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?

What Was Hobbes' Idea of the State?

Preface: I feel as though this essay got away from while I was writing it. The idea of the state that Hobbes posits is an extensive one, and I had but 2000 words to summize his thoughts. So I suppose what I am trying to say is that you should take the following essay as an incomplete, a scratch on the surface of the beliefs of Hobbes.

The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries marked a tumultuous period in the history of Europe. There were wars of conquest, with the expansion of the proto-imperialist states of the time. There were wars of religion, both between different religious groups, as with the Hasburgs and the Ottomans, and within Christendom, with the Protestant Reformation. Then, there were the wars of a state against itself—both for religious reasons, as in France with the Wars of Religion fought between the Huguenots and the Catholics, and for the resistance of “tyrannical” regimes, as was the case with the mid-Seventeenth Century English Civil War between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians. These internal struggles, both in France and across the Channel in England, served as a point of interest for political theorists of the time. Of particular interest to these theorists was the idea of the state, sovereignty, the role of subjects to the sovereign authority, and then whether or not resistance to a sovereign authority was justified in a legal and philosophical sense. Now, this is not the first time that political philosophers had contemplated these thoughts, as both Aristotle and Cicero wrote extensively on the subject. With Cicero, there was a focus on the duty of people to the commonwealth, and then the duty of citizens to remove a tyrant from power. This was then taken by Jean Bodin, who for the first time defined the concept of sovereignty. More famous than the Frenchman, though, was the British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan. It is the aim of this essay to explore the idea of the state as set out by Hobbes in Leviathan.

According to Hobbes, there is a Leviathan in this world, and it is called the Commonwealth. It would be easy for one to think, upon reading that in the introduction to the book that its subject is then the commonwealth. This is only partially true. To Hobbes, because the commonwealth is a grouping of all of the people of the state together, one must first understand the inner-workings of men to understand the inner-workings of the state. In particular, one must understand what drives men to do what they do; the nature of men in the world as set out by God; and the different kinds of persons that exist in the world. To begin, let us examine that which compels men to act. In this, Hobbes has a simple explanation. According to him, man is controlled by his passions. We as a species seek to fulfill whatever passions that we have, given that they are obtainable with our strength and position in the world, with our lives being just a long string of passions, linked together with ever success or failure in the completion of them. Ultimately though, while we strive to fulfill the passions that are presently held, it is more important for us to ensure that there will be future desires that can be fulfilled. This, to Hobbes, is the object of man. It is both a Christian, and a determinist way of looking at the world, as the vision that Hobbes paints is one in which everything only happens because of a cause, except the one thing that does not have a cause—that one thing being God (an line of thought in-line with Aquinas)6. At the same time though, while agreeing in part with the thinking of classic Christian philosophers, he disagrees with the thinking of classical philosophers, with him believing that there is no such thing as a “greatest good.”7. It is through the desire for ease in life, and the fear of pain and death, then, that compel Man to civil obedience.

Now understanding that man is driven by passion, and how that relates the commonwealth (through the civil obedience that is required for a society to operate effectively), we can examine the state of nature that man has been put in by God. According to Hobbes, all of man is created by God as equal in both body and mind. Even though when comparing individuals there will be those who are stronger and wiser than others, on the aggregate, people are equal. This equality of conditions then creates a scenario where, due to the scarce resources that exist in this world, conflict arises when two or more people with the same desire compete for the same scarce resource, and since they both are equal in conditions, they both have equal claim to this scarce resource. This creates a pattern of violence and distrust in others, which ultimately creates a state of war—a state in which everyone is pitted against everyone else, ultimately trying to assert their dominion over everyone else, in order to ensure their security. Thus, war is not battle between parties, but rather a state in which battle between parties is likely to occur. This state of war degrades the greatness of Humanity, doing away with the culture and knowledge that is gained through peace, or the time without war. When in this state of war, there is not sovereign authority—there is no commonwealth, no state. Because of this, Hobbes posits, there can be no injustice in the state of war, as injustice comes from the violation of civil law, and during a state of war, there is no civil law that people are subject to. Through the fear of death and the love of ease, man is then also compelled to seek out an end to the state of war. This is the completely reasonable and inevitable conclusion for man to come to, according to Hobbes, both due to the passions that bind men, but then also do to the laws of nature that rule over all things.

The laws of nature that Hobbes prescribes govern the world, and through it, the interactions that men have with it and each other, are quite extensive. For the sake of brevity, this essay will not cover all of the laws of nature that he posits. Now, according to Hobbes, the Laws of Nature (Lex Naturalis), are general rules that are found by the use of reason of what man is forbidden or bound to do. This idea that there are laws of nature divined by man through reason is by no means unique to Hobbes, and it is routed in previous Christian thinkers, such as Aquinas and Augustine. The first law of nature, what Hobbes refers to as the “fundamentall [sic]” law of nature, is that man, by nature, will seek peace. The reasoning for this can be seen in the paragraph preceding this one. It is the belief of Hobbes that the best way to set out on this path to peace is through the use of contracts (and covenants, which are the parts of a contract that one of the parties is bound to). A contract is, in this case, the “mutuall transferring of Right [sic].”. The transferring of right, is done to create bonds between men, and to ensure peace through fear of repercussion for the breaking of ones covenant, both from some greater temporal power (here being the commonwealth) and from the ultimate judge—God. Now, transferring of ones rights is a voluntary action, and since it is a voluntary action, it is only done if it is in the interests of the individual, as we are inherently self-interested. Hobbes posits that it is in the interest of individuals to give up some rights in order to secure their safety, and thus, greater rights in the end. These rights are then given to the commonwealth.

At last, we have reached the point in which the commonwealth enters into the fold of Hobbes' political thought. As previously stated, the commonwealth is created by the transferring of the rights of individuals within a state to the state for their mutual benefit. This, the common good, is what the commonwealth seeks to protect and increase, through the establishment of laws, and the upholding of contracts. Now, commonwealths can be implemented through two main ways—either through institution or though acquisition. Both are quite simple, although there has been contention on his explanation of the commonwealth by acquisition, and in particular, by conquest. First though, there is the commonwealth by institution. In this, the commonwealth is created simply by the consent of the major part of the persons who are present to transfer their rights, and the rights of all who are under the dominion of the commonwealth, thus bestowing upon the commonwealth sovereign power, which then lies in the hands of the sovereign (more on this later). There is also then the commonwealth by acquisition. In this, the commonwealth is acquired through the use of force—most often, conquest. This, to Hobbes, is a legitimate government, and is due the same obedience as the commonwealth that is instituted. This is an important point, as the English Civil War was based, in a large part, off of the idea that the rule of the English monarchs was illegitimate, as it was achieved through force. They used this to justify resistance to the crown. Hobbes thinks this is unjustified, as, to him, the implementation of a commonwealth also implements a covenant on the part of the subjects to not resist the commonwealth, as any contract does. In addition, Hobbes believed that a commonwealth by acquisition was created through the voluntary transfer of the rights of a people to the conqueror. This is because, in Hobbes' mind, when a commonwealth is conquered, it ceases to be, and thus, with no obligations, people have the ability to do as they will. They could very well not submit to a conqueror, but they would have to face the consequences of non-submission. To Hobbes, the threat of violence, or fear of violence does not make an action involuntary. Hobbes also believed in the idea that there are actors and authors for all of the things that are done by man. In this, actors perform acts, but authors are the ones who come up with them, and then authorize actors (being their representatives) to perform them. Because the sovereign authority is a representative of the people, it is but an actor, with the people of the commonwealth being the authors. To resist the sovereign authority then would be to fight against oneself. This is the other reason that Hobbes is against the resistance of people against the state—taking an even more extreme stance on the issue than Jean Bodin.

In regards to liberty, I will say but a few short words. First, to Hobbes, liberty was not a thing that one possessed—but rather, it was the absence of external forces that stopped one's movement in the world (or, if you will, inhibit their rights)31. The liberties that a person has within a state, according to Hobbes, are those things that the law is silent on. However, there are certain liberties (rights) that cannot be transferred away, which are the right to defend oneself, the right to not accuse oneself, and then the right not to injure oneself.

When discussing the grim philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, there is a great deal to discuss. In Leviathan, Hobbes lays out his idea of the state, or as he so affectionately refers to it, the Leviathan. This commonwealth that he lays out is formed by the transferring of the rights of individuals who exist under its domain in order to avoid the state of war that otherwise exists in the absence of the commonwealth. This transfer of rights is a rational one, based off of the desires that men have—specifically the love of ease, and the fear of pain and death. By transferring these rights and creating a commonwealth, people bestow upon it sovereign power, that is then used by the Sovereign to rule over and for the people—hopefully in the interest of the common good. By linking this creation of the commonwealth to the establishment of a covenant, and then further by positing that the people are the authors of the Sovereign's actions, Hobbes uses his Leviathan to argue against the belief in just resistance that was held by Parliamentarians in the English Civil War. While there is certainly much more to say in regards to Hobbes' idea of the state, this is, in brief, the idea of the state that Hobbes lays out in his Leviathan.


Bibliography

Aquinas. Edited by R.W. Dyson. Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Print.

Bodin, Jean. On Sovereignty. Edited and translated by Julian H. Franklin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992. Print.

Cicero. Edited by M.T. Griffin and E.M. Atkins. On Duties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991. Print.

Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan. Edited by Richard Tuck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996. Print.

Skinner, Quentin. Visions of Politics: Volume III: Hobbes and Civil Service. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Print.

On the banning of hate speech

There is an adage in English that I am sure most of you know. It goes like this, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The intention of this is to help teach children to refrain from physical violence after being taunted or in some other way angered. It is reported to have first appeared in 1862, in a book published by the African Methodist Episcopalian Church. This occurred, of course, due to the horrible racism that was present, and is still present today in many parts of our society. But that is not why I am writing this. What I want to talk about is hate speech. This was prompted by a conversation that I had with someone today, who, like many others do, believes that hate speech should be banned, and while I agree with all of them sentimentally, I find this an inherently problematic view to take. I hope to make why I believe this evident in this piece.

I think that we can all agree that hate speech is abhorrent. Hate speech, according to the American Bar Association, is defined as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should it be discouraged? Yes! Absolutely, one-hundred percent, unequivocally, yes! However, by looking at this definition, I hope that you can see some of the problems that occur when we talk about banning hate speech.

Now, there are a few things to clear up when we are talking about hate speech. First, speech that is directed towards an individual, that is meant to or likely to provoke them, is not hate speech. That is speech that is inciting violence, and it is illegal. This limitation on freedom of speech was decided in 1942 by the Supreme Court, and it is known as the Fighting Words Doctrine. People do have to right to say things that the listener disagrees with and that they find offensive and hateful. This is because of several reasons, which I will be covering shortly.

Limitations on freedom of speech is not limited to the Fighting Words Doctrine, I might add. There are also limitations to speech for speech that is not directed at an individual, but that is conductive to creating disorder, violence, or harm to a person or a group of people. The classic example of this is yelling “FIRE!” in a movie theater. People are likely to get hurt as a result of this speech, and therefore, it is limited. This also applies to a person instructing others to in any way harm another individual, or a group of people.

Here, we see the distinction starting to occur. I am sure you have all heard the phrase, “actions speak louder than words?” Well, it is true—especially here. Saying a racial or sexist epithet, or some other sort of derogatory statement is reprehensible. It is disgusting. But, the question is this: does that do tangible harm? Remember, we are not talking about fighting words, we are talking about more general hate speech. Since the speech in this case is not inciting violence or other illegal activity, it must be allowed. For this, I will look to JS Mill, a political theorist who wrote extensively on the topic of liberty.

“If all of 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.”

The reason for this line of thinking is simple, and it is derived from a point that Mill makes earlier, which is that the sole reason that government should interfere with the lives of individuals in a society (by this, I mean limit their liberties), is for self-protection of either the individual, another individual, a group of people, or the society as a whole. Civil liberties are a fundamental right of all people, which is why they should not be infringed upon unless absolutely necessary. Being under common law, precedent is key. The limitation of hate speech could later be used to justify the banning of other forms of speech. I would like to turn back to Mill though.

In addition to the argument about restricting liberties, there is also the argument that is made by Mill that one of the most important things that exists in the dialogue that society has about ideas and opinions. In this, there is no such thing as an opinion or belief that is not valuable. Even the most horrible of beliefs have value, at the very least, in being an opportunity to teach, and to correct an opinion; or to act as a check to the tyranny that exists when thoughts and ideas cannot be questioned, regardless of how good they may appear to be.

Having covered those points in the banning of hate speech, I would next like to move on to the practicality of banning it, or rather, problems that will be had with legislating this proposed ban. One of two scenarios will occur.

The first is the scenario in which the legislation around the banning of hate speech is extremely specific. In this scenario, there are extremely specific phrases and words that are banned. This is problematic for two reasons. First, there is the issue of it not being comprehensive enough. In this scenario, it is likely that certain aspects of hate speech will be looked over, or forgotten. In addition, it is likely that those who use hate speech will adapt to the changes, and in turn, new phrases will become hateful. In this sense, like technology, hate speech will outpace the law. There is also the issue here of the banning specific phrases and words defining what constitutes hate and hate speech. Say that, for example, many phrases and words that are derogatory to blacks, Latinos, and women are banned. This still leaves open hate directed at Asians, Caucasians, Men, people with disabilities, etc. Essentially, by banning hate speech in this way, we are implicitly condoning the forms of hate speech that is not being expressly banned. Or, if it is not condoning those forms of hate speech, it is most certainly a microcosm that is allowed continued existence and flourishing. This surely is not the answer.

The second scenario is one in which the legislation around the banning of hate speech is extremely vague. In this scenario, “hate speech” is banned. This is problematic mostly because of how open to interpretation this statute would be, due to how vague it would be. In this scenario, if someone exclaimed, “I hate Mexicans!” for example, would that be hate speech? Would “Mexicans are bad! They are stealing our jobs!” be hate speech? Would “I don't like black people,” be considered hate speech? How about, “God, this old person is so fucking slow. I hate them so much.” ?  I think we can generally agree that these are awful things to say, but are they hate speech? Should people be explicitly banned from saying these things? Another thing to consider. Say that you have a person who arrested for hate speech, and the situation is brought to court. Now, say that this area is one that is racist, and most of the people on the jury agree with the person who is being charged with hate speech. In this case, the chances the person charged will be found guilty is small. This is called jury nullification, and it was used in the South to let people guilty of lynching walk free. Of course, if most people in the area shared a general sentiment like that, there is also the possibility that a person saying hate speech would not be arrested in the first place, because the definition under the law would be vague enough that the police officer would have enough leeway to say that in fact an incident of hate speech did not occur. This also happened in the South during the days of slavery.

These are some of the reasons why the banning of hate speech is problematic. While we do need to do everything as individuals, and as a society within our power to discourage hate speech, and hate in general, in any form in which it may manifest itself, we must always bare in mind civil liberties. Essentially, we need to combine the libertarian and the communitarian perspectives. We need to at a governmental level allow for the freedom on speech that everyone is entitled to for being a member of society, while at the same time at a social level work to eradicate the use of hate speech from our society.

What was Bodin's Theory of Sovereignty?

Disclaimer: This essay is in no way a complete realization of the theory of sovereignty of Bodin. While I would love to go on to better explain his ideas, this is an essay that I wrote for a political theory tutorial at Oxford, and alas, I was limited in the word count that I was allotted. Even in surpassing that limit, which I did, I could not cover all what I would have liked to in this essay. Keeping that in mind, enjoy.

In the mid to late Sixteenth Century, the Kingdom of France was in a state of turmoil. The Protestant Reformation had taken root in Northern Europe, and it was spreading to France. King Henry II worked to suppress this growing religious minority (known as the Huguenots), but was unsuccessful in doing so. Upon his death, the crown passed onto his son, Francis II, who ruled for a measly eighteen months, seeing increased rebellious attitudes in the growing Protestant minority and the loss of the Auld Alliance, before his untimely death to disease. Francis II was succeeded by his brother Charles IX, and his regent queen-mother, Catherine de Medici. It was under Catherine that the first of the French Wars of Religion broke out between the Huguenots and the Catholics—with Catherine wanting to suppress the rebellious nature of the Protestants, but still seeking a policy of toleration, until after many years, she ordered the mass murder of thousands of Huguenots, after a failed assassination attempt at their leader. Stepping back though, the conflict between the Huguenots and the Catholics led to a series of political debates between the Constitutionalists (primarily Huguenots), who argued for limits on the sovereignty of the monarchy and for religious toleration, and the Royalists (primarily Catholics), who argued for the sovereignty of the monarchy. In this debate, there is one political philosopher that stands out as special among the others, and that is Jean Bodin. Bodin was a moderate Catholic, who while originally a Constitutionalist, trained in Roman law jurisprudence, made the about-face turn to absolutism—which was at the time, very much against the precedent of traditional medieval jurisprudence.  In his salient work on the matter, Six Books of the Commonwealth, Bodin establishes a theory of sovereignty in the absolutist sense. It is important to know that the theory set out in the Six Books is in direct response to the political debate of the time between the Huguenots and the Catholics. It is the aim of this essay to explore that theory of sovereignty.

To begin, it would be prudent to understand just what is meant by sovereignty in the mind of Bodin. To him, sovereignty is the absolute, supreme, and perpetual power of a commonwealth to act and rule over their territory. Let us dissect what that means. First, there is the idea that sovereign power must be absolute. There are many reasons for this, and they will be covered in full later on in the essay. Of interest here is the relation between the absolute nature of sovereign power and the perpetual nature of that power. The relation is quite simply, really. Absolute power by definition, must not be subservient to any other power (though, as we will see, this is not entirely true), and so, in order for this to occur, it cannot be limited by time. For, if it was limited by time, it would not be absolute. However, this does not mean that laws, once established by a sovereign authority, are untouchable, far from it. But more on this later.

In order for sovereignty to exist, the most important thing that must be is that the sovereign authority must have absolute power. In this, Bodin means that the sovereign authority must be exempt from all civil, or human, laws—a concept otherwise known as legibus solutus.  This exemption from civil law thus gives the sovereign authority the ability to properly legislate in accordance to the natural and divine laws that govern all living things, which Bodin believes that sovereign authorities must govern in accordance with. This idea is both radical in one sense, and in the other sense, conforming with medieval jurisprudence. In medieval jurisprudence, there was not agreement as to whether or not the sovereign authority (chiefly monarchs), should have the liberty given to them in legibus solutus, with many of the medieval kingdoms granting only extremely specific rights of sovereignty to the ruling monarch. At the same time, there was established in medieval jurisprudence the idea that all laws are subject to the natural and divine laws of the world—an idea laid out fully in the works of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. This subservient role of all to both natural and divine law, then, serves as the only real anti-absolutism of Bodin.

Bodin, in establishing what makes a sovereign authority, discusses the need of their power to be perpetual. This, as previously mentioned, does not mean that the laws that are enacted by sovereign authorities will last forever, far from it. Rather, the laws enacted by sovereigns will last as long as their lives do, with the sovereign authority that replaces them deciding on whether or not to keep that laws that preexisted their reign. In deciding on which laws to keep, and which to do away with, the sovereign authority should keep those which benefit the public, as it is the role of the sovereign authority to look after the commonwealth, as described in natural law. The reason that new sovereign authorities are able to readily ignore the laws of the previous sovereign authorities is because of the previously mentioned legibus solutus, which stems from the idea of absolute power. The concept of legibus solutus is already well established, and all law made by man is civil law, and therefore the sovereign authority is not subject to it. However, there are two points related to this that require further discussion—those being the difference between sovereign authorities and those entrusted with sovereign power temporarily, and then the oddity that is contracts.

Let us first look at how the sovereign authority is distinguished from those entrusted with sovereign power. In this, Bodin is primarily discussing these roles in their relation to a monarchical form of government, though this distinction that he makes still works when applied to aristocratic and democratic forms of government (more on these later). In making the distinction between the two types of people, Bodin posits that if the power of an individual or group of persons is limited in any manner—whether that be in the realm of time, or in terms of form or function—that they are not in fact sovereign, even if they can with aspects of sovereign power. They are what Bodin calls a trustee of sovereignty. The reason that they are trustees rather than sovereign authorities in their own right is that by being limited, they lack the absolute power that is required for sovereignty. Bodin also states that if power is granted to an individual or a group of persons by another group—whether it be a monarch by appointment, or the entirety of the people through an election—that they are not sovereign, but again, trustees. This is because the power of the sovereign must not come from others granting it to you, as that would mean that they in fact have power over you. There is a difference though, in the people granting you their sovereign power as a trustee, and then the people surrendering their sovereign power to you as the sovereign authority—that being that once the sovereign authority of the people is surrendered, it does not return to them. This distinction between the sovereign authority and those who are trustees of sovereign power works well and good in a monarchy, as the distinction is clear. The monarch holds the sovereign power, and gives it to certain ministers and magistrates below him to deal with the micromanaging of their realm. Who then hold sovereignty in the realms of aristocracies and democracies? It is quite simple, really. In aristocracies, the aristocracy is sovereign, and in democracies, the people as a collective are sovereign—though individuals can hold no claim to sovereignty. These are then the ways that sovereignty can present itself in government. At the time, many argued that there are other forms of mixed governments, or governments that combine two or more of the forms of government stated above, as well as corruptions upon these forms of government. While this essay will not explore this aspect of Bodin's work, suffice it to say that he does an extremely good job at dismantling these arguments, and showing how in all of the so called “mixed” forms of government, there really is only aristocracy, democracy, or monarchy.

Now, going back to the idea of legibus solutus. This idea, while exempting the sovereign from the authority of civil law, does not exempt them from the authority of contracts. This may appear to be a contradiction to the absolute nature of the sovereign's authority, but it is in fact not. The role of the sovereign, and of any government, is to maintain the health and welfare of the commonwealth. One of the most crucial aspects of maintaining the welfare of the commonwealth is the enforcement of contracts. Without the enforcement of contracts, there is no guarantee that trade will be fair, and thus, it creates unrest with people not being able to trust each other. Thus, as the absolute and supreme leader of the government, and of the state, the sovereign must fulfill his contracts, so as to not allow for there to be doubt in their, or through them, the government's, guarantee of contracts. Contracts, and the keeping of them, also falls into the realm of natural law, which even sovereigns must follow. Thus, the needing to uphold contracts by sovereigns is twofold.

In addition to what has already been said on sovereignty, Bodin also laws out certain rights of the sovereign (which he refers to as marks). All of these rights come from the main right of the sovereign to make civil law. However, since the connections between that right and the other rights can be at time unclear, Bodin goes on to explain the greater of these marks, and how they tie back to the original, prime mark of sovereignty. I will identify those marks in this essay as well, for the sake of the reader, though a more in-depth analysis will not be had. Among secondary marks of sovereignty given by Bodin are: the ability to wage war and to make peace; the ability to establish the offices of principle magistrates; the right to final appeal or last judgment (this judicial right, it is important to note, was much more robust in medieval jurisprudence, with sovereigns serving in more of a judiciary role than a legislative one); the right to grant pardons and reprieves; the right to fealty and liege homage; the right of coining money; the right to regulate weights and measurements; the right to direct and indirect taxation; the right to the sea; the right to take the property of traitors; the right to enforce a common language; the right to judge in accordance to conscious; and the title of majesty, to name but a few. It is through these marks and the aforementioned absolute and perpetual power that sovereignty is outlined and defined by Bodin.

Writing during the tumultuous French Wars of Religion, the French political philosopher Jean Bodin served as a crucial and influential thinker of the time. He wrote in response to the Huguenots, who argued in favor of limits on the sovereignty of the French Monarchy, and in favor of active resistance against a tyrannical sovereign. In his response (encompassed in the Six Books on the Commonwealth), Bodin makes an argument for the absolute power of the sovereignty, especially in the case of a monarchy, which he viewed as the best of the three available forms of government. He also argued that there is no legitimacy in resistance to a legitimate sovereign authority, even if said authority acts in a manner that is wicked. Opposing them, no matter how vile their actions, is treason of the highest form, for it promotes a state of anarchy in the commonwealth. Bodin also included a set of “marks,” or rights, of sovereignty, all stemming from the absolute power of the sovereign and the role of the sovereign as the creator of civil law. This all together then, is the theory of sovereignty that is posited by Jean Bodin.

Bibliography

Bodin, Jean. On Sovereignty. Edited and translated by Julian H. Franklin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992. Print.

Giesey, Ralph E. “Medieval Jurisprudence in Bodin's Concept of Sovereignty” in H. Denzer's Jean Bodin. Trans. By J.H. Franklin. Cambridge. 1992.

Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought Vol. 2. The Age of Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1978.

Why Does Marx Believe that Capitalism will be Overthrown by a Proletarian Revolution?

The Nineteenth Century was a period of great change. Over the continent of Europe, a series of revolutions took place that would forever alter the political makeup of the continent, and the world as whole. These revolutions were the center of discussion (either directly or tangentially) for many of the political theorists of the day, including those such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Jeremy Bentham, and, of course, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Perhaps the most influential among the political theorists of the era, if not in history, Marx and Engels were known best for their The Manifesto of the Communist Party. In this work, Marx and Engels laid out the history of the world through the lens of materialism; how this history was reflected in the state of the world and socioeconomic classes of the time; the goal of the Communist Party; and how they saw the eventual end of the then-current Bourgeois Capitalistic system would occur. It is the goal of this essay to examine how Marx believed that the Bourgeois Capitalistic system would fall, through a Proletarian revolution, working off of The Communist Manifesto, John Plamenatz's Man and Soceity, and David McLellan's The Thought of Karl Marx; with consultation of Gareth Stedman Jones' introduction to The Communist Manifesto and Sheldon Wolin's Politics and Vision.

According to Marx, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” This history is seen through the relations between master and slave throughout history. It is seen between those of feudal power, and the serfs that served under them. In the time of Marx, and from then onward to the present day, it can be seen between the rich and the poor—between the capitalist Bourgeoisie and the working proletariat. It is, according to Marx, through the system of production that a society has that the general character of the social life between the classes can be determined. In earlier times, this was satisfied through the labor of slaves for mass, unskilled projects; and then the work of guilds—of expert artisans and journeymen apprentices. With the Industrial Revolution, and with the rise of the Bourgeoisie, this all changed. However, while over the course of history, the balance of the classes has always shifted, there has always been one constant—and that is that inherent in all societies with class is inequality. For, whenever a class is able to rise up against the preexisting ruling class, they have always then taken the reigns of power from that class, and asserted their own minority dominance over society. Not only does this inequality exist within the economic realm—where it is a reality that cannot be glossed over—but it also exists in the social realm with differences in the amount of respect that people have for the different roles that people in society play (in this, Plamenatz, in his analysis of Marx, is referring to the amount of respect that individuals can command due to work that they do that gives them increased amounts of rights and obligations, such as the work of a doctor or a lawyer)5. The heart of all of this exploitation lies with the possession of capital. Having taken a brief look at the history of revolution in a general sense, we turn now to the Bourgeoisie.

The Bourgeoisie are one of the two (main) classes that exist during the time of Marx—that is, according to Marx. The Bourgeoisie as a class are descendants of the burghers of the Middle Ages—a class of people that were not in the servitude of the serf, yet not of the same privilege of the feudal aristocracy. It was through the colonization of the European states, through their expansion into the new markets of the East-Indies and China, that the Bourgeoisie were able to accumulate power. Eventually, with the rise in demand for goods being high enough that guilds—and the overall feudal production system—could no longer supply it, the Bourgeoisie stepped in with industrialization and the new modern industrial model. This started a revolution that would depose the old feudal way of life, bringing in a new era. The era of the Bourgeoisie. The era of Capitalism. Since then, the Bourgeoisie have done all in there power to end all forms of non-Capitalistic forms of life.

Capitalism, and the whole of the Bourgeois way of life, is only possible due to an increase in the production of the society. The Bourgeoisie accomplished this increase in production through a series of, to Marx, unnatural developments. First, there is the transformation of industry to be a cosmopolitan, taking away any sense of nationalistic or regional style. This works to create a world that is globalized, with a single, global culture. The increase in industrialization also led to an increase of urbanization across the board. The nations that these urban and industrial centers crop up in then lose out on their previous production of raw goods, leading to a scenario where the East is being used to supply the West with raw materials, and then the West supplies the world with refined goods. This is all made possible by the stripping down of the work done by labourers to its barest components (in essence, making jobs simpler), thus, in Marx's mind, taking away the honour of many occupations. This commodification of workers—of the Proletariat—seeks to take away all aspects of individual character from them. This is then coupled with a decrease of wages for workers, as they as individuals matter less and less to the machine of Capitalism, thus leading to increased production for the Bourgeoisie, increased profit, and the creation of an essentially slave class in the Proletariat.

As previously sated, the role of the Proletariat in the Bourgeois Capitalist system is to work for the Bourgeoisie as essentially slave labour for the entirety of their existence, with little to no hope of upwards social mobility. Unlike in previous eras, though, when the population of the working class—be it the slave populations of the Greco-Roman world, or the serfs of the feudal world—stayed relatively stagnant, the numbers of the Proletariat continue to grow. This is due to two reasons. First, there is the demands of Capitalistic machine to produce ever more and more. To do this, there must be an increase not only in the supply of goods, but also in the supply of labour. Second, there is the tendency of what Marx refers to as the petty-bourgeoisie to have negative social mobility, falling down into the Proletariat class, as they are unable to compete with the Bourgeoisie. In order to increase their productivity, the Bourgeoisie pit the Proletariat against each other, or against the enemies of the Bourgeoisie (either in the form of non-Bourgeois institutions, or against other Bourgeoisie to further consolidate power). However, by doing this, the Bourgeoisie must grant additional power to the Proletariat. This is, as Marx notes, the way that the Bourgeoisie have begun to dig their own grave. But more in this later. Let us now turn to the Capitalistic system, and its major flaw.

The Bourgeoisie rule through a system of industrial Capitalism. This system is one that relies, as previously stated, on the Proletariat. It is a system that cannot exist without the exploitation of the Proletariat—through the decreasing sums of their wages, the increasing amount of units created, and the increase in the number of working hours—and the exploitation of the peoples of Africa and Asia—whose exploitation the Bourgeoisie rise to power was based off of in the first place. The other crucial aspect of the Capitalistic system is its need to constantly be growing, for without growth, it will stagnate. Since it is through this constant expansion of the Capitalist machine, and the disturbance of social conditions that it causes, that the Bourgeoisie's rule is based off of, they are constantly having to seek avenues of expansion for their creation. If, at any point this expansion were to stop, and the social conditions were to solidify, as it were, then the entirety of society would be able to see the sorry state that it was in, and the Bourgeoisie would lose all power. Ergo, there ruin of the Bourgeoisie, and their Capitalistic system will come with a financial crisis. This financial crisis can come in many forms, though it is noted by Marx that the form that it is likely to come about through a type of financial crisis that was previously unknown to society—that being the overproduction of goods.

The question then becomes who will overthrow the Bourgeoisie during one of these financial crises. The answer is quite simple, really. It will be the Proletariat. In the view of Marx, it is the role of the Proletariat to rise up against the chains that bind them to the Capitalistic system of the Bourgeoisie, establishing a new society in the wake of the revolution. This will be done in several ways, in Marx's mind. First, there is the accumulation of political power by the Proletariat. This power is given to them freely by the Bourgeoisie, as discussed earlier, for the combating of the enemies of the Bourgeoisie. It is the hope of Marx that the Proletariat will be able to use this political power to establish majority control in the parliaments of Europe. His hope was that the Proletariat Revolution would be predominately peaceful, though he did recognize that there would almost certainly be resistance to the taking-over of the governance of states from the Bourgeoisie overlords, and because of this, Marx believed that physical force was permissible in the Proletariat Revolution (though the instilling of terror was not permissible)20. Another reason that the Proletariat will rise, according to Marx, is because of their being grouped together by the Bourgeoisie in order to increase the productivity of factories. This allows for the fermentation of a revolutionary spirit among the Proletariat. Thus, you have the conditions needed—those being a financial crisis and a high degree of political power—for the Proletariat revolution to occur, and also how Marx theorized it would occur—that being with violent resistance to the taking-over of government by the Proletariat from the Bourgeoisie. However, as Marx said at the beginning of The Communist Manifesto, the history of the world is a history of class struggles. In every instance of revolution, in every change of the social hierarchy that has occurred throughout history, the revolutionary minority class has always asserted its dominance, and then summarily subjugated the rest of society to its will. How then will the Proletariat Revolution be any different than every other revolution that came before it?

The answer to this question lies within the history of the Proletariat class, and the special constitution that it holds. As we know, the Proletariat came to be as a product of the Industrial Revolution set in motion by the Bourgeoisie. They live as second-class citizens compared to them, akin to slaves. However, unlike all previous points in history, the Proletariat constitutes the vast majority of the population. This is due to the need of the Bourgeois Capitalistic machine's endless demand for labour to turn its wheels. So, unlike any other revolutionary group, the Proletariat is not a minority group. Because of this, Marx believes that the Proletariat revolution will not include the aspect of oppression that all previous revolutions have had, for oppression that was used in previous revolutions works only when oppressing the majority of people. The Proletariat Revolution then, because it is not oppressing people like previous revolutions, will seek to destroy any institutions that exist within preexisting Bourgeois, Capitalistic world. This includes any aspects of laws, religion, and morality that work to perpetuate the oppression of any of the members of society. The two chief aspects of the Bourgeois world that Marx cites as needing to be disposed of though, and a source of heavy criticism for his work, are that of private property and of the institution of the family.

The institution of the family is one that has existed for as long as can be remembered in Western Civilization. However, this institution has not always been the same. As Plamenatz points out, the reason that we have families in the first place is to raise children, who, without aid of adults, would surely perish. This is part of how we as a species live, and cannot be avoided. But, this does not mean that the current familial system is the way that children should be raised, nor does it mean that it is the only natural system can come to be. Again, as Plamenatz points out, the mere act of childbirth does not establish the social bond between a mother and her child. It is only through, in his mind, an obligation to take care of this child that the social bond between the two is formed. If we think about this idea, as foreign as it may seem to many who have grown up with their biological parents, it does make sense. After all, there are millions of children who are adopted, forming a parent-child relationship with people who are biological strangers to them, relatively speaking. Oftentimes, other family members will step in to raise a child as well, when parents die or are too busy to take care of their children full-time. Wealthy families today, and throughout history have also made use of hired servants to take care of their children. Therefore, the idea of not having the “traditional” familial system is not nearly as absurd as it may first appear to be. It must be asked though why Marx wishes to abolish the “traditional” familial system. Marx seeks to do away with it because, in his mind, the “traditional” familial system acts as a way to perpetuate the inequality that exists between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat—as the familial system allows for the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a select group of individuals, with no fear of the loss of that wealth with the death of the patriarch of the house. This is why, in addition to wanting to dissolve the institution of the family, Marx also wanted to abolish inheritance. So, by taking the family out of the picture, the Proletariat removes one of the institutions of oppression that exists in the Bourgeois world.

The other source of oppression that Marx cites as needing to be removed is private property. By this, Marx is referring more to private ownership of capital. Marx makes it extremely clear that people will still be able to enjoy the fruits of society (meaning consumer goods). They just will not be able to own capital. In this, Marx says that there will be no difference in the lives of the Proletariat, as they already have not capital. The only people who will have their lives changed with be the Bourgeoisie. This is perfectly acceptable to Marx, as the only use of capital by the Bourgeoisie has been to exploit and oppress the Proletariat. Instead of private ownership of capital, the Proletariat will incorporate capital into the possession of the community as a whole, using it for the benefit of the commonwealth, and not the lives of a few of the individuals within it. They will not destroy it. This is because, as Wolin points out, it is not the goal of Communists to destroy everything that Capitalism has created, but rather, it is the goal of Communists to inherit the world that they made, and to improve upon it.

The world as the German political philosopher saw it was divided into two main classes—the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The Bourgeoisie were, according to Marx, the ruling class of the era. They rose to power after leading a revolution against the feudal system, and upon emerging victorious, they asserted their dominance over the rest of society through a constantly-changing system of production called Capitalism. It was from this system that the Proletariat were born, a class of workers whose sole purpose was to feed the engine of Capitalism. However, Marx believed that the age of the Bourgeoisie would come to an end with a revolution of the Proletariat. This revolution will occur in opposition to their oppression by the Bourgeoisie, and will be possible due to the consolidation of Proletarians together for increased productivity, the granting of political power to the Proletariat by the Bourgeoisie to fight the Bourgeoisie's enemies, and an inevitable financial disaster that will occur due to the instability of the Capitalistic economic system (stemming from the constant need for further expansion and exploitation inherent to the system). When the Proletariat Revolution does occur, it will be a rapid one. In it, the Proletariat will remove from power the Bourgeoisie, and will, instead of following in their footsteps and asserting their own power, oppressing others, will do away with the class system by abolishing any and all institutions existing that allow for oppression, including the institution of the family, and the idea of private ownership of capital. By doing this, the Proletariat will inherit and modify the Capitalistic world to suit the interests of the majority instead of the minority. Thus is the relationship that exists between the Bourgeoisie, the Proletariat, and the Capitalistic system they share, and how, inevitably, the Proletariat, through revolution, will overthrow Capitalism.

Bibliography

McLellan, David. The Thought of Karl Marx. 1971. Print.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto of the Communist Party. New York: Penguin Books. 2006. Print.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Edited by Gareth Stedman Jones. New York: Penguin Books. 2002. Print.

Plamenatz, John. Man and Society. Vol. 2. A critical examination of some important social and political theories from Machiavelli to Marx. London: Longman Group Limited. 1976. Print.

Wolin, Sheldon. Politics and Vision. “Chapter 12.” Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2004. Web. 5 June 2016.

How and Why Did Machiavelli's Idea of Prudence Differ from Existing Models?

The late Fifteenth Century and the beginning of the Sixteenth Century was a period of great turmoil and change on the European continent. In 1492, there was the “discovery” of the American continents by Christopher Columbus. In this time period, you also had the rise and fall of the notorious Borgia Popes, and Italian Wars, culminating with the partition of the Kingdom of Naples between France and Aragon (though this deal would eventually fall through, and Aragon would gain sole control of Naples, which would later be taken over by Castille after the Iberian Wedding. What also occurred during this time was the ousting of the Medici family from Florence, and the rise of an infamous political philosopher named Machiavelli. Machiavelli served the new Florentine government for fourteen years, acting in a role much like that of the United States' Secretary of State, until he was forced into “retirement” by the re-instillation of the Medici family by the Spanish. It was during this forced retirement that Machiavelli wrote the work that he is most famous for. Titled The Prince, this work detailed how best a ruler of a principality—that being anything state that is not republican—should act prudently. The goal of this essay will be to examine the prudence that Machiavelli prescribes in The Prince, comparing it to the established models of prudence, in particular, the model that is given by Cicero's On Duties.

To begin, let us first establish the idea of prudence that Machiavelli is setting out in The Prince. After establishing what is meant by a principality (see above), and then establishing the differences between hereditary and new principalities (hereditary being long-lasting principalities, and new being ones that are new), Machiavelli moves on to discuss the prudence associated with conquest. He promotes either the establishment of a tributary, puppet government or direct rule of newly conquered territory by moving into said territory and making it the conqueror's home. He does not recommend changing existing laws, however, as he believes that the best way to rule over a conquered population is to provide as little change as possible until one's rule is well enough established as to not have rebellious tendencies for the changing of a long-standing law, or the introduction of a new tax. Machiavelli then goes on to discuss the different ways that one can come into power, and the benefits and disadvantages that come with each means of ascension. These, while interesting, will not be discussed in the course of this essay, except in the case of the wicked ruler. The interest in the wicked ruler is not about how they come into power, but about how they hold power. According to Machiavelli, a ruler who is wicked, and comes into their power through their wickedness, is apt to rule in a cruel manner. This, to Machiavelli, is an ineffective way to rule, and he believes that by ruling in such a way, one will not be able to hold onto their power. This will be important later.

Another point that is made extremely clear by Machiavelli is that a ruler should trust nobody. This can be seen time and again throughout The Prince. It is seen when describing the way that one might come into power through installation by nobility, when discussing the use of mercenary armies to fight in wars and of auxiliary—or borrowed—armies, and when dealing with people in one's court—whether they be ministers, or merely courtiers. This distrust of the rest of the world for ruler is based off of the idea that in order to maintain power, one must not become complacent. One must always be on one's toes, and should work to address not only problems that are occurring, but any problem that could occur as well, all of which could stem out of the previously listed things that a ruler should distrust. It is from this logic that Machiavelli's infamous line on whether or not a ruler should be feared or loved is based on. In answering the question of whether a ruler should be loved or feared, he believes that rulers should aim for both, but if they cannot achieve both, that it is better to rule with the people fearing you, since one cannot trust people, as they are apt to betray you. If they live in fear of you, and not in love of you, then you as the ruler will be able to better tell who is likely to betray you, as you will not have your mind clouded by flatterers and their ilk.

Now that we have examined the distrust that Machiavelli believes is imperative for any ruler to posses, let us turn to the other traits that he believes a prudent ruler should possess, as well as some of the methodology that should be used by a ruler to exercise their power, and to cement their position. First, Machiavelli believes that a proper ruler should have a martial focus in their rule. A ruler should always be engaged in military campaigns, and if their land is not engaged in an active state of war, then rulers are to be practicing for war, and studying the art of warfare. This is because, in Machiavelli's eyes, the only way that the rulers of principalities obtain power, and therefore the only way that they maintain power, is through warfare. It is then, through this practice and study of warfare that the rulers of principalities can prepare themselves for any situations that may arise to challenge their power—and thus maintain their power.

This theme, that being of the maintaining of power, is of the utmost importance to Machiavelli. He has little concern with the actual governance of principalities. Rather, he is concerned with how a ruler can govern in a manner that secures their existing power, and that allows for avenues of expanding that power, going so far as to say that, “a ruler who wishes to maintain power must be prepared to act immorally when this becomes necessary.” For example, Machiavelli recommends the use of propaganda to drive the public to the side of the ruler. He also believes that a ruler should be ready to break their vows at any point in which honoring them would injure the ruler, but at the same time, the ruler needs to be able to come up with some sort of excuse for the breaking of the vow, in order to protect their reputation and image. This is important, because as was mentioned earlier, Machiavelli believes that being a cruel ruler is a surefire way to end one's rule. This is due to the feelings of hatred and contempt that will arise when a ruler has a cruel reputation. It is through this than that the reputation of the ruler affects their power through how it affects the stability and the unity of the realm as a whole. Because the stability and unity of the realm as a whole has an affect on the power of the ruler, it is Machiavelli's opinion that the ruler should be concerned with the unity of the realm. This is why he believes that while cruel acts are necessary, that they should come down in largely together, in confined areas, and during a small period of time. This works then to confine the cruelty, thereby preserving the reputation of the ruling, and securing the unity of the realm.

Another aspect of the maintaining power comes as a direct counter to the actions that Cicero believes that a prudent ruler should do. This contradiction to Cicero occurs when discussing the idea of generosity (or as Cicero calls it, liberality). In this, we see Machiavelli continue to preach his rhetoric of pure self-interest. To him, being generous is simply willing injuring yourself by giving away what you have. He also acknowledges, though, that being seen as generous is important, as it can help one secure and gain power. He comes up with a compromise between these two aspects of generosity then, by advising that rulers give only enough to appear generous, and no more—for what really matters, he concludes, is the appearance of virtue. For what difference is there between a generous ruler, and one that appears generous to the common man? There is none, at least to Machiavelli. This same logic applies to the other virtues that a ruler is traditionally supposed to posses—these virtues being primarily the ones that are outlined by Cicero in his On Duties, among other classical philosophers.

Now that Machiavelli's idea of how a ruler should rule prudently is established, let us look at how it compares to the existing model that is given by Cicero. To Cicero, the most important thing that any citizen can do (not just rulers) is to live up to, and fulfill their duties—with the most important of these duties being toward the Republic. Now, while Machiavelli is talking of principalities, and not of republics, this duty to the republic that Cicero is discussing can easily be applied to the duty of the ruler to the commonwealth. Having established that, the fulfillment of this duty to the commonwealth is achieved through the completion of honourable acts, which are in turn acts that are in accordance with virtue. This is in direct opposition to the model that is given by Machiavelli, who believes that only the appearance of virtue is what matters. Cicero also believes that those who strive for military command, and for honor, and for glory, are acting in a manner that is dishonourable, and thus unfit for a ruler. This then also is a point in which Machiavelli and Cicero appear to disagree on.

On the subject of cruel rulers, it would seem that Machiavelli and Cicero would tend to agree, except on one count. While they both agree that being a cruel ruler—what Cicero would call a tyrant—is wrong, Cicero would also have believed that acting cruel towards subjects at any time would be wrong as well. This is because to act cruelly is to act unjustly, which is both dishonourable and tyrannical in a ruler. Machiavelli is more of a pragmatist in this (and in most things), believing that the ends justify the means. It is because of this view of a ruler needing to do only what is honourable that Cicero would also not be able to accept that acting immorally could ever be justified. In fact, Cicero would go so far as to say that to act in such a manner actually injures a rulers position, and can end in them losing their power—such as what happened to the dictator Caesar in the Senate.

The last of the differences that will be examined between the work of Cicero and of Machiavelli is again concerning virtues. In particular, it is concerning the idea of generosity, otherwise known as liberality. As previously stated, Machiavelli believes that generosity of any kind is harmful to the person who is being generous, as it decreases their material power. At the same time, he views appearing generous as essential to maintaining goodwill. For this, Machiavelli has Cicero to thank. It was Cicero who outlined liberality as a virtue in On Duties. While he did recognize that one could be too liberal, to the detriment of themselves (and thus recommended against this level of liberality), he did not believe that being liberal in itself was harmful to individuals. In fact, he believed it was beneficial, and not only because it was virtuous, but also because one citizen being liberal would begin, in his eyes, a chain of liberality that would then seek to improve the well-being of everyone involved, and thus, the commonwealth as a whole. Machiavelli, then, is in disagreement with Cicero on this as well. It would seem to be that this disagreement, and the other disagreements that they have, stem from the interests of the two writers. Cicero is interested in the commonwealth as a whole, while Machiavelli is concerned with the ruler of the realm.

If one were to characterize the ideas of Machiavelli in The Prince, they would not be amiss in calling it a work cynical pragmatism. It is a work that is focused on the rulers of realms, and how they can maintain power. In it, Machiavelli turns away from the established model of prudent governance as established by Cicero on many counts. He disagrees with the idea that leaders should be virtuous, and that they should care for the commonwealth—instead advocating for leaders acting purely in self-interest who exhibit only the appearance of virtue. He is by no means afraid of immorality, and in fact supports it in the actions of rulers, unlike Cicero, who believes that acting against virtue is dishonourable, unjust, and tyrannical. Thus is how Machiavelli sets out his idea of prudent governance, and how it compares to the model of prudent governance that existed previously, as set out by Cicero.

Bibliography

Cicero. Edited by M.T. Griffin and E.M. Atkins. On Duties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991. Print.

Machiavelli. Edited by Quentin Skinner and Russel Price. The Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009. Print.

What is the Importance that Mill Ascribes to Individuality in On Liberty?

There are several ideals that the people of the United States, and the greater part of the “Western” world has incorporated into their political ideologies. Among these are the belief that there should be a freedom in the thoughts that an individual can have, and then the freedom of the individual to be able to express those thoughts, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of other individuals, through either the spoken word or through the written medium. This is based on the idea of individualism, or the importance of the individual identity, and the rights that are therefor granted to the individual for the express purpose of promoting this individual identity. These ideals were expressed several times throughout history, but they were perhaps best encapsulated and explained by the English political philosopher J.S. Mill. Mill lived during the Nineteenth Century, and his work is considered to be some of the most influential of the era. Mill was the son of James Mill, who was a utilitarian philosopher, and friend of the famous Jeremy Bentham. It is from both his father and the work of Bentham that Mill draws many of his views of the world, seeing it through a predominately utilitarian lens. However, that is not to say that these are the only people who influenced Mill. In particular, his work drew heavily off of the writings of the Prussian Wilhelm Von Humboldt's The Limits of State Action. It is the goal of this essay to examine the political philosophy of the late J.S. Mill, as presented in his essay On Liberty, while at the same time looking at how he borrows and reformulates the opinions and ideas presented by Humboldt in The Limits of State Action, and then also incorporating the commentary and analysis of the American political philosopher John Rawls in his lectures on Mill. This essay will seek to answer the question of the importance that Mill ascribes to individuality in On Liberty.

First, it would be prudent of us to look at the greater context of Mill's writing. In this, we will turn first to the lectures of John Rawls. In these lectures, Rawls believes that it is important for us to note that the works of Mill are rather unique, in the sense that they are not written from the point of view of a scholar, nor of a politician, with experience in the field of governance, but rather they are written from the point of view of an educator—and in this, we can see that Mill is trying to educate the reader. He is, in essence, trying to shape, to mold, the opinion of his audience with the principle of liberty that he presents in On Liberty. This is why, as Rawls sees it, that Mill's writings are almost entirely iterative, and why he does not extend his political theory into deeper, uncharted waters. In regards to the underlying principle of his work, Rawls notes, as was previously stated, he was greatly influenced by the utilitarianism of his father and of his father's friend Bentham. However, Mill does have a clear distinction in how he views utility, which is in opposition to Bentham's views. This distinction is that Mill believes, unlike Bentham, that the principle of utility is too narrow to be applicable in all situations on its own. For Mill, legislation must take cues from not only utility, but also from history and the natural world. This idea, that laws should come from, or be influenced by, the natural world and order, is an idea that Mill draws from the writings of Humboldt—the idea being that the natural world is better at organizing life (or as it is applied to legislation, society) than human social constructs. This all being said, Mill did still value the principle of utility. It was still to him the underlying principle that should be adhered to—the principle that other principles should be based off of.

On Liberty aims to answer a question that Mill was preoccupied with—that question being what the balance should be between the individual rights—those being civil rights—and the right and ability of the state to interfere, to restrict, and to take-away those rights. To answer this question, Mill presents two main ideas: those being that the individual is of great importance, and that his civil rights must be upheld. More on how this is applied to the actions of society later though. First, let us look at how he views the individual, and on their value. His belief in the value of the individual seems to stem directly from the utilitarianism of Bentham, as well as the writings of Humboldt. To Mill, the value of the individual is self-evident, though he goes on to explain and to defend it (here, again, we see the influence of his career as an educator showing, and with it, the need to explain all parts of a concept, so that the student, or in this case, the general audience, is able to better understand the concept, and form their own opinions on the matter at-hand). To him, the value of the individual comes about when the individual is afforded the civil liberties that they require to flourish—these civil liberties being the liberty of thought and of feelings, of consciousness, of opinion, of expressing and publishing said thoughts and opinions, of the ability to pursue what one wills (given that the pursuits are in no way harming another, or in any other way illegitimately depriving them of their individual rights), and lastly, stemming from the other liberties, the liberty to assembly in a peaceful manner. With these liberties, the individual will be allowed to grow, and will be cultivated. This individual then, with these liberties, will be able to contribute to the good of society through the pursuit of their interests in regards to how they can benefit the commonwealth, and then through the ability to think freely, and to express their thoughts. Through this expression of their thoughts, individuals will be able to contribute to the public discussion of issues—an extremely valuable thing indeed to Mill. These ways are how, as Mill sees it, individuals are able to benefit the society, and why individuals should be afforded the civil liberties that they are entitled to, other than the fundamental idea that the individual is to be valued purely for the reason of their existence, and their uniqueness in this world, which also seems to be part of Mill's thought, though not directly stated.

Now, understanding how Mill sees the value of the individual, let us turn to how he sees the balance of the civil rights of the individual with the actions of the society. In this, his principle of liberty is quite clear. The principle says that, “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” From this, we see that the civil liberties that are afforded to all (as described above) should only be trodden on for self-protection. This means that laws made by society should regard not what the individual does that concerns only themselves, but rather, laws should be made that regard the actions of an individual with other individuals, and the society as a whole. It is in this realm of conduct that society is in its power to legislate, to punish individuals, and to offer guidance to individuals as to what is to be done. More on this later, though. Interestingly enough, this principle of liberty does not apply to all, as Mill excludes children, immature adults, those mentally impaired, and “barbarous peoples,” or, those living in states of significantly less development than the modern states of the world (here, referring to the European States, and to the United States). This, as Rawls points out, makes his principle of liberty subordinate to the principle of utility that is set out by Bentham, among others. However, there is an interesting dichotomy that seems to exist because of this subordination. For, Mills believes that the rights of the individual are paramount, especially in regards to their right to being able to freely think and to express those thoughts, with him going so far as to say that, “if all of 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.” The importance of this statement is twofold.

First, there is the importance of this statement in regards to the principle of utility and the principle of liberty. In this, we see the aforementioned dichotomy. Here, we see Mills asserting the principle of liberty, and the rights of the individual, being of extreme importance. This assertion of the importance of the individual appears to be in contradiction to the principle of utility, for the value of the opinion of an individual should be less than that of the opinion of the society as a whole—simple utilitarian calculus. This is, however, not a contradiction to the principle of utility. The reason that it is not a contradiction is that by allowing the individual to keep and to voice their opinion, they are contributing to the dialogue that exists in the public sphere. This maintaining of this dialogue is of the utmost importance, as without it, the value of the opinions and ideas dwindle away. Therefore, by extinguishing the opinion of an individual, the harm done is far greater than what would be gained by silencing them. Thus, this is not a violation of the subordination that exists between Mill's principle of liberty and the principle of utility.

Now, let us return to the topic of the discussion of ideas in the public sphere.  It is through this discussion that Mill ascribes one of the ways in which the individual is valuable—and through them, individuals and individuality as a whole. Earlier, the civil liberties that Mill believes all should have were laid out, and among those pertinent to public discussion are freedom of thought and the freedom to express those thoughts. Now, with the freedom to think there comes opinions, and these opinions often—if not most of the time—are related to interactions with other people. These ideas then, are debated, as people do when they disagree. To Mill, this disagreement, this debate, is extremely important, because it is what makes opinions valuable. In his mind, an opinion is of little value if it cannot be questioned, if it cannot be discussed. An opinion like that is akin to a tyrannical opinion, as that which is tyrannical cannot be debated nor discussed. So, contrary opinions are to be valued, even if they are contrary to a true belief, for they act as a check to the tyrannical nature of unquestionable beliefs at the very least. Opposing beliefs can also be used as educational tools, or they can be used to help better shape, to help refine, the opinion that they are acting contrary to. Thus is the importance of the individual within the sphere of public discussion.

Having discussed whom the principle of liberty is applicable to, the nature of said principle to the principle of utility, the seeming dichotomy that exists due to this and the valuation of the opinion of the individual as opposed to that of society—and the reasons for that valuation—, let us now turn back to the realm of legislation. As previously stated, mankind's—meaning society's—purpose is to protect one another. This is why we have laws. It is the duty of legislators, though, to make laws that do not infringe of the civil rights of individuals within a democracy. This is not to say that individual rights are to be valued above all else in the world—far from it. To Mill, the individual's rights are to be valued and protected only in so far as they do not harm others, or infringe on their rights. This allowance then, for the infringement of the rights of the individual, does not extend to the point that extreme proactive measures. Society is allowed, by this doctrine, to act to prevent a crime from occurring, but only if it is clear that a crime will occur, based off of the actions of the individual. The example that Mill uses is that of the production and sale of poison. Now, in the case of poison, if it were to be used for one purpose only, to kill another human, than society would be well within their right to prohibit its sale outright. However, that is not the case. Poison has multiple, legitimate uses. Thus, society has only the right to regulate and restrict the production and sale of poison to those specific purposes—such as killing pests. Thus is a brief explanation of how Mill outlines the scope of laws in regards individual rights.

Now, Mill is afraid of what a democracy has in store for the freedoms of the individual, which is one of the reasons that he is writing this piece. Greatly influenced by Tocqueville, Mill sees the tyranny of the masses, and the tyranny of the popular opinion to be both a great and real threat. As Rawls notes, Mills is worried about the uneducated masses making decisions based off of irrational feelings, incongruous with the rational thought that should be driving their decision-making processes. This is, in many ways, in line with the fears of Bentham. This is the reason, according to Rawls, that Mill puts forth his principle of liberty, so that it may serve as a guide to the masses, both educated and uneducated alike, as to how they should take on legislation. Thus is one of the main purposes of this piece, as explained by Rawls.

There is one final point that I will examine in this essay, and that is the other main boon that Mill says is had from individuality—that being, the value that is had from individuals pursuing their interests. For this, Mill takes from Tocqueville. Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America, is concerned with the moderation that is brought by democracy. While it does move to bring people out of poverty, while also decreasing hunger and illiteracy, it at the same time decreases the greatness of intellect that exists in the world—which to Tocqueville is a great tragedy. Mill is also afraid of this, though he believes that by promoting individuality, this can be avoided. Moreover, Mill believes that by allowing individuals to grow, and that by allowing them to pursue their interests freely, that society allows for individuals to better it through them bettering themselves. The logic behind this is quite simply, really, and it has its basis in utilitarian thinking. Essentially, the line of reasoning goes that the whole of society is no more than the sum of its individuals. It can ever be only as good, or as bad, as they are. This ties in quite nicely to the idea of the total utility of the society being equal to the added utility of its members, as laid out by Bentham in On the Principles and Morals of Legislation. Thus is how the individual can benefit society through the pursuit of their interests.

J.S. Mill was a crucial figure in the political thought of the Nineteenth Century. It was he who so greatly encapsulated the ideals of civil liberty and individuality that the Western world still values so greatly today. His ideas were highly iterative, based off of the utilitarianism of both his father and Jeremy Bentham, among other utilitarians. It was also heavily influenced by the Prussian Wilhelm Von Humboldt of seventy years prior, and the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. In his famous work, On Liberty, Mill lays out the argument for individuality based off of the utility that it provides for the society as a whole through the contributions that individuals give to the public sphere of debate and then also the benefit that they provide through the pursuit of their interests. In order for this to occur, however, Mill says that the civil liberties of freedom of thought and of feelings, of consciousness, of opinion, of expressing and publishing said thoughts and opinions, of the ability to pursue what one wills (without harming others or depriving them of their civil liberties), and the liberty to assembly in a peaceful manner must be respected, and not infringed upon by society—through legislation or by other means—except in cases where an individual is interacting with other individuals or the community as a whole in a manner that promotes or creates mischief. There then, is the philosophy of J.S. Mill as presented in On Liberty.

Bibliography
Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Dover
Philosophical Classics. 2007. Print.
Mill, J.S. On Liberty and Other Writings. Edited by Stefan Collini. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 1989. Print.
Rawls, John. Lecture on the History of Political Philosophy. Edited by Samuel Freeman. Boston:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2007. Print.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition of De la democratie
en Amerique, ed. Eduardo Nolla, translated from the French by James T. Schleifer. A Bilingual French-English editions, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2010). Vol. 1-4. 15 May 2016. <http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2288>.
Von Humboldt, Wilhelm. The Limits of State Action. Edited by J.W. Burrow. Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund. 1993. Print.