On classic political texts
Part I (40pts): identification; definition; role [4 points for each term/concept), restrict your answers to approx. 7-10 lines for each term/concept] IMPORTANT: telegraphic answers i.e. extremely concise answers are not good enough. An adequate elaboration must showcase your command of the relevant substantive issues [to secure full credit, you will need more than a few words for (2) and (3)!]
For 10 of the following terms/concepts, provide:
- An Identification (1pt)
- A Definition (1.5 pts) the theorists in whose work you encountered them;
- Show what role(s) (1.5 pts) they play in the corresponding arguments[For the sake of neatness, you must clearly separate all three parts of your answer-e.g. (1) Identification, (2) definition, and (3) Role) [Neatness counts: numbering each section of you answer is IMPORTANT; e.g. (1) ID; (2) Definition; (3) Role.]
- Pure state of nature
- Fundamental problem
- Purpose constraint
- Despotism of custom
- Veil of ignorance
- General Will
- Horrible state of war
- Legislative Supremacy
- Faculty of self-perfection
- Tyranny of the majority
- Original position
- Difference principle
- Forced to be free
- Sham contract
- Harm principle
- “Amour de soi” and “Amour propre”
- Lockean Proviso
- Legislative Supremacy
- Alienated labor
- Credits and debits
Part II (30 pts, 10 pts. each):
For three (3) of the excerpts below, read the quotation carefully and provide (I) the author’s name (2 points), (II) a statement of the problem the author addresses in the passage (4 points) and (III) an explanation of the quote’s meaning in your own words (4 points). VERY IMPORTANT: Be sure to include a clear explanation of the underlined portions in your answer while addressing the issues raised in the excerpt.
1-“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind[…] But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it isrobbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation […] If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by collision with error”
2-“Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (difference principle)”
3-“Here is the final stage of inequality, and the extreme point that closes the circle and touches the point from which we started. Here all private individuals become equals again, because they are nothing. And since subjects no longer have any law other than the masters’ will, nor the master any rule other than his passions, the notions of good and the principles of justice again vanish. Here everything is returned solely to the law of the strongest, and consequently to a new state of nature different from the one with which we began, in that the one was the state of nature in its purity, and this last one is the fruit of an excess of corruption.”[…]
“They all ran to chain themselves in the belief that they secured their liberty, for although they had enough sense to realize the advantages of a political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers.Those most capable of anticipating the abuses were precisely those who counted on profiting from them […] Such was, or should have been, the origin of society and laws, which gave new fetters to the weak and new forces to the rich, irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, established forever the law of property and of inequality, changed adroit usurpation into an irrevocable right.”
4– “First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases”
Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for everyone in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men’s”
Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution, They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it”
Part III 30pts:
Write a 5-page essay on ONE of the following topics. Note that your essay should include a clearly identifiable thesis and arguments supporting it. It must have a central idea (stated in your introductory paragraph with a clearly identifiable prompt (e.g. “I argue that… or “My claim is that”, “I contend that”, etc…) that governs its development
NB: (1) Please display the topic of your essay in bold characters
Quotes may not exceed 3 lines (not three sentences!); please keep them short!
1– Rousseau claims that, (1) “…whoever refuses to obey the general will be forced to do so by the entire body…he will be forced to be free”; he also states that (2) “the citizen consents to all the laws, even to those that pass in spite of his opposition, and even to that punish him when he dares to violate any of them.” Do you find such claims compatible with freedom in a democratic society? Why or why not?
2– It has recently come to light that the US government runs a gigantic data collection program that monitors individual communications (phone, internet, etc…) in the hope of disrupting nefarious terrorist activities. Upon hearing that (yeah, they monitored your activities to find out) you have just completed a course on Mill’s defense of individual liberty the government hires you to either (1) write a memo defending its actions or (2) to explain why it should not monitor personal communications. Drawing on John Stuart Mill’s defense of liberty, present an argument that makes a case for or against monitoring individual/private communications to identify and suppress potential threats to national security.
3– Why does the fact that a principle would be selected behind the “veil of ignorance” give us a reason to accept it?
Hint: “[T]he two principles (of justice) are an adequate minimum conception of justice in a situation of great uncertainty. Any further advantages that might be won by the principle of utility are highly problematical, whereas the hardships if things turn out badly are intolerable”. John Rawls
