man in the society.
Definition of Sarvodaya:
The word Sarvodaya is a collective word of all and Uday. It means Uplist
or Development of All. Sarvodaya means welfare of all, service to all. One munotes.in
Page 36
Political Philosophy
36 of the meanings of this is the socialist co -operative society meant by
Gandhi.
According to Gandhi, the rise of all in the society should be at the same
time and the benefit of social progress should be given to all at once.
Principles of Sarvodaya:
The idealistic social structure in Gandhiji's dream is Sarvodaya.
The principles of Sarvodaya can be stated as follows.
1. Ideal society for the welfare of all: -
Sarvodaya philosophy is a society that thinks of the welfare or interest of
all in the society. According to the economic attainment of the society, it is
classifie d as poor class, middle class and rich or affluent class. The
utilitarian ideology thinks of the happiness of the officers. But the
Sarvodaya ideology does not think of the welfare of a particular class, but
of the welfare of all.
2. Society without state: -
According to Mahatma Gandhi, a stateless society should be established.
Even if the state is welfare state, penalties have to be used to achieve the
objectives of the welfare state. According to Gandhiji, the state is a tool
for personal development. Sarvod aya will be a non-violent neo-society.
Everyone in this society will voluntarily obey the law. So the state will
not be needed in the Sarvodaya society.
3. Decentralization and Constitution Ramrajya
Mahatma Gandhiji awarded the Panchayat State. In ancient tim es there
were small village kingdoms. In the same way, in modern times, there is
a village kingdom. Gandhiji uses the words Gramrajya and Ramrajya
synonymously. Of wealth and power in the state
Centralization will not be in the hands of specific characters or specific
individuals. In the consumer state, our economic and social problems
must be solved at the local level. People in rural areas should exercise
political power. In order for true democracy to be established, the people
should rule at the distric t, state and central levels. Each village will be a
small state.
4. Emphasis on End means parity:
Special importance is given to the suggestion of simple tools in
governance. The money required for good governance in the rural areas
should not be made availab le in a bad way, both the means and the
means should be valid.
5. Bhudana Property Donation (Bhudana):
In our country, there is a contradictory picture of large land grants and
geometry. On the one hand there is more land, so there is waste, while on
the othe r hand there is no land of one's own for subsistence. So, through
Sarvodaya philosophy, Sarvodaya activists like Vinoba Bhave got lands munotes.in
Page 37
Equality
37 and donated them to the landless by changing the minds of the land
donation class and keeping as much land as you need and donating the
surplus land.
A) Merits of Sarvodaya:
Sarvodaya is an idealistic ideology. The advantages of this system are as
follows.
I) Non-violent society Violence has no place in the Sarvodaya system.
II) State is not required. Since state power originates fro m penal power,
there is no need for a state system called Sarvodaya. In Sarvodaya,
people will be autonomous. There is self-government, there is no
need for external control.
III) Decentralization of rights Sarvodaya will have decentralization of
community admi nistration. So there is no question of influencing
anyone.
B) Demerit of Sarvodaya:
Sarvodaya is a way of life. The ascetic greats like Mahatma Gandhi,
Jayaprakash Narayan, Vinoba Bhave had expressed optimism that India
too could have a society based on ideal ism so that the faults of foreign
powers that ruled India for a long time would not penetrate into Indian
society. He also supported them. This ideology is certainly acceptable as
a philosophy of humanism. Nevertheless, critics of Sarvodaya have
pointed ou t the following flaws in this ideology.
1. Though the Sarvodaya ideology is based on the supreme values of
truth, non - violence, justice, it cannot be put into practice. The nature
of all men the above principles are not useful for one's own welfare
due to being selfish by nature, then who will accept them?
2. In order to live according to the Sarvodaya ideology, a high level of
spiritual and moral progress of the society and the individual is
required. Since both these things are lacking in the society, the
creation of Sarvodaya Samaj is a daydream.
3. The Sarvodaya ideology opposes politics based on partisanship in
society. In democratic countries, partisan politics is the need of the
hour. We can control politics and democracy based on party system.
3.3 SUMMARY
Equality is when people have the same apportunities, social status and
rights. The core principle of equality is that people should not be treated
differently on the basis of any identity with which they identify of which
is ascribed to them, including their race, gender, identity, class, language,
religion, age, national origin, birth status, disability and so forth.
Sarvodayameans, progress of all or ‘Universal uplift’. Mahatma Gandhi
started this sarvodaya movement and people consider it an addition to hi s
efforts in his non -violence movement. The main objective of this event
was to establish a new India based on non -violence and love. munotes.in
Page 38
Political Philosophy
38 3.4 QUESTIONS
1) What is equality? Explain the types of equality.
2) Issustrate the Dworkin ’s view on equality of resources.
3) Define sarvodaya. Discuss the principles of Sarvodaya.
4) Discuss the merits and demerits of Sarvodaya.
Short Notes.
a) Equality
b) Ethical equality
c) Sarvodaya
d) Proportional equality
munotes.in
Page 39
39 4
JUSTICE
Unit Structure :
4.0 Objective
4.1 Introductio n
4.2 Plato : Justice as Preservation
4.3 John Rawls
4.4 Robert Nozick and Theory of Justice
4.5 Self-Ownership, Individual Rights, And The Minimal State
4.6 Critique Of Distributive Justice And Entitlement Theory Of Justice
4.7 Dr. Ambedkar Theory Of Justice
4.8 Summary
4.9 Questions
4.0 OBJECTIVE
After stydying the unit you will be able.
To understand the concept of justice.
To know justice as fairness, as advocated by John Rawls.
To be familiar with notion of social Justice as propounded by Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar.
To know justice as quality of soul as advocated by Plato.
To know the Theory justice according to Robert Nozick.
To Entitiement theory of justice.
To aware of salf ownership Individual rights as well the minimal state.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Justice is the philosophical perticulerly ethical idea that people are to be
treated impartally, fairy, properly and reasonably. Justice is important to
almost everyone. It is obviously opposite of arbitrariness.
Justice has been subject to philosophical, legal and theological reflection
and debate throughout history. A number of important questions munotes.in
Page 40
Political Philosophy
40 surrounding justice have been fiercely debated over the course of Western
history.
Plato used the Greek work. “Dikaisyne” f or justice which comes near to
‘morality’. For Gandhiji, Action alone is just.” The wrote “Which does not
harm either party to a dispute.” Aristotle’s discussions of the virtue of
justice has been the starting point for almost all western accounts. In its
broadest sense, Justice is the concept that individuals are to be treated in a
manner that is equitable and fair. Justice has been a moral value
irrespective to time and space that is region. So it is considered. As
universal moral value.
4.2 PLATO : JUSTI CE AS PRESERVATION
Plato in his philosophy gives very important place to the idea of justice.
He used the Greek word "Dikaisyne" for justice which comes very near to
the work 'morality' or 'righteousness', it properly includes within it the
whole duty of m an. It also covers the whole field of the individual's
conduct in so far as it affects others. Plato contended that justice is the
quality of soul, in virtue of which men set aside the irrational desire to
taste every pleasure and to get a selfish satisfac tion out of every object and
accommodated themselves to the discharge of a single function for the
general benefit.
Plato was highly dissatisfied with the prevailing degenerating conditions
in Athens. The Athenian democracy was on the verge of ruin and was
ultimately responsible for Socrates death. Plato saw in justice the only
remedy of saving Athens from decay and ruin, for nothing agitated him in
contemporary affairs more than amateurishness and political selfishness
which was rampant in Athens of his d ay in particular and in the entire
Greek world in general. In additional, Sophistic teaching of the ethics of
self-satisfaction resulted in the excessive individualism also induced the
citizens to capture the office of the State for their own selfish purpo se and
eventually divided "Athens in to two hostile camps of rich and poor,
oppressor and oppressed. "Evidently, these two factors amateur and
excessive individualism became main targets of Plato's attack. The attack
came in the form of the construction of an ideal society in which "Justice"
reigned supreme, since Plato found in justice the remedy for curing these
evils. Thus, we are to inquire in this study the nature of justice as
prepounded by Plato as a fundamental principle of well -order society.
Plato ’s views can conveniently be grouped under three headings – The
class system, Property and the family and the Philosopher ruler.
The class system - In The Republic ( 415a), Plato explains the origin of
the three classes with the help of the myth. The myth first states that the
guardians are reared and formed from the earth and thus they all respect
and cherish their native land. Secondly, the myth talks of the fact that
when God was molding the human beings he put gold in the rulers, silver
in the auxiliari es and bronze in the farmer and craftsmen. Their different
capacities are innate and they are intimately attached. The rulers exercise munotes.in
Page 41
Justice
41 supreme authority in the state to rule. The guardians and the auxiliaries
discharge military and executive duties under t he orders of the Rulers.
Everything that the ruler does is good for the community and the last class
has to merely fulfill the physical needs of the community. They have to
refrain from participating in the workings of the State.
Plato believed that any so ciety to some extent is bound to show some
economic groupings, a need for a professional army and all societies will
have someone to give the order and someone to execute the order. The real
reason for bringing about this change is to promote the aristocra cy of
talent.
The three class distinction corresponds to the tripartite division of the soul.
(428b -434d). The rational part of the soul filed with knowledge and
wisdom is the Ruler Class. The other part is the one who does good,
without the real knowledge of what is good and this would be the auxiliary
class. Lastly, the last class is the one that is involved in doing nothing else
but satisfying the physical needs. Plato at length discusses that the State
that he will form will have the four cardinal virtu es – wisdom, courage,
discipline and justice. The State possesses wisdom because of the
knowledge possessed by the Rulers, courage because of the group of
auxiliaries and of self discipline because of the harmony of all three
classes. Justice will be the p rinciple followed throughout, in each group
doing their own function; what they are most suited to do.
Property and the family – after establishing the three -tier system of the
society, the life of the guardians and auxiliaries will have to be drawn out.
After establishing this 3 tier structure of the society the life of the
guardians and auxiliaries is drawn out. The rulers lead a life of simplicity
without private property or family life etc. the happiness of both would lie
in the service to the community for it is the happiness of the community as
a whole which is the main objective. The auxiliaries must be armed when
guided by the rulers. They must be like sheep, dogs, gentle and forbearing
to their flock but fierce towards enemies. This will be ensured by their
education which would give them rigorous physical and mental training.
No private property beyond bare essentials of free access between houses,
basic rationing and common messes would be provided. They were not
allowed to possess any kind of weal th and they must in no way harm the
State.
The guardian should be trained for defense and internal security. They
must all the times be ready to place the city s interest before their own.
For this purpose from early childhood they
would be tested for resistance to violence and persuasion and beguilement
of pleasures and fears. Those who succeed would be given authority and
honour. They would be called guardian in full sense and their function
would be to defend the state against enemies. After abolishing all family
life (449b - 466d) for the rulers and auxiliaries he had been asked in greater
detail to elaborate on the community of wives and children. He said tha t
the status of women in the community would be the same as men except munotes.in
Page 42
Political Philosophy
42 for the fact that men would be able to discharge their duties better. If men
and women were to lead the same lives, the family must be abolished. But
the sex instincts would have to be satisfied and new citizens would have to
be born. Thus Plato substituted eugenic kind of breeding instead of the
family system analogous to that of breeding animals.
There would be mating festivals where appropriate couple would mate and
their children would be taken care of in State nurseries. All this will get rid
of the distracting loyalties, affection and interests of the family system.
This would ensure unconditional service to the State.
The Philosopher Ruler (474c -479e) – The ruler would be a philoso pher
who would love wisdom in the widest sense, including specially learning,
knowledge and truth. Here he brings in his theory of Forms to explain the
knowledge that the ruler possesses, different from the knowledge of the
sensible. The philosopher would possess this knowledge while others
possess the knowledge of the beliefs and opinions. The philosopher mind
is that which apprehends all Goodness and he alone can rule the state. He
alone had the pattern of good in his soul and thus he alone could make the
State approximate to the Realities. He alone can detach himself from
particulars and rule the community in an infallible fashion. The other
communities were expected to submit themselves to the rulers and follow
his heed and commands and advice without an d questioning because the
philosopher ruler having knowledge of Forms, would know the best.
Justice is thus a sort of specialization. It is simply the will to fulfill the
duties of one's station and not to meddle with the duties of another station,
and its habitation is, therefore, in the mind of every citizen who does his
duties in his appointed place. It is the original principle, laid down at the
foundation of the State, "that one man should practice one thing only and
that the thing to which his nature was best adopted". True justice to Plato,
therefore, consists in the principle of non-interference. The State has been
considered by Plato as a perfect whole in which each individual which is
its element, functions not for itself but for the health of the whole. Every
element fulfils its appropriate function. Justice in the platonic state would,
therefore, be like that harmony of relationship where the Planets are held
together in the orderly movement. Plato was convinced that a society
which is so organize d is fit for survival. Where man are out of their natural
places, there the co-ordination of parts is destroyed, the society
disintegrates and dissolves. Justice, therefore, is the citizen sense of duties.
Justice is, for Plato, at once a part of human vir tue and the bond, which
joins man together in society. It is the identical quality that makes good
and social . Justice is an order and duty of the parts of the soul, it is to the
soul as health is to the body. Plato says that justice is not mere strength,
but it is a harmonious strength. Justice is not the right of the stronger but
the effective harmony of the whole. All moral conceptions revolve about
the good of the whole -individual as well as social. munotes.in
Page 43
Justice
43 4.3 JOHN RAWLS
Neo-Liberalist John Rawls s in the chapter III and chapter VII of his book
„Theory of Justice , attempts to bring back the theories of liberalism
which had suffered contempt at the hands of the logical positivists and
answers the central questions on rights through a complex theor y of
primary goods and an argument from the original position.
He rejects the idea that the notion of good is goal dependent, he argues
that it is possible to define a set of primary goods which are wanted by
any person whatever their notion of good may be. In a pluralistic society it
will be possible to come to a consensus on a certain notion of good and
this is the thin goods while a particular plan needing particular gods will
differ and thus they would be classified thick theory of goods. These thick
gods differ but but not the necessary goods such as rights, liberties,
opportunities, power, income, wealth, self -worth etc needed for executing
the plan. Now once this is done what is required merely is a principle of
distribution of these goods. To answer this issue he draws a contractual
conception of the original position and the veil of ignorance. In this an
individual would conceive of ones on self as a potential constructor of a
mythical just future society and all this while that individual would be
ignorant of all social and economical positions within the society. From
this original position Rawls believes that the response of the rational
person would be to secure only 2 basic principles of justice.
a) Schedule and protection of basic rights i.e. liberty of conscience and
movement, freedom of religion etc.
b) Equality of opportunity.
The former can be secured only when the institution of a state is neutral
with regard to any theory of thick goods that its citizens may be pursuing.
3 things are essential for the functioning of a value neutral state.
1) Reasonableness among individuals coming from different
backgrounds.
2) Overlapping consensus to bridge the gap between cultures and to allow
a diverse field governing lawmaking etc.
3) Autonomy of the citizens of the s tates in public sphere by invoking the
idea of public reason. The latter that is equality of opportunity can be
assured with the enforcement of the maxim „no distribution of resources
which in such a state ca occur unless it benefits the least well off.
This version of a liberal democrat state does attempt the problem
mentioned earlier in the sense that no longer does there exist a savage state
of nature which suddenly matures into a contractual state. Here there is
only a hypothetical original position and the state does not play a mere
negative role of restraint, rather it makes a positive impact in terms of
being redistributively just and thus ensuring rights and opportunities. The
individual does not literally submit to the contract rather this is a liberal munotes.in
Page 44
Political Philosophy
44 state which hopes to incorporate the life plans of many cultures under one
roof.
But does this satisfactorily bridge the gap between the original position of
ignorance to that of a state of philantrophy and concern for social well
being. Illusioned by the veil of ignorance how will the rational individual
see the good of others – will the ignorance never misguide them in judging
the good of others?
Rawls Theory of Good vs. Right
A person's good is that which is needed for the successful execution of a
rational long- term plan of life (thick or primary goods)given reasonably
favorable circumstances.
Liberty
Opportunity
Income
Wealth
Self-respect
"The good is the satisfaction of rational desire." (Theory of Justice Section
15)
Each person has his or he r own plan of life - what is good may vary. Right
is set down in the social contract, the same for everyone, influenced by the
"veil of ignorance." Rawls specializes the concept of something's being
right as it being fair.
Principles of Justice
First Princ iple: Liberty
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of
equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Second Principle: Wealth
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they a re both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just
savings principle, and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity.
Representative persons: prototypical members of any identifiable group
(e.g., women, high school students, citizens of Haiti, etc.).
Efficiency: any re-arrangement in which every representative person gains
is more efficient. munotes.in
Page 45
Justice
45 Difference principle: in order for any change to be accepted as an
improvement, it must help the least advantaged representative person.
Priority Rules
Rawls explicitly addresses the fact that there will be situations where these
two primary principles will be in conflict with each other. Rather than
compromise between them in such cases, he takes the position that there is
a specific priority.
The Priority of Justice over Efficiency and Welfare
The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the efficiency and to
that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to
the difference principle.There are two cases:
(a) an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities of those
with the lesser opportunity;
(b) an excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of
those bearing this hardship.
The Differe nce Principle :
"The difference principle is a strongly egalitarian conception in the sense
that unless there is a distribution that makes both persons better off
(limiting ourselves to the two -person case for simplicity), an equal
distribution is to be pr eferred
In other words, there should be no differences except those that can be
justified on grounds of efficiency.
The Veil of Ignorance
Rawls supposes that a (virtual) committee of rational but not envious
persons will exhibit mutual disinterest in a situation of moderate scarcity as
they consider the concept of right:
1. general in form
2. universal in application
3. publicly recognized
4. final authority
5. prioritizes conflicting claims
Rawls claims that rational people will unanimously adopt his principles of
justic e if their reasoning is based on general considerations, without
knowing anything about their own personal situation. Such personal
knowledge might tempt them to select principles of justice that gave them
unfair advantage - rigging the rules of the game. This procedure of
reasoning without personal biases Rawls refers to as "The Veil of
Ignorance." munotes.in
Page 46
Political Philosophy
46 In his famous theory of justice, the philosopher John Rawls asks us to
imagine a social contract drawn up by self -interested agents negotiating
under a veil of ignorance, unaware of the talents or status they will inherit
at birth --ghosts ignorant of the machines they will haunt. He argues that a
just society is one that these disembodied souls would agree to be born
into, knowing that they might be dealt a lousy social or genetic hand. If
you agree that this is a reasonable conception of justice, and that the
agents would insist on a broad social safety net and redistributive taxation
(short of eliminating incentives that make everyone better off), then you
can j ustify compensatory social policies even if you think differences in
social status are 100 percent genetic . The policies would be,
quite literally, a matter of justice, not a consequence of the
indistinguishability of individuals.
Natural Duties and Obliga tions
Support just institutions
Mutual respect
Mutual aid
Do no harm
Do your fair share
Be faithful (keep your promises)
Possible Problems
Stability
Envy
Priority of liberty depends on "progress."
Self-respect vs. material goods
Is justice a zero -sum game?
Bibligraphy
"Distributive Justice." In Peter Laslett and W. G. Runciman, eds.,
Philosophy, Politics, and Society. Third Series, pp. 58 -82. London:
Blackwell; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1967.
"Two Concepts of Rules." In Philippa Foot, ed., Theories of Ethic s,
pp. 144 -170. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. London: Oxford
University Press, 1967.
"Justice as Fairness." In Wilfrid Sellars and John Hospers, eds.,
Readings in Ethical Theory. 2d ed., pp. 578 -595. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice -Hall, 1970. munotes.in
Page 47
Justice
47 4.4 ROBERT NOZICK AND THEORY OF JUSTICE
Robert Nozick in fact sees more problems with Rawl s theory. In the
chapter on „The Minimal State and the Ultraminimal State , which occurs
in his book „Anarchy, State and Utopia his chief complaint against
Rawls is tha t his type of government is politically unjustified. Like the
classical liberalists Rawls too is making his state co -ersive. His principle
of distribution and redistribution donot lay down any justifications as to
why any individual must submit to it.
Nozi ck would probably believe that Rawls theory is not an improvement
over the oppressive contract theories as they both face the consequence of
making the individual submissive in the pretex of protecting their rights.
Nozick s „Entitlement Theory ( 107) is based on the idea that only free
market exchanges respect people as equal. Even if a free market did not for
instance, produce the most overall well being I Nozick s view this is
permissible. He calls it a historical theory of justice which is opposed to
the end state theory of justice. His theory takes a look at the historical facts
about how some pattern of distribution was arrived at to determine
whether the society arranged in that pattern is just or not. According to
Nozick the only question of distribution that matters is whether the holder
of the goods acquired those goods by legitimate means. If the answer is
yes, then the distribution is just; and of course if this is all that is to justice
then Fair opportunity and difference principle does not matter. Nozick
thinks that liberty has got to involve the right to retain any good acquired
through legitimate means. Nozick, thus as mentioned earlier is advocating
an unrestricted free market capitalism.
Nozick puts forward the self ownership argument which is based on the
Kantian principle of people being ends in themselves. Human beings have
the ability to direct their own behavior by rational decision and choice and
thus they can be used only in the way that respects this capacity of theirs
i.e. people cannot be used without their consent. Since people own
themselves they also own their own talents, capacities and the products
which is a result of abilities. A patterned distribution like Rawls allows
people to own he produc ts of others talents and thus his principle must be
disregarded.
Nozick s theory seems to rest on 3 principles –
1) Holdings freely acquired from others who had initially acquired them
in a just way legitimate and uphold the principle of liberty.
2) Acquisition principle which state that patrons are entitled to holdings
initially a cquired in a just way. Nozick re -interprets the Lockean
proviso to mean that if initial acquisition does not make anyone worse
off who was using the resource before, then it is justly acquired.
Hence, A can even entirely appropriate available unowned resou rces
as long as A offers B, who was using the resource before, access to it,
to the extent that B is not made worse off by A's appropriation. B can munotes.in
Page 48
Political Philosophy
48 become a sharecropper for instance, or just a laborer, for A, earning a
wage that keeps him at least as well off as he was before A's
appropriation. But since the resource is now A's, the terms of their
agreement is completely within A's hands.
3) Rectification principle – if either of the two principles is violated it can
be rectified by a one time distribution ac cording to the difference
principles.
Now would this kind of liberalism really protect liberty? Leaving
distribution only to free market is very likely to result in vast inequalities
between rich and poor. Since economic means partly determine how many
opportunities are available to person, and since what opportunities
somehow determine what they are at liberty to do, economic means
determines how much liberty someone has.
4.5 SELF -OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, AND
THE MINIMAL STATE
Nozick takes his positio n to follow from a basic moral principle associated
with Immanuel Kant and enshrined in Kant's second formulation of his
famous Categorical Imperative: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether
in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a
means only." The idea here is that a human being, as a rational agent
endowed with self - awareness, free will, and the possibility of formulating
a plan of life, has an inherent dignity and cannot properly be treated as a
mere thing, or used against his will as an instrument or resource in the
way an inanimate object might be.
In line with this, Nozick also describes individual human beings as self -
owners (though it isn't clear whether he regards this as a restatement of
Kant s principle, a consequence of it, or an entirely independent idea).
The thesis of self -ownership, a notion that goes back in political
philosophy at least to John Locke, is just the claim that individuals own
themselves - their bodies, talents and abiliti es, labor, and by extension the
fruits or products of their exercise of their talents, abilities and labor. They
have all the prerogatives with respect to themselves that a slaveholder
claims with respect to his slaves. But the thesis of self -ownership wou ld in
fact rule out slavery as illegitimate, since each individual, as a self -owner,
cannot properly be owned by anyone else. (Indeed, many libertarians
would argue that unless one accepts the thesis of self - ownership, one has
no way of explaining why sla very is evil. After all, it cannot be merely
because slaveholders often treat their slaves badly, since a kind -hearted
slaveholder would still be a slaveholder, and thus morally blameworthy,
for that. The reason slavery is immoral must be because it involv es a kind
of stealing - the stealing of a person from himself.)
But if individuals are inviolable ends -in-themselves (as Kant describes
them) and self -owners, it follows, Nozick says, that they have certain
rights, in particular (and here again following Locke) rights to their lives,
liberty, and the fruits of their labor. To own something, after all, just is to munotes.in
Page 49
Justice
49 have a right to it, or, more accurately, to possess the bundle of rights -
rights to possess something, to dispose of it, to determine what may be
done with it, etc. - that constitute ownership; and thus to own oneself is to
have such rights to the various elements that make up one's self. These
rights function, Nozick says, as side -constraints on the actions of others;
they set limits on how others may, morally speaking, treat a person. So,
for example, since you own yourself, and thus have a right to yourself,
others are constrained morally not to kill or maim you (since this would
involve destroying or damaging your property), or to kidnap you or
forcibly remove one of your bodily organs for transplantation in someone
else (since this would involve
stealing your property). They are also constrained not to force you against
your will to work for another's purposes, even if those purposes are good
ones. For if you own yourself, it follows that you have a right to determine
whether and how you will use your self -owned body and its powers, e.g.
either to work or to refrain from working.
So far this all might seem fairly uncontroversial. But what follows from it,
in Nozick's view, is the surprising and radical conclusion that taxation, of
the redistributive sort in which modern states engage in order to fund the
various programs of the bureaucratic welfare state, is morally illegitimate.
It amounts to a ki nd of forced labor, for the state so structures the tax
system that any time you labor at all, a certain amount of your labor time -
the amount that produces the wealth taken away from you forcibly via
taxation - is time you involuntarily work, in effect, for the state. Indeed,
such taxation amounts to partial slavery, for in giving every citizen an
entitlement to certain benefits (welfare, social security, or whatever), the
state in effect gives them an entitlement, a right, to a part of the proceeds
of yo ur labor, which produces the taxes that fund the benefits; every
citizen, that is, becomes in such a system a partial owner of you (since
they have a partial property right in part of you, i.e. in your labor). But this
is flatly inconsistent with the princ iple of self -ownership.
The various programs of the modern liberal welfare state are thus
immoral, not only because they are inefficient and incompetently
administered, but because they make slaves of the citizens of such a state.
Indeed, the only sort of state that can be morally justified is what Nozick
calls a minimal state or "night -watchman" state, a government which
protects individuals, via police and military forces, from force, fraud, and
theft, and administers courts of law, but does nothing else. In particular,
such a state cannot regulate what citizens eat, drink, or smoke (since this
would interfere with their right to use their self-owned bodies as they see
fit), cannot control what they publish or read (since this would interfere
with their ri ght to use the property they've acquired with their self -owned
labor - e.g. printing presses and paper - as they wish), cannot administer
mandatory social insurance schemes or public education (since this would
interfere with citizens' rights to use the fr uits of their labor as they desire,
in that some citizens might decide that they would rather put their money
into private education and private retirement plans), and cannot regulate
economic life in general via minimum wage and rent control laws and the munotes.in
Page 50
Political Philosophy
50 like (since such actions are not only economically suspect - tending to
produce bad unintended consequences like unemployment and housing
shortages - but violate citizens' rights to charge whatever they want to for
the use of their own property).
The state , it is held (by, for instance, Rawls and his followers), simply
must engage in redistributive taxation in order to ensure that a fair
distribution of wealth and income obtains in the society it governs.
Nozick's answer to this objection constitutes his "e ntitlement theory" of
justice.
4.6 CRITIQUE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AND
ENTITLEMENT THEORY OF JUSTICE
Talk about "distributive justice" is inherently misleading, Nozick argues,
in that it seems to imply that there is some central authority who
"distributes " to individuals shares of wealth and income that pre -exist the
distribution, as if they had appeared like "manna from heaven." Of course
this is not really the way such shares come into existence, or come to be
"distributed," at
all; in fact they come to be, and come to be held by the individuals who
hold them, only through the scattered efforts and transactions of these
innumerable individuals themselves, and these individuals' efforts and
transactions give them a moral claim over these shares. Talk about the
"distribution of wealth" covers this up, and unjustifiably biases most
discussions of distributive justice in a socialist or egalitarian liberal
direction.
A more adequate theory of justice would in Nozick's view enumerate three
principles of justice in holdings. The first would be a principle of justice in
acquisition, that is, the appropriation of natural resources that no one has
ever owned before. The best -known such principle, some version of which
Nozick seems to endorse, is the one enshrined in Locke's theory of
property, according to which a person (being a self -owner) owns his labor,
and by "mixing his labor" with a previously unowned part of the natural
world (e.g. by whittling a stick found in a forest into a spear) thereby
comes to own it. T he second principle would be a principle of justice in
transfer, governing the manner in which one might justly come to own
something previously owned by another. Here Nozick endorses the
principle that a transfer of holdings is just if and only if it is voluntary, a
principle that would seem to follow from respect for a person's right to use
the fruits of the exercise of his self -owned talents, abilities, and labor as he
sees fit. The final principle would be a principle of justice in rectification,
govern ing the proper means of setting right past injustices in acquisition
and transfer.
Anyone who got what he has in a manner consistent with these three
principles would, Nozick says, accordingly be entitled to it - for, his
having abided by these principles, no one has any grounds for complaint
against him. This gives us Nozick's entitlement theory of distributive munotes.in
Page 51
Justice
51 justice: a distribution of wealth obtaining in a society as a whole is a just
distribution if everyone in that society is entitled to what he has, i.e. has
gotten his holdings in accordance with the principles of acquisition,
transfer, and rectification. And it is therefore just however equal or
unequal it happens to be, and indeed however "fair" or "unfair" it might
seem intuitively to be.
Standard theories of distributive justice, Nozick says, are either ahistorical
"end-state" or “end - result” theories, requiring that the distribution of
wealth in a society have a certain structure, e.g. an egalitarian structure
(regardless of how the distribution came about or how people got what
they have); or they are historical theories requiring that the distribution fit
a certain pattern reflecting such historical circumstances as who worked
the hardest or who deserves the most.
The entitlement theory of justi ce is historical yet unpatterned: The justice
of a distribution is indeed determined by certain historical circumstances
(contrary to end -state theories), but it has nothing to do with fitting any
pattern guaranteeing that those who worked the hardest or are most
deserving have the most shares. What matters is only that people get what
they have in a manner consistent with the three principles of justice in
holdings, and this is fully compatible with some people having much more
than others, unlucky hard wo rkers having less than lazier but luckier ones,
morally repulsive individuals having higher incomes than saints, and so
forth.
Nozick illustrates and defends the entitlement theory in a famous thought -
experiment involving the basketball player Wilt Chamber lain. Imagine a
society in which the distribution of wealth fits a particular structure or
pattern favored by a non -entitlement conception of justice - suppose, to
keep things simple, that it is an equal distribution, and call it D1. Nozick's
opponent must of course grant that this distribution is just, since Nozick
has allowed the opponent himself to determine it. Now suppose that
among the members of this society is Wilt Chamberlain, and that
he has as a condition of his contract with his team that he wil l play only if
each person coming to see the game puts twenty -five cents into a special
box at the gate of the sports arena, the contents of which will go to him.
Suppose further that over the course of the season, one million fans decide
to pay the twenty -five cents to watch him play. The result will be a new
distribution, D2, in which Chamberlain now has $250,000, much more
than anyone else - a distribution which thereby breaks the original pattern
established in D1. Now, is D2 just? Is Chamberlain entitl ed to his money?
The answer to these questions, Nozick says, is clearly "Yes." For everyone
in D1 was, by hypothesis, entitled to what he had; there is no injustice in
the starting point that led up to D2. Moreover, everyone who gave up
twenty -five cents i n the transition from D1 to D2 did so voluntarily, and
thus has no grounds for complaint; and those who did not want to pay to
see Chamberlain play still have their twenty -five cents, so they have no
grounds for complaint either. But then no one has any grounds for a
complaint of injustice; and thus there is no injustice. munotes.in
Page 52
Political Philosophy
52 What this shows, in Nozick's view, is that all non-entitlement theories of
justice are false. For all such theories claim that it is a necessary condition
for a distribution's being just t hat it have a certain structure or fit a certain
pattern; but the Wilt Chamberlain example (which can be reformulated so
that D1 is, instead of an egalitarian distribution, a distribution according to
hard work, desert, or whatever) shows that a distributi on (such as D2) can
be just even if it doesn't have a particular structure or pattern.
Moreover, the example shows that "liberty upsets patterns," that allowing
individuals freely to use their holdings as they choose will inevitably
destroy any distributio n advocated by non - entitlement theories, whether
they be socialist, egalitarian liberal, or some other theory of distribution.
And the corollary of this is that patterns destroy liberty, that attempts to
enforce a particular distributional pattern or stru cture over time will
necessarily involve intolerable levels of coercion, forbidding individuals
from using the fruits of their talents, abilities, and labor as they see fit. As
Nozick puts it, "the socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts
between consenting adults." This is not merely a regrettable side -effect of
the quest to attain a just distribution of wealth; it is a positive injustice, for
it violates the principle of self-ownership.
Distributive justice, properly understood, thus does no t require a
redistribution of wealth; indeed, it forbids such a redistribution.
Accordingly, the minimal state, far from being inconsistent with the
demands of distributive justice, is in fact the only sure means of securing
those demands.
4.7 DR. AMBEDKAR THEORY OF JUSTICE
Select Works of Dr. Ambedkar
1) The untouchables; who were they? and Why they became
Untouchables
2) Who were the Shudras and why they came to be fourth in the Indo –
Aryan society?
3) Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of the Untouchables
4) The Buddh a and his Dhamma (the last work of Dr. Ambedkar)
QUOTATIONS
Following are the statements made by Ambedkar which reveal his fearless
spirit and provocating ideas that led to the mobilization of the
‘Untouchables’.
“… There is no place for an individual in Hindu society. The Hindu
religion is constituted of a class concept. Hindu religion does not teach
how an individual should behave with another
individual. A religion that does not teach this is not personally acceptable
to me…”
-- Speech at Mahad Satyagrah a munotes.in
Page 53
Justice
53 “ … I tell you very specifically; Religion is for man and not man for
Religion. To get human treatment convert yourself. Convert for getting
organized. Convert for becoming strong Convert for securing equality.
Convert for getting liberty. Convert so tha t your domestic life may be
happy.”
-- Concluding lines of the speech at Mahad Satyagraha
“…I prefer Buddhism because it gives three principles in combination
which no other religion does. Buddhism teaches Prajna (understanding as
against superstition and supernaturalism), Karuna (love) and Samanta
(equality). This is what man wants for a good and happy life.”
-- Buddha and his Dhamma
“My heart breaks to see the pitiable sight of your faces and to hear your
sad voices. You have been groaning from times imme morial and yet you
are not ashamed to hug your helplessness as
an inevitability… why do you worsen the and sadden the picture of the
sorrows, poverty, slavery, and the burdens of your life with the deplorable,
despicable and detestable miserable life? As a matter of fact it is your
birthright to get food, shelter and clothing in this land in equal proportion
with every individual high or low. If you believe in leading a respectable
life you believe in self
– help which is the best help…”
-- Speech at Mahad Satyagraha
“Unfortunately I was born a Hindu. It was beyond my power to prevent
that, but I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu”
-- Speech at Mahad Satyagraha
THEORY OF JUSTICE - DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR
OUTLINE References
1) Background and influenc es 1) Dr.B.R. Ambedkar –A Crusader
of social justice Sanjay Prakash
Sharma Vol 1 Chap 1 Vol 2 Chap
7,8
2) a. Impact of Buddhism on Ambedkar b. Ambedkar ‟s Neo – Buddhism 2) Article from Manushi
3) a. Ambedkar ‟s justice ideology
b. Activism of Ambedkar
munotes.in
Page 54
Political Philosophy
54 1) Background and influences :
Dr. Ambedkar was born in Mhow in M.P. near Indore on 14th April 1891.
Born in the community of the untouchables and thus had almost no
identity by the way of religion. In childhood except for some kindness that
he received from his Brahmin teacher, his childhood was generally filled
with experiences of humiliation from his classmates, peons librarians etc.
once when in school he rushed to drink water, the peon asked him to squat
on the ground and cup his hands so that he could pour water, he was not
allowed to drink water from the common cooler, his sister would cut his
hair because the village barber would not be willing to do so, he was
stoned because he had water from the common village well and later in
life had to study in public gardens and not in library!
All these experiences led him to ask the question „Why did the Dalits had
to suffer so much and once he traced the historical, social and religious
reasons he sets on the mission to undo the unjust practices.
Inspite of all odds he completes his Matriculation (was the 1st to do so in
his community) and came to Bombay to do his graduation. There too he
was not allowed to do Sanskrit and had to settle into doing Persian. In fact
all this was possible only because his farther was in the British army. The
British did not recognize any of these caste barriers and were ready to give
education and employment to anyone deserving. It is only because of this
that his father could afford all the education that Ambedkar got. This had a
deep impact on him because he later in his socio political ideology never
looked upon t he British as an enemy, in fact in their policies he sees the
scope of liberation of the untouchables and the unequals.
With the help of his friend, king of Baroda and the British tolerance he
manages to go to the University of Columbia and it is there tha t he gets his
Masters and the Doctorate degree. Even then after returning to India he his
not able to avail of a suitable job because of his caste and this too had a
deep impact on him. He does not lose hope and manages to go to the
London school of Econom ics for his further Degree. When he comes back
he notices how all his education would be a waste as nothing would be
recognized because of his caste.
He realizes that though his country was moving towards freedom from
slavery it was still backward as he ha d left it because of the rigid caste
system.
Influences –
As a child Ambedkar read the Ramayana and the Mahabharata and was
greatly influenced by the characters of Karna and Eklavya. From the
former he learned the capacity to prove oneself inspite of all a dversities.
Karna was rejected by his true mother and brothers and yet with the help
of Duryodhana he proves to be an equally competent warrior.
From Eklavya he learnt the passion of learning and knowledge against all
odds. Eklavya was not taught by the Gu ru because he belonged to the munotes.in
Page 55
Justice
55 lower community,but he observed and was able to learn with precision
what the Guru taught. When his right thumb was cut he was not
demoralized, instead he continued to practice with left hand. This undying
spirit is what inspi red Ambedkar
Apart from this the autocratic caste system of Hinduism too contributed to
him turning to Buddhism. He believed that any kind of equality was not
possible within the Indian set up. Caste system had killed the Indian
system of charity, sympathy . Public opinion had become impossible and
that the caste system meant a deep crippling of the healthy society. Caste
system in fact served as a powerful weapon to curb all kind of reforms and
he believed it was that which brought about separatist tendenci es and
emotions of jealousy and empathy.
He thus turns to Buddhism. It is only in Buddhism that he sees scope for
all kinds of liberation. It is the only religion in his opinion which sees a
combination of Prajna (understanding against superstition and
supernaturalism), Karuna (love) and Samanta (equality).
2) a. Impact of Buddhism on Ambedkar
Ambedkar wrote Buddha and his Dhamma and in a way re interpreted the
ideals of Buddhism. The 4 areas that he explores in his introduction to the
book are the understa ndings of the Buddhist doctrines that he finds a little
problematic.
Buddha could not have been so naïve so as to have only a first
encounter with the old man, sick man and dead man and then be so
deeply affected that he renounces the world. He must have t he
knowledge of things so common to mankind.
The 4 noble truths make Buddhism a gospel of pessimism. If life is so
full of suffering what is the incentive for change?
The doctrine of no soul is not compatible with the notion of rebirth and
law of karma mentioned in the classical liberal texts.
What is the role of the monks in the Buddhist tradition? Is he suppose
to be the Ultimate man seeking liberation or is he suppose to be a social
reformer?
What appealed to him about Buddhism is that it struck a middle path
between the religious orthodoxy on one hand and severe self torture on the
other hand. It was one religion that proposed universal brotherhood and
would abolish caste system. also it aimed to educate the people that the 4
noble truths were enough to attain „liberation , one need not need aids
like temple, priests, rituals etc.
b. Ambedkar s Neo – Buddhism :
Ambedkar consciously reconstructs the chosen religion to meet the needs
of the Dalit community he spoke for. munotes.in
Page 56
Political Philosophy
56 The 1st major reinterpretation that h e talks about is the reason for
Buddha to seek renunciation. The various encounters were not the
reason behind him renouncing the world. In fact it was an escape from
the socio political issues that he was unable to solve. A fued over
water dispute between two communities is what he wanted to settle
and failed in the attempt. This is what made him renounce the world,
he did so not in search of some ultimate truth but because he saw the
unsolvable nature of disputes. This interpretation is what the Dalits
could easily relate to. The crisis that Buddha faced was very much like
the dilemma faced by the politicians of his times and the problem of a
certain community being privileged over the other over use of water is
what they experienced and thus close to thei r heart.
The 2nd is his interpretation of the 4 noble truths. They are – there is
pain in the world, there is cause (desire) for this pain, there is cessation
of pain and there is a way to get out of this suffering. Ambedkar
believed that not everything ca n be traced to desire as the root cause of
all suffering. Also suffering cannot be the first truth, it is too
pessimistic to believe that. Desire cannot be the sole cause as there are
other factors like poverty, social inequality, political crisis etc whic h
too are a cause of suffering, in fact the root cause of suffering. This is
what has been ignored in Buddhism. The only way out or cessation of
it can come about by elimination of all inequalities. The aim of the
eight fold path is to attain Nirvana which is to be understood as a
provocative knowledge of how to remove this suffering and make
mankind happy.
As far as the views on karma, soul and rebirth are concerned,
Ambedkar held the following views. He accepted the no soul doctrine
of Buddhism but believ ed that there is the law of karma and the notion
of rebirth. What he means by karma is the actions of this world. No
action is ever carried forward to the next birth as there exists no
orthodox notion of rebirth. By rebirth what is meant is that the soul i s
reborn with several other individuals. Thus the same soul is never
reborn. This inspired the Dalits to act and believe that there current
state could be changed and is not because of any previous birth. His
aim of arousing sentiments of self help and courage is made prominent
in this -world Karma doctrine.
Lastly the role of the monk according to Ambedkar is not merely to do
social service. Infact he must be a social reformer. He must be
instrumental in radically changing the situation. He must participate
and must be the kind who will remove injustice and create History.
They should be the driving force behind a revolution in mind and
body.
3) a. Ambedkar s social ideology
There is a clear element of anti -Brahmanism that one sees in the ideology
of Ambedkar. He sees no scope for emancipation in the Hindu tradition
and thus turns to Buddhism. He gives the entire social theory an extremely munotes.in
Page 57
Justice
57 religious bias. His notion of Nirvana all are reinterpreted so as to give it a
nature which theoretica lly and practically attainable. In his opinion
political democracy rests on 4 premises.
The individual is an end in himself
The individual has certain unalienable rights which must be guaranteed
to him by the constitution.
No individual must be forced to g ive up any of his rights as a
precondition to the privileges enjoyed by the other communities.
The state should not delegate powers to any special people to govern
them.
b. Social activities of Ambedkar
Dr. Ambedkar was instrumental in bringing about vario us constitutional
and legislative rights for the Untouchables. He was always aware of their
backwardness in education and thus in 1928 he organized the Depressed
Classes Education Society which organized school education for the
people of his community. Th e problem of education was faced with one
more problem. The institutions refused to give admission to the children of
the depressed class and thus Ambedkar had to fight even at this level. In
1923 the British government issued a resolution stating that no grant
would be given to any aided institution if they would discriminate during
admission on the basis of caste and community.
The British had to be very careful in dealing with the religious and castiest
feelings and hence they remained neutral at the sam e time not
discriminating while giving out justice.
Dr. Ambedkar also championed the cause of the women as well as the
depressing and miserable plight of the Scheduled caste and the Scheduled
tribe. At a conference Ambedkar emphasized on the need for women
organizations and their emancipation and believed that there could not be
any progress without their upliftment.
To conclude, Ambedkar s political thought had deep faith in the
fundamental human rights and in the dignity of the individual in social and
economic justice, in the promotion of social progress and better standards
of life.
4.8 SUMMARY
As it is an universal value, ‘justice’ a concept, which has occupied
important space in political philosophy. We have seen above that how
much important has been given by these political philosopher to the
concept. Pato was very dissatisfied with Ath enian Democracy. Acording
to him justice is the only remady to save the Athens from decay and rain.
Justice is for Plato at once a part of human virtue and the bond, which
joins man together in society. munotes.in
Page 58
Political Philosophy
58 Rawls believes that the response of the rational person would be to secure
two principles of justice are liberty of conscience and movement, freedom
of religion and Equality of opportunity But Robert Nozick says, that
Rawls type of government is politically unsatisfied. Nozick has given
answer the problem by his work entitternent “theory of Justice.”
For the sake of justice, Dr. Ambedkar. Preformed Buddhism rather than
where he born –ie Hindusm. He says that he was born hindu but he will
not die a Hindu. He finds Justice in Buddhism and only for that he with
thousands of his people accepted budd hism.
4.9 QUESTIONS
1) What does Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of
ignorance ?
2) Which two kinds of goods are distinguished by Rawls theory ?
3) State the contributions of Dr. Ambedkar towards achiving social
justice.
4) Explain the concept of justice in brief.
5) Elaborate rawls idea of Justice as fairness.
6) Discuss Plato ’s justice as preservation.
7) Elaborate the theory of justice according to Robert Nozic.
Short Notes.
a) The Minimal State
b) Individual Rights
c) Nozick ’s entitlement theory
d) Distributive j ustice
munotes.in