A Hypothetical Course: PHIL 142: Practical Western Political Philosophy

PHIL 142: Practical Western Political Philosophy

Instructor: Jordan Davis (jordandavis@universityemail.edu)

Class Time: M 4-6 @ GSH 103
Office Hours: MW1-3 @  Jordan Davis' Office

Course Description:
Philosophy is often seen as an obtuse, irrelevant topic of study, reserved for those with too much time and too much money. Philosophers are often seen as not contributing meaningfully to society. This is a false assumption. This course acts as an overview of Western Political Philosophy, from Aristotle to Marx, examining the political philosophies of some of Western Europe's greatest minds, and breaking them down into their practical applications for the lives of the students of the class. The course is split into three parts: Ancient Political Philosophy, Medieval and Renaissance Political Philosophy, and Nineteenth Century Political Philosophy. Students will be expected to read all assigned materials, and write a small essay weekly. Students will be expected to participate in weekly discussions in class about the philosophers being studied. Students will have a cumulative final exam.

Learning Objectives:
1. Students will be able to analyze political philosophy texts and articulate in a concise manner the meaning of the texts.
2. Students will be able to relate the philosophy being studied to their lives.
3. Students will be able to challenge and engage in a discourse about the philosophy studied

Grading:
40% – Attendance and Participation.
40% – Weekly Essays
20% – Final

Class Schedule:

Week 1: The Importance of Balance, Part 1
Aristotle's Ethics

Week 2: Relationships and Responsibilities
Cicero's On the Republic & On Duty

Week 3: The Separation of Church and State
Augustine's City of God

Week 4: The Importance of Variety
Quentin Skinner The Foundations of Modern Political Thought
Leonardo Bruni Panegyric to the City of Florence
Guillaume Budé On the Education of the Prince
Lorenzo Valla Treatise on the Donation of Constantine

Week 5: The Importance of the Practical
Machiavelli's The Prince

Week 6: Resistance is Futile?
Hobbes' Leviathan

Week 7: Pain and Pleasure
Bentham's On the Principles and Morals of Legislation

Week 8: The Value of Civil Rights
Mill's On Liberty

Week 9: The Importance of Balance, Part 2
Tocqueville's Democracy in America

Week 10: Why Capitalism?
Marx's The Communist Manifesto

Lesson Plan: Ancient Philosophy 1

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Aristotle's Ethics
Lesson Title: The Importance of Balance
Course: PHIL 142          
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the value that Aristotle places on the idea of balance in a person's life, and how that then leads that person to happiness. Students will be able to apply the lesson of balance to their own lives.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Explain the concept of good and evil, and that Aristotle views the goal of life to experience good. Happiness is a good unto itself towards it.
2. To help students understand this, have them share experiences that make them smile. Then ask them if they feel happy. Ask if they prefer that feeling to not having that feeling.
3. Explain the idea that you can have too much of a good thing.
4. Relate with ice cream. Ice cream every now and again is a good thing. However, there is only so much ice cream that you will want at any given time. Eating more would make you sick, and would be bad. Not having it at all would mean no ice cream, which would be bad.
5. Have students split into small groups and discuss this idea of balance, and how it applies to the following: the taking in and giving away of money, emotionally supporting persons going through traumatic experiences, experiencing moments of grandeur and “mundane” moments, confronting situations that anger/disturb you.
6. Come back together, and discuss as a group. Stress the importance of balance within these events. For money, giving away too much, and giving away too little. For emotional support, not helping enough, and helping so much as to not be able to help anymore. For grandeur and the “mundane,” the grounding that the “mundane” brings, but the importance of grandeur for the human spirit. For anger/disturbing things, the difference between rage, not sticking up for oneself, and voicing ones problems whilst being mindful of others.
7. Ask for other ways in which students see this applying to their lives.
8. Time for questions, comments, and concerns.
9. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Aristotle's Ethics.
Computer.
Slideshow.

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: Outside of the examples given in class, in what ways does balance apply to your life?

Lesson Plan: Ancient Philosophy 2

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Cicero's On the Republic and On Duty
Lesson Title: Relationships and Responsibilities
Course: PHIL 142                                            
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the idea of the the individual good serving the common good, as laid out by Cicero in On the Republic and On Duty. Students will be able to apply this understanding to their lives.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Explain the idea that we live in an interconnected world, were we are bound together via relationships.
2. Explain that through our relationships, there are certain things that we are expected to do. As a teacher, I must teach. As students, you must learn. You listen to me, and I talk to you. The same exists for all relationships.
3. Explain that fulfilling one's role in a relationship is a good thing, as without those roles being fulfilled, the relationship would fall apart.
4. Talk about the idea that while we all hold different parts in relationships, that we are, in a veil of ignorance, the same. Thus, treating them the same is just.
5. Field the discussion and dissent with this idea.
6. Ask students to come up with relationship expectations for the following: parent and child; partners; cashier and customer; siblings.
7. Come together and discuss, allowing for about 10 minutes of discussion.
8. Separate again, and discuss the following: elected representative and citizen; police officer and citizen; resident assistant and resident.
9. Come together and discuss.
10. Stress the importance of elected officials remaining neutral, and of people in power remaining neutral towards citizens as a whole, in order for there to be equity, and through that, justice.
11. Ask if this is how we live today, and for personal experiences.
12. Time for comments, questions, and concerns.
13. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Cicero's On the Republic and On Duty
Computer
Slideshow

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: What is required of the citizen for the representative, and of the representative for their citizen? Are those responsibilities being fulfilled? Explain.

Lesson Plan: Ancient Philosophy 3

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application

Topic: Augustine's Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans.
Lesson Title: The Separation of Church and State
Course: PHIL 142                                    
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the need for the separation of the church and state in Augustine's Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans. Students will be able to apply the logic to their personal lives, and be able to critically analysis current state of of the church and state in the United States and abroad.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Will explain to students the idea of the Earthly City and the Heavenly City.
2. Field questions about the differences between the two cities.
3. Explain the reasoning for the separation of church and state for Augustine—that being that the affairs of the Heavenly City and the Earthly City are supposed to be separate, and that it is the Church's job to help groom us for the afterlife, and not the Earthly City's.
4. Field questions (Expect approximately 5 minutes)
5. Discussion of the idea of the separation from the religious perspective. (Expect at least 10 minutes)
6. Raise the idea of separation for the humanistic reason of not oppressing people for their beliefs. Expand this to the Protestant Reformation, and explain the reasoning behind the Bill of Rights.
7. Discussion of the merits of freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state in this context (10 minutes or so).
8. Begin talking about current political climates.
9. Discussion of abortion.
10. Discussion of equal rights for LGBT+ persons.
11. Discussion of the idea of “family values” and the codification of them in laws.
13. Comments, questions, and concerns.
14. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Augustine's Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans.
Computer.
Slideshow.

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: What is the role of religion in modern world? What role should it have within the state, if at all? Why? Explain.

Lesson Plan: Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy 1

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Civic Humanism
Lesson Title: The Importance of Variety
Course: PHIL 142                                     
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the need for variety and a holistic education, as expressed by the Civic Humanists. Students will be able to identify the benefits to their personal lives that they will gain from gaining a liberal arts education.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Begin the class by introducing the idea of specialization.
2. Use the example of architecture. You can make perfect buildings with an understanding of math and physics. Show incredibly dull, but practical buildings. Then explain the humanistic element, the need to understand the use of spaces, and designing for potential use, and then show beautiful cathedrals and other such buildings. That is the difference between specialization without breadth.
3. Discussion the practical applications of a liberal arts education.
4. Why do we study literature? To understand the human condition. So that we better empathize with other people. So that we might be able to think critically about situations, and express our thoughts.
5. Give example of use as a doctor, as a manager, as a teacher, as a police officer, as a lawyer, as a politician.
6. Field questions.
7. Why do we study history and social sciences? To understand the human condition. So that we may better understand why people do what they do. So that we may better understand and analyze information put before us, and then find practical applications of that information to our lives.
8. Relate back to prior examples. Give example of an engineer, of a office worker, of an accountant, of a retail worker.
9. Stress the importance of giving back to the community.
10. Discuss the merits of charity, and experiences with giving and receiving charitable donations.
11. Questions, comments, and concerns.
12. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Quentin Skinner The Foundations of Modern Political Thought
Leonardo Bruni Panegyric to the City of Florence
Guillaume Budé On the Education of the Prince
Lorenzo Valla Treatise on the Donation of Constantine
Computer
Slideshow

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: How can a liberal arts education help you in your desired future career?

Lesson Plan: Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy 2

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Machiavelli's The Prince
Lesson Title: The Importance of the Practical
Course: PHIL 142                                    
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the practical idealism of Machiavelli, as he explained it in The Prince. Students will be able to apply this practicality mindset to their daily lives.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Begin with a brief history of Florence, Machiavelli, and his motivation (that being return from exile) for writing The Prince.
2. Discussion of the shrewdness and “practicality” that Machiavelli sets out. Let students lead the discussion, but proceed to the next point if conversation dies.
3. Discussion of how this practicality can be applied humanistically to our modern lives.
4. Discuss the value of extensive bureaucracy, and the elimination of elements of it.
5. Discuss the idea of practical sentences for punishments for criminal acts. Compare prison time to community service or other work programs.
6. Discuss the practicality of imprisoning people without then providing them with the ability to reintegrate into society, thus creating a cycle of imprisonment and crime, and a burden on the state.
7. Discussion of practicality versus humanistic methods and actions.
8. Is Machiavelli right?
9. Questions, comments, and concerns.
10. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Machiavelli's The Prince
Computer.
Slideshow.

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: Can Machiavelli's idea of practicality be applied to the modern world in a humanistic way? Are they inherently opposed ideas? What do you think the role of Machiavelli's thoughts are in our society today? Explain.

Lesson Plan: Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy 3

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Hobbes' Leviathan
Lesson Title: Resistance is Futile?
Course: PHIL 142                                    
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the ideas of contractarianism, as set forth by Hobbes in his Leviathan. Students will be able to apply contractarianist thought to the modern political discourse that they are a part of.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Explain that the world is a competition for scarce resources, and that in this state, we are all free, but in danger of others taking our freedom through force. By us all sacrificing a bit of our freedom, we gain the good that comes from being safe, and knowing that our stuff will be protected (e.g. police and private property).
2. Field questions on this (5 minutes approximately, if possible).
3. Explain the idea that by existing, one is entering into a contract with a state, and that with a contract, one is required to fulfill certain responsibilities (cf. Cicero's ideas of responsibility). This contract relates to the rights that you are giving up in return for safety and other services that the state provides.
4. Take questions (Allow for up to 5 minutes, approximately)
5. Explain the idea that the actions of the state are the will of the people, and that if a state is oppressing a group of people, that is the will of the people, for else, they would change the state, or the state would not be doing this.
6. Allow for discussion (Approximately 10-20 minutes)
7. Lead large group discussion for the implications that this has with the current presidency.
8. Lead discussion as to whether or not Hobbes is right.
9. Questions, comments, concerns.
10. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Hobbes' Leviathan
Computer
Slideshow

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: Do you agree with Hobbes? Do you think that the current presidential and congressional situation is a result of the “will of the people,” or do you think that it is something else? Explain.

Lesson Plan: Nineteenth Century Philosophy 1

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Bentham's On the Principles and Morals of Legislation
Lesson Title: Pain and Pleasure
Course: PHIL 142                                    
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the fundamentals of Utilitarian thought, as posited by Bentham's On the Principles and Morals of Legislation. Students will be able to apply Utilitarian thought to their daily lives.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Explain the concepts of pleasure and pain, and how this informs all living creatures.
2. If pleasure is good, and pain is bad, should we not seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain?
3. Now, apply this to idea to personal situations. Have students split into small groups. Present them with the trolley problem, with several variations (5 evil people, 1 good person; whether or not they have to actively do the action or not, etc.)
4. Now, let us apply this logic to the prison system. Lead discussion on how penalties should be given in this framework.
5. Discussion of the validity of punishment, as it is the infliction of pain.
6. Discussion of whether or not an action that would not/could not be repeated should be punished in a great way (long jail time, etc.), as it is not acting as a deterrent for the offender, who would not do it again.
7. Discussion of the death penalty, and the idea of not living meaning that there is no potential for pleasure at all.
8. Expansion of discussion to healthcare, pitting private insurance versus single-payer.
9. Lead discussion with the questions: are there problems with this philosophy?
10. Questions, comments, concerns.
11. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Bentham's On the Principles and Morals of Legislation.
Computer
Slideshow

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: Think of a modern political issue that is debated. How would Bentham answer this debate, given his Utilitarian framework? Do you agree with Bentham and his framework? Do you disagree? Explain.

Lesson Plan: Nineteenth Century Philosophy 2

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Mill's On Liberty
Lesson Title: The Value of Civil Rights
Course: PHIL 142                                    
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express  Mill's modifications to Bentham's Utilitarian framework and his arguments for civil rights. Students will be able to express the value of civil rights, the reason that they exist, and be able to engage in meaningful discourse around policy and the implications that it will have on civil rights and the health of the commonwealth.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Explain the relationship that Mill had with Bentham through Mill's father, and that while he was raised with Utilitarianism, he never fully agreed with it.
2. Explain the idea of something (in this case, civil rights) causing short term pain (e.g. the a ability to speak freely causing pain for certain individuals due to what you are saying) still be necessary, as the existence of the right causes more pleasure in the form of security than the suppression of that individual's right to speak would have.
3. All of society would not have the right to silence an individual no more than that individual society.
4. Make the distinction of fighting words, inciting violence, criminal conspiracy.
5. Field questions (Allow for approximately 10-20 minutes)
6. Lead discussion on how this applies to other civil rights: freedom of religion, the press, unusual punishment, search and seizure, quartering of soldiers.
7. Lead discussion on the difference between Bentham and Mill. Who does the class agree with more, and why?
8. Do we agree with Mill? Are there problems with his philosophy?
9. Questions, comments, concerns.
10. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Mills' On Liberty
Computer.
Slideshow

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: How does Mill change Utilitarianism from how it was originally presented by Bentham? Is there a right that you think people should have, that is not expressed in law currently in the United States that would be justified with this philosophy?

Lesson Plan: Nineteenth Century Philosophy 3

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Tocqueville's Democracy in America
Lesson Title: The Importance of Balance, Part 2
Course: PHIL 142                                    
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the value of a strong judiciary, as expressed by Tocqueville in Democracy in America. Students will be able to critically analyze and discuss the current state of the judiciary, executive, and legislature in the United States.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Explain the reason for Tocqueville coming to the United States (as a French observer).
2. Explain the perils of too much power in one house of the legislature, and the perils of too much executive power.
3. Explain tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
4. Field questions.
5. Explain how, in Tocqueville's mind, the Federalist system of the United States mitigates both of these issues. Highlighting the role of the judiciary, and how the strong judiciary is able to check the other branches of government.
6. Lead discussion as to whether or not Tocqueville is correct in his analysis of the need for a balance between the tyranny of the majority and minority.
7. Lead a discussion as to whether or not the current political balance in the United States is still as Tocqueville once envisioned.
8. If not brought up, make sure to mention: the refusal to vote on President Obama's nominee for SCOTUS, and the ratification of President Trump's nominee; gerrymandering, and elected judges.
9. If the discussion concludes that we are not in the ideal state any more, ask if it is possible to return to that state, and how.
10. Questions, comments, concerns.
11. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Tocqueville's Democracy in America
Computer
Slideshow

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: How would Tocqueville assess the current balance of power in the United States between the branches of government? How does that balance of power positively or negatively impact your life? Explain.

Lesson Plan: Nineteenth Century Philosophy 4

Subject/Course: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application
Topic: Marx's The Communist Manifesto
Lesson Title: Why Capitalism?
Course: PHIL 142                                            
Duration: 120 Minutes

Learning Objectives: 
Students will be able to  understand and clearly express the ideas put forward by Marx in The Communist Manifesto. Students will be able to understand the important dialogue that continues with both political and economic systems. Students will be able to critically analyze capitalism as a economic and governmental system.

Summary of Tasks/Actions:
1. Explain the political and social climate of Europe at the time of the writing of The Communist Manifesto.
2. Explain the core concepts of capitalism (private property, free markets, democracy/republicanism, growth, production).
3. Answer questions.
4. Explain the core concepts of communism (public property, planned markets, communitarian rule, continued use of capitalist-created production).
5. Answer questions.
6. Explain Marx's belief of the evolution of markets and societies (from pre-capitalist to capitalist to communist).
7. Discussion: What problems does communist philosophy have, in theory?
8. Discussion: What problems does communist philosophy have, in practice?
9. Discussion: Should we adopt a communist philosophy? Stay with free-market capitalism? Another solution?
10. If not brought up, raise the idea of social democracy.
11. Comments, questions, concerns.
12. Assign homework.

Materials/Equipment:
Marx's The Communist Manifesto
Computer
Slideshow.

Take Home Assignments:
Essay: What can we learn from Marxist Communism? What aspects of this philosophy will you apply to your life, if any? Explain.

Final Exam

In as much space as you believe in necessary, please write in your green books the practical applications of Western Political Philosophy that are taking away from this course. How are you going to apply this philosophy to your life? Do you already? Who did you agree with? Who did you disagree with? What is valuable? What was not? How would you change this course?

Does Jeremy Benthem's Utilitarianism Lead Logically Towards a Democracy or Towards a Benevolent Dictatorship?

Here is the first draft of my essay about Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism. It is unlikely that I will post an updated draft, unless major chances are had. I expect there to be some small errors, and for that, I apologize now.

Man is by nature, a social animal. We organized ourselves into different social groupings based on geography, phenotypical features, beliefs, activities, and a seemingly uncountable amount of other differences and similarities that are held by the various members of our species. Within these social groups then, there is not a state of anarchy—but one of order. It is this order that is subject to the purview of politics. It is this order than is discussed and debated in philosophical political thought from the time of Aristotle thousands of years ago in Athens to the debates that are waged today, and everything in-between them. It is the subject of this essay to look at one political philosopher in particular—that being the British Jeremy Bentham. Bentham lived wrote his works during the later part of the Eighteenth Century, and spent much of his time discussing the idea of utility. The question to be examined in particular is whether or not his version of utilitarianism leads logically to a democracy, or whether it leads logically to a benevolent dictatorship—if such a form of government can indeed exist.

Before it can be determined as to which form of government Bentham's utilitarianism logically leads to, one must first understand how his utilitarianism functions. Fundamentally, he links everything that we as a species do to the two fundamental feelings of pain and pleasure. This includes all of the actions that we perform, as well as our sense of what is right, and what is wrong. The four sources of pain and pleasure then, according to Bentham, are physical, political, moral, and religious—termed as sanctions—with physical pain coming from a person or group of persons, political coming from the state, moral coming from “chance persons in the community, and not according to any rule” and religious being from a superior being. He sets out that his Principle of Utility recognizes that this slavery that mankind has to pain and pleasure is an underlying part of all systems. By utility, Bentham is referring to any act or object that produces a benefit, advantage, good, happiness, or pleasure—though if one thinks about it, benefits, advantages, goods, and happiness all produce pleasure in themselves—or that prevents mischief, evil, unhappiness, or pain to an individual or a community—though again, like those things synonymous with pleasure, mischief, evil, and unhappiness are also sources of pain. Thus, utility is essentially any act or object that brings about pleasure or that prevents the bringing about of pain. He believes that all people must and do act in accordance with this principle, even if it is done so unconsciously.

Bentham believes that the correct application of the Principle of Utility is to promote the interest of an individual or community. The interest of the community being the aggregate interest of the individuals that together make the community, and the interest of the individual being a simply arithmetic calculation of the sum of the pleasures minus the sum of the pains that are brought about by the execution of any particular action, where the difference between the pleasures and the pains is positive—that being, having more pleasure than pain. These pains and pleasures are valued, for an individual then, based off of their intensity, duration, certainty—and conversely, uncertainty—, and their propinquity—and conversely, their remoteness. When assessing the value of pain and pleasure for a group, one must also use the same criteria as for an individual, whilst also taking into account how likely it is that the event will occur again—which he calls its fecundity—, the chance that it will be followed by sensations of the opposite affects—which he calls its purity—, and finally how many people it affects—which he refers to as its extent. He argues then that it is the responsibility of government to adhere to the Principle of Utility in regards to the community in which it presides over in any actions that it carries out. Because it is the responsibility of the government to follow the Principle of Utility when legislating for its community, the causes of pain and pleasure are subject to the purview of legislation of the government. It is important to note, however, that all pleasures and pains have much to do with legislation, such as the pleasure that is derived from the strength an individual possesses.  With the question of how the government should act settled, the next logical question is how the government goes about doing this. The answer is quite simply, really. In order to follow the Principle of Utility, the government must reward—or rather, give pleasure—and punish—that being, inflicting pain—on individuals within the community to enforce or reinforce behavior that is in the interest of the community as a whole.

Positive reinforcement for actions that are in line with the Principle of Utility is fine and good, as it is bringing pleasure into the world, but what about the idea of punishment? Punishment is, after all, bringing pain into the world, which does, at its surface, appear to be in contradiction with the Principle of Utility. This is however, not the case—that is, if the punishment is given rightly. Punishment, according to Bentham, is an important part of maintaining order in society, and the formula for how punishments should be given is quite simple, really. First, in order for the state to punish, a law must first be broken. This can be a law such as theft, or it can be the breaking of a contract—or as he says, to be more general, compact—between multiple parties. Second, one must consider the intentionality of the act, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the consciousness of the conditions that accompanied it. All of these should be considered in what punishment should be given. This is because while punishment is evil, as it is bringing pain into the world, it is the lesser of the two evils that are present; that by punishing an individual, the government is providing enough pain that the calculus that the individual will make in the future regarding the same action they performed will lead them to the conclusion that it is not worth doing said act again; in regards to others, that the example made by punishing the individual who committed the crime will be enough to dissuade them from conducting the same or similar acts. However, the government should not hand-down punishments that are either too heavy nor too weak—the punishment should be just enough to change the calculus of the individual, and nothing more—for any more would be bringing unneeded pain into the world. By this same logic, there are times in which no punishment should be given, such as when an action bring no mischief, when the cost of the punishment is higher than the mischief that was brought about by the act, if the punishment would be ineffective—as is the case with ex post facto punishment, of ignorance of the law (but not ignorance through negligence, which is inexcusable), of infancy, of intoxication, of insanity, of actions of defense of self, of unintentional, unconscious, or involuntary acts—or if the mischief would cease without any punishment being given.

That covers how a government should go about adhering to the Principle of Utility. However, what a government is has not yet been defined. It is obviously associated with a group of people, but how is not revealed by Bentham in his discussion of the Principle of Utility. Instead, he discusses it in his A Fragment on Government. In this work, Bentham is responding to an author who is trying to lay out what governments are and how they function—among other things. The author says that society forms to protect the individuals within in—both in their persons, but also in their rights—and that governments exist as a way to organize societies. The original government then, is set up by the general consent of the people involved—that being the governors and the governed—and the government itself remaining as long as the two aforementioned groups fulfill their obligations in the compact that they have formed—namely that the governed will give obedience to the governors, and that the governors will act in the interests of the governed. Thus, according to Bentham, the proper amount of government is as much “as necessary to preserve and to keep that society in order.” However, there are qualifications in being a governor, and for government itself.

First, in order to be a governor, one must posses certain endowments. The endowments that are believed important are wisdom, goodness, and the ability to have and effectively use political power. He then asserts that there are three types, or as he calls them, species, of government—being monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Monarchy is defined as rule by one, democracy rule by “all,” and aristocracy rule by a number between one and all. These three types of government, it is argued, have their advantages and disadvantages. Monarchy is said to be the best at the execution of law, as the efficacy of the execution of law is based on the will of that which is executing it—as will that is both swift and true with a single person. However, a monarch lacks in wisdom and goodness as compared to an aristocracy or a democracy. Aristocracies excel in wisdom, but are poor in execution and in goodness when compared to the other forms of government, while democracies excel in the goodness at the ends of their laws, while their efficacy and the execution is lacking comparatively. So are the three forms of government as laid out in A Fragment on Government. While Bentham makes no direct assertions as to which is the most desired of these three forms of government, he does leave clues as to what he believes is the correct form of organizing society, which lead into the logical form of government that results from his utilitarianism—that being either a benevolent dictatorship or a democracy.

First, let us look to back to Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. In this work, Benthem lays out his Principle of Utility, and otherwise talks about how it is applied to legislation, taking no particular stand as to any particular form of government being better than another. However, toward the end of this work, he does talk about the motives of individuals, which is important when trying to determine if a single individual should be running a government, or if many should. In the last part of the work, in the section on the penal branch of jurisprudence, he raises the question as to whether or not a man can be brought to care for the well-being and happiness of others, concluding that while the only certain happiness he will attempt to satisfy is his own, that man does have some intrinsic motive, if only at a level of his own social status, to care for other members of the community. Sympathy would also be important in this regard. Therefore, if one is to rule, they must have a bias towards sensibility and sympathy, and they must possess a great enough intellect to understand that by helping others that they are doing good—in short, good private ethics.23. While this does not point directly towards a benevolent dictatorship, where the dictator would be the person who is most disposed towards the aforementioned traits, it does rule out the idea of a direct democracy, in favor of more elite democratic republican models of government. All that Bentham shows here is that whomever would legislate would simply need to have good private ethics.

Now, we must turn again back to A Fragment on Government. If we look to the segment on the differences between a natural and a political society, Bentham states that a political society is a positive one, while a natural society is a negative one, with a political society being one in which people have a habit obedience to a person or a group of persons, while a natural society is one in which people have a habit of conversing with each other while not having a habit of obedience to a person or group of persons. Again, like the previous example of Bentham's biases towards one form of government or the other, this example does not help the cause of a democracy. It is natural for people to converse with each other, as was the ways of bands of humans back in time immemorial. While this is referred to as tribalistic government today, it is democratic in nature. Now, this does not rule out the idea of an democratic republic, but it does most certainly hurt its prospects, pointing more toward an aristocratic or monarchical form of government. At the same time, Bentham also uses an example that favors democracy more than it favors a benevolent dictatorship. In describing how people can interact with one another, he describes the idea that a person may both give and receive orders at the same time—even governors. Because a benevolent dictatorship would be a monarchical form of government, in that there is only one ruler, the benevolent dictator, this logic would not apply to it, but rather to an democracy or some other non-monarchical mixed form of government.

Of particular relevance to the question at-hand is Bentham's discussion of the British House of Commons—which is a democratic institution. When discussing it, there is brought up the issue of poverty among the members. It is argued that if they are poor, then they cannot be educated, and if they are not educated, then would be illiterate, and therefore ignorant, and altogether unfit for the job they have. While he eventually counters this by countering the assumption that the members elected would be poor, there is still the issue as to the status of the electorate. In the Britain of the day, and in the current Capitalistic world that we live in today, the majority of people live in poverty. The majority of the people are un—or at the very least, under—educated. While illiteracy is not nearly as large of an issue as it would have been at the time of Bentham, it does still exist—but more so, ignorance exists. Without a proper education, people are able to read, but not able to properly sift through the massive amounts of information that is available to them—leading to beliefs in such ludicrous things as vaccinations causing autism and global climate change not existing, or not being caused by mankind. Given this, it would seem that the majority of people, when poor, un and/or under-educated, and ignorant, they are ripe for manipulation and mistakes—mistakes that an educated elite, or a single benevolent dictator, chosen from the ranks of those predisposed to good private ethics as Bentham laid out in his An Introduction to the Principle of Morals and Legislation, would not make. This is compounded with the fact that the poor work hard and long, and with little time for leisure, they are unable to contemplate and reflect on legislation, and thus are prone to act rashly. It was true at the time of Bentham, and it is true today, with people having to work multiple jobs just to get by.

Looking at all of this combined, it would seem that the most effective, and thus the most logical form of government that comes from the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham would that of a benevolent dictatorship. While Bentham does believe that people can both give an receive orders, and does have faith in legislators picking the path of legislation that produces the least mischief—there does not appear to be much else that he says in favor of democracy. Most of the utilitarianism that Bentham lays out applies to all forms of government—especially in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, which only really lends itself towards either a benevolent dictatorship or a republic of some sort. In A Fragment on Government though, Bentham leans heavily in favor of dictatorial or aristocratic—used here to mean oligarchical—forms of government, with the idea of a negative natural society and positive political society to all-together justified fear of ignorance and the uneducated making decisions in government. If we look at Bentham's utilitarianism, it would seem to lead logically toward a benevolent dictatorship.

Aristotle--a Good Man vs. a Good Citizen

Here is an essay that I wrote on the differences between a good man and a good citizen, as seen by Aristotle. This essay was written under duress, with the reading of Ethics and Politics occurring within a 72 hour window (along with the writing of this essay). I don't know how many of you will enjoy it, but here you go.

Humanity has walked the surface of the Earth for thousands of years. Up until quite recently, this has been in the form of small tribes and bands of hunter-gathers. Approximately four thousand years ago, that changed, with the advent of agriculture and subsequently the creation of civilization. While this first occurred in the Fertile Crescent and along both the Nile and Indus rivers, the first of what we would call “Western Civilization” began in a region of the Balkans called Greece. The Greek polis or city-state was the hallmark of the era, and several strong states, such as Sparta, Corinth, and Athens, dominated the region. It is also to the Greeks that we—that being “Western Civilization”—looks back to for the fundamental foundations of our philosophical thought. We look to Socrates and his methodology. We look to Plato, and his Republic. And we look at Aristotle, the who was the student of Plato, and whose work much of “Western” thought is still based off of today. While Aristotle tackled many important and difficult issues during his time, one of the most important questions he attempted to answer was what makes a good man, and what makes a good citizen, and how they are not entirely the same.

In order to understand what makes a good citizen, one must first understand what a citizen is—for Aristotle had a quite specific definition, which he laid out in full in his Politics,  one that is not the same as is used today. Today, we view all people over the age of eighteen as citizens (eighteen being the age at which people can vote). We do not put any restrictions on who can become citizens, so long as they were born in the State in which they wish to be citizens, or they have at least one parent who is a citizen. For Aristotle though, it took much more to be a citizen. Firstly, in order to be a citizen, one must first be a man—for women had no real place in public life, as their place was the household. Secondly, one must not be a slave, but a free man. In addition to not being a slave, one must not have a career in fields of manual labour. Aristotle adds this specification because he believed that if one worked in manual labour, then instead of being ruled via statesmanship—also referred to as citizen rule over fellow citizens and rule by turns—they were being ruled by someone who ruled them like a master and his slaves. So being a manual worker meant you too were not a citizen. Another requirement that Aristotle had was that both of the parents of an individual must be from the place that they are wanting to be a citizen of (I say from the place in which they want to be a citizen of, for women could not be citizens. Though in order to be an Athenian, one must have an Athenian father and mother)4. The last major requirement regarding the nature of the individual citizen is that they must be of the proper age to serve in either judicial or legislative office. Aristotle also had requirements in the actions of the people who were eligible to be citizens. He believed that in order to be a citizen, one must meet certain obligations—chief among which was holding an official position in the State. This, he said, was vital in ensuring the constitution of the State—constitution here meaning the underlying conditions/states that exist within—which is essential for the survival of the State.

Such is how Aristotle defines what it means to be a citizen of a city-state with a democratic constitution. The question still remains however as to what makes a citizen good. For  this, Aristotle looks to the idea of virtues, which he explains in much more detail in his work Nicomachean Ethics. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle tries to decipher happiness and virtues, and ultimately what is good. To simplify, he viewed good as the end of goals. He then also viewed happiness as complete, without qualification—meaning that it is a good. Virtues, he said, are chosen by people for their own right, but also in an attempt to achieve happiness, and ultimately contribute towards one being good. He believed that there were two types of virtues—those of the soul and those of the body. Virtues were in his mind the middle ground—which he calls the mean—between excess and deficiency in the aspect of life they are related to.10 Essentially, virtues are experiencing pleasure and pain at the right times, and in the right amounts. One example Aristotle gives us is the that of giving and taking money. In this example, the virtue is generosity, the excess is wastefulness, and he deficiency is stinginess. In this example, a wasteful person would give too much money away, and take too little, whilst a stingy person would take in too much money, and give to little away. It is also important to note that Aristotle believed that it was only actions that involved rational choice that were subject to the purview of virtue. He also believed that actions were crucial in being good, saying that, “in life, it is those who act rightly who will attain what is noble and good,” and that, “actions in accordance with virtue are pleasant in themselves...[as well as being] good and noble.”

It would seem, then, simple enough to be considered good be Aristotle. A good person would need to simply do virtuous actions. These virtuous actions would be good, as virtue is good, and therefor, they will make the person who carries them out good as well. While this is the essence of what Aristotle says, there is more to it. Firstly, the actions that the person takes must be voluntary in nature, for there is nothing virtuous in involuntary actions. Conversely, however, an individual is not responsible for involuntary actions—at least in how it affects one being virtuous or not. Cohesion and ignorance both constitute an action being involuntary—or the choosing of the lesser of two evils, though that is subject to the judgment of a State official—though ignorance through negligence does not make the actions of an individual involuntary. While most involuntary actions are pardonable, it is important to note that some are not—though Aristotle does not go into more specific detail on this particular matter. He also believed that actions were influenced by perception, desire, and intellect—with desires shaping rational decision making. One might believe that, based off of what has already been said that man and woman and child and beast could all satisfy the criteria that Aristotle has given. This is however, not the case. Aristotle dealt very little with the subject of women, however in regards to children and animals, he believed that they cannot make rational decisions.

Such is how Aristotle described the nature of virtues, and how they are used and applied, in Nicomachean Ethics. Taking this, we can then apply it to how he discusses the makings of a good citizen and a good person in Politics. He points out that all citizens have a role that they play in society—whether it be a legislator or member of the judiciary, or some other role entirely—and that there is virtue in these roles, but that they also share the common role of maintaining stability of the constitution of the State. However, due to the vast amount of constitutions that exist within the state of individuals, there cannot be one perfect virtue of a good citizen. While there is no single perfect virtue of a good citizen, that is not the case for a good person, as Aristotle said, “a man is good because of one single virtue which is perfect virtue.” This then means, according to Aristotle, that one can have a good citizen while not being a good person. However, that does not exclude the possibility that a particular person cannot share the same virtue that makes them a good citizen and a man—such as a good ruler, who is both good and wise (having the practical wisdom that is not shared by other citizens)23. However, if the common citizen has not practical wisdom, then there must be some commonality that makes them akin to their ruler, for the ruler is both a ruler and a citizen. Aristotle's answer to this is that the virtue of a citizen is to understand the governing of free men from both points of view (that of the governed and the governor), and that the virtue of practical wisdom belongs to rulers whilst the virtue of correct opinion belongs to those being ruled. It is with that that Aristotle concludes his discussion of what makes a good citizen and a good person in politics, shifting to a discussion of the different forms of government.

In the discussion of what makes a citizen and what makes one good, and how that then relates to what makes a good person, Aristotle had a cohesive—though long-winded answer. He believed that a citizen was a free man who was born to two inhabitants of the State in which he belonged to, who worked in fields in which they were ruled over by statesmanship, and not a master, such as a manual laborer would, who is of a certain age, and who holds either legislative or judicial office. He believed that what makes a citizen good is the virtue of understanding the governing of free men from both points of view, the virtue of practical wisdom (for leaders), the virtue within fulfilling the role that one has, and the upholding of the stability of the constitution of the State. In his detailing of what makes a person good, Aristotle looked at virtues, actions, and rational decisions—with those who were good being those who acted rationally with virtue. Due to the nature of what makes a good person, and what makes a good citizen then, it is possible for one to be a good citizen without being a good person, and for one to be a good person without being a good citizen.

These are the views of Aristotle. While he may—and indeed was—a brilliant thinker, and quintessential in the development of philosophical thought in both the “Western” world and the Islamic world, he was, in my opinion, mistaken in many aspects. First, there is the issue of sexism, which I hope is self-explanatory, and requires nothing further. There is also the issue of his belief that animals and children cannot make rational decisions. I believe that this train of thought is misguided, for is it not true that all life acts under the rationals that it has gained through both experience and instinct? If one were to punish a child every time they exhibited unwarranted wroth, then said child would rationally choose to stop exhibiting said wroth. The same can be said with a horse, which if fed when complying with its trainer and punished when not, the horse will rationally choose to comply with the trainer. I also find fault in the idea that a manual worker cannot be a citizen. What makes one who takes more direct orders (such as a slave) any less a person that someone who does not? For manual workers are not slaves, as they have the choice in what they do (to the extent that people have choices given the metaphorical hand of cards that is dealt to them). Those are but a few of the problems that I have with Aristotle, though in a whole, he train of thought does make a good deal of sense.