SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Historically speaking, moral
theories and principles become imbedded in comprehensive doctrines containing
full-blown social and political philosophies. Social philosophy has to
do with the descriptive and prescriptive issues relating to how individuals and
communities interact; political philosophy addresses the descriptive and
prescriptive questions of who rules and why. Because these two sets of issues
are so intimately related, philosophers put them together into one discipline
called social and political philosophy. There are many factors to take
into consideration in deciding the question of sovereignty, or rules and who
ought to rule.
First is the matter of the number
of rulers. A regime is a monarchy if one person rules, an oligarchy
if a few persons rule, and it is a democracy if everyone rules. Second,
is the matter of the governing principle. Generally if the ruling
principle is considered unjust, the regime is called a tyranny. If the
regime maintains absolute and total control over the lives of its subjects it
labeled totalitarian. Otherwise, there have been four main kinds of
(more or less legitimate) kinds of political regimes: theocracy, aristocracy,
capitalism, and socialism. Theocracy and aristocracy are probably
the oldest, while capitalism and socialism are comparatively recent regimes
dating back to the Western Enlightenment of the late 18th century. Theocracy
and aristocracy probably date back at least to ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia
where civilization first took root. Theocrats drew their authority from divine
command; which is to say, a few individuals were able to convince the rest of
the community that leadership by them was willed by God, or that they
themselves were Gods incarnate. In theocracies, policies are often derived from
divine revelation and/or religious texts as interpreted by these religious
leaders. Today the most powerful theocracies can be found in Muslim countries
like Saudi Arabia and Iran. The first theocracies eventually became oligarchies
as the number of rulers multiplied to the point where there was a ruling
religious class, or priesthood. Eventually, some rulers were able to establish
sovereignty and hold political power without invoking divine command. The first
aristocrats were probably scribes that held power by monopolizing
knowledge through their ability to read and write. In ancient Mesopotamia, many
religious leaders were also associated with astrologers, who professed the
ability to prognosticate future earthly events, based on their knowledge of
celestial events. Knowledge of celestial events was also important in order to
establish a calendar. Knowledge of the art of war was always valuable to
political leaders. Fascist regimes are led by military leaders that hold
power by force. Many philosophers believe that all political power ultimately
relies on military power. All oligarchies, especially aristocracies, have
always been marked by a concentration of wealth and power. Over time,
membership in the ruling class often became hereditary, thus solving the basic
political question of who should rule. Today, many countries in South and
Central America are ruled by wealthy aristocratic families. Closely related to
the question of the regime, is the matter of socio-economic philosophy. In the
Western hemisphere, most countries today are ruled by capitalism and/or
socialism, which are both species of the comprehensive doctrines of liberalism.
LIBERALISM
In philosophy classes forget the
contemporary verbiage “liberal” and “conservative.” Politicians have more or
less destroyed the traditional usage of the term “liberal.” Traditional liberalism
builds upon the descriptive theory that human beings are atomic individuals by
nature, and that living the good life depends upon an individual having the
liberty to satisfy an his/her wants and needs. (In principle, republicans and
democrats generally agree on this!) Historically speaking, many liberals have
argued that in the state of nature, human beings lived independently in pursuit
of self-interest. The first groups, families, clans, and communities we formed
voluntarily out of self-interest; that is, they rationally decided that under
some circumstances, living and cooperating with others can be advantageous. The
greatest advantage was probably mutual protection from other predatory
individuals and groups. Under liberalism, friendship and all other forms of
association, are born out of mutual self-interest, "You scratch my back,
I'll scratch yours!" Hence, social cooperation is based on reciprocal
altruism.
With the advent of liberalism during the Enlightenment, government was no longer thought of as a matter of divine right to be exercised by ordained individuals, but rather as a social contract between the rulers and the ruled. The concept of a contract is quite simple. Rationally self-interested individuals come together to form communities in order to maximize self-interest. This often requires individuals giving up certain rights to the group that they ordinarily would exercise on their own in the state of nature. (e.g. The right to personally enforce justice.) Enlightenment social contract theorists often differed in what individual rights they thought individuals ought to turn over to government, and therefore they also disagreed over what they expected out of the contract. The authors of the United States constitution, the crown jewel of Enlightenment liberalism, promised its citizens "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Other Enlightenment philosophers merely sought governmental protection from those who would seize their private property; while others sought a more comprehensive set of rights. (Hence the difference between libertarians and welfare liberals. More on that in a minute.)
Before the advent of voluntary
communities, social distinctions were based on natural attributes. Hence, the
Darwinian phrase, "survival of the fittest."
Liberalism acknowledges that
although social distinctions are probably inevitable, all citizens should
nevertheless be treated as political equals, even though they may not be
natural equals. Hence, democracy, together with the concept that "the
ruled rule the rulers," became the key political tenets of liberalism. So
in order for liberal democracies to function, the government must treat its
individual citizens as if they were, in fact, equals and therefore, exercise
impartiality. Impartiality requires, that the government treat everyone as if
they were equals. Hence, what is "right" is considered independent of
whatever social distinctions and personal relationships that may arise within
any particular regime at any particular time. So doing what's "right"
is considered prior to what any concept of the "good," which is
always “imbedded” in family, culture, friendship, or locality. That's why we find
it morally repugnant for public officials to hire their relatives. Nepotism
involves treating one's family and friends better than others, regardless of
other more salient attributes.
Under liberalism, at least some social goods are to be distributed impartially. The problem here is that impartiality seems to undermine the basic concepts of family and friendship, which entail that we sometimes treat relatives and friends better than other persons. In fact, my family and friends would be disappointed if I always treated them the same as I do strangers, even if I treated strangers extraordinarily well. Indeed, family and friendship demand that we treat our closer acquaintances better than everyone else. Would you be more likely to exercise beneficence toward family and friends or strangers?
If it is true that human beings naturally operate on the principle of rational self-interest, and if human beings, by virtue of being human, share these attributes, then liberal values must be universal. The most important of these universal liberal values are: liberty, justice, and equality. There is, however, an important rift within modern Enlightenment Project liberalism between libertarians and welfare liberals that can be traced back to the early social contract philosophers; especially John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Although, both camps embrace democracy and agree that liberty, justice, and equality are important social and political concepts, they disagree on how far communal interests can encroach upon individual interests and therefore, they disagree as to what liberty, justice, and equality entail in terms of government.
Libertarians, following John
Locke, are fiercely committed to individual liberty and the private ownership
of property. Human beings, they argue, naturally pursue ownership of their own
private resources, which in turn satisfy their own personal needs and wants. If
human beings are subject to natural selection, human needs and wants often
exceed the supply of resources necessary to fulfill those needs and wants.
Therefore, competition is inevitable. Under competitive conditions,
libertarians call for equality of opportunity, or procedural justice.
They think justice entails that individuals compete under a set of very basic
impartial ground rules. Locke, for example, believed that human beings acquire
unowned resources by mixing their labor (which they own) with that resource.
The principle of equality, therefore, applies only to the conditions under
which individuals compete, but it does guarantee equality of results in
the outcome of that competition. As long as the right to mix one’s labor with
unowned resources applies to everyone equally, the resulting distribution is
fair. Once resources are owned by individuals, they have the liberty to
exchange those resources with others, without outside interference. Hence,
individuals compete with one another for each other’s resources. e.g. If I own
a car, I ought to be able to sell it to whomever I choose. Hence, contracts
between consenting individuals are essential to the libertarian plan for the
distribution of social goods. The most important rule governing the forging of
contracts between individuals is that the contracts must be voluntary.
This means that both the buyer and the seller must be truthful when revealing
exactly what the other will get out of the exchange. Fraud occurs when
either the buyer or the seller withhold information that the other might
require in order to make a voluntary, rational, self-interested decision.
Some extreme libertarians would
argue that if the buyer is deceived, then its the fault of the individual
buyer: "Buyer Beware!" and that the government has no right to
get involved. In late nineteenth-century United States, the conditions for
economic activity were based on this laissez faire governmental policy.
As a result, consumers were never really sure what they were getting for their
money. This was especially problematic in the patent medicine industry, which
sold "medicines" by promising unsubstantiated miracle cures. That's
why today we have the Food and Drug Administration, which protects us from
false advertising of drugs and medical devices.
For a libertarian, life is like a
game of chess. The participants play by the same impartial rules. However,
these rules themselves do not guarantee that any one particular individual wins
or loses, but only that the competition is conducted fairly. Of course, some
players may come to the game with more experience, skill, and/or intelligence
and therefore they may be more likely to win the game. Libertarians, therefore,
believe that winners and/or losers, in either chess or life, are part of the
game. Since the concept of fairness is rooted in the rules of competition, the
purpose of government is limited to assuring fair competition for scarce
resources.
The economic system known as market
capitalism is a mainstay of libertarianism. Capitalists believe that all
human beings naturally seek ownership of private property. This often
precipitates competition for the most coveted, and therefore most valuable
resources. Hence, in order for an individual to privately own any resource, it
is often necessary to expend one's own time and/or already held resources.
Hence, if I want to eat lunch in a fast food restaurant, it is necessary for me
to exchange three or four dollars with the owner of the restaurant, who in turn
must pay his suppliers and employees. Since the restaurant owner owns the
hamburger that I want he/she therefore has a right to either sell it to me or
not. If the hamburgers are especially good, then competition ensues. If more
people want these burgers than the owner can produce, the rationally
self-interested burger capitalist will probably the price of his product as
high as possible in order to maximize his/her self interest and gain the
greatest profit. I may either, choose to pay the higher price or spend my three
or four dollars at another restaurant where the burgers are cheaper. If the
quality of this competing capitalist's burger is high enough, other rationally
self-interested burger freaks will gravitate toward the lower price. Value
under a capitalist regime, then, is purely a function of what people are
willing to pay. Is Deon Sanders worth $35 million? Of course, it may be that no
capitalist is willing to make the burger transaction on my terms. If there is
no one around willing to exchange the amount of money that I want to spend for
a burger, then I must either reallocate my personal resources (skip a video
rental for tonight) or save up more money. If I were starving to death, the
restaurant owner may choose to give me a hamburger, but that would be
considered a voluntary act of charity and therefore, not morally required.
Libertarians believe that all acts of charity must be voluntary and that the
government oversteps its boundaries when it taxes some of its citizens in order
to provide charity for others.
WELFARE LIBERALISM
Welfare Liberals are more aligned
with the Kantian Tradition. Although they acknowledge that
competition for most scarce resources is probably unavoidable, they also believe that, at least some very important resources (or needs) ought to be
distributed by government and not simply awarded as prizes in open free-market competition.
Most welfare liberals point out that all competition occurs under unequal
circumstances. If I were to play chess against Bobby Fisher, even though the
rules of engagement seem impartial, I cannot reasonably expect to win. Indeed,
some of us are naturally advantaged with unearned genetic and/or social
attributes such as intelligence, speed, agility, and even good looks. Others
are disadvantaged. As long as Bobby and I are competing for some trivial award,
there is no problem. However, if the stakes include needs, or those resources
essential to the preservation of our lives, then competition between advantaged
and disadvantaged is considered
to be unfair. Even though we might play by the same rules, we come to the game
with unearned and unequal natural attributes. While libertarians believe the
function of government is to preside over a mediated form of Darwinism, where
the naturally advantaged win and the naturally disadvantaged lose, welfare
liberals argue that the primary function of government is to redistribute, at
least some resources.
Contemporary welfare liberalism, in the Kantian tradition, was given its classic formulation by John Rawls in the 1970s. His basic argument went something like this.
In human societies, the distribution of social goods is largely determined by the natural lottery. Some individuals are naturally advantaged with attributes such as intelligence, strength, health, good looks etc., while others are less advantaged. Whether you are advantaged or least advantaged, your status is profoundly influenced by this natural lottery. Now, given the fact that we really do nothing on our own to deserve our genetic heritage or our social environment in general, we really can’t say that we deserve those advantages or disadvantages. In other words, human social arrangements based on the natural lottery are unearned and distributed unequally. Now Rawls was no communist. He didn’t believe that government could eliminate all natural inequality. What he did argue is that, in a liberal society, it is unfair to allow the advantaged to get richer, while the least advantaged get poorer. He therefore, proposed that government provide a social limit or a safety net that would halt the ever-growing social distance between the most advantaged and the least advantaged segments in society. This is accomplished by redistributing social goods. Remember Robin Hood? In other words, Rawls thought that the primary purpose of government is to provide welfare (or security) to the least advantaged. So before we can allow the rich to get richer, we must make sure that we maintain that social limit and minimize the social distance between the advantaged and the least advantaged. If this sounds goofy, think about it this way.
What's interesting about natural advantages is that they are rather fleeting. Anyone that is reading this essay is probably naturally advantaged to a certain degree. Although, you are currently advantaged, nature will eventually erode that advantage and you will eventually become a member of the least advantaged. Why? First of all, we all, sooner or later, will get sick or get old. Second of all, there's always bad luck! (Your home might get destroyed in a tornado!) Now given the fact that you will eventually be disadvantaged in the struggle for survival, what would you like government to do? Rawls and other welfare liberals argue that if you are rational and self-interested, you’ll willingly forego some of the unearned bounty that you receive from the natural lottery in order insure that you will be provided for when those advantages dwindle. Hence, a Rawlsian system implies a system of government that essentially redistributes the distribution afforded by the natural lottery. This, of course, implies a lot of government, and taxation.
So if libertarians favor small
government with minimal interference in voluntary choices of individuals,
welfare liberals favor intervention by government on behalf of the least advantaged
segments of society: the poor, the sick, the elderly and children. Welfare
liberals often defend this view based on rational self-interest: "Since
any one of us can become disadvantaged at any time, even those of us who are
presently greatly advantaged, it is in our collective rational self-interested
to agree to contribute toward welfare." So for libertarians, the rights of
individuals are generally construed as negative rights, which guarantee
only a right to compete for scarce resources without interference from others
or the government, unless that pursuit harms others. Welfare liberals, claim at
least some positive rights for all citizens, which guarantee actual
possession of at least some resources, without having to compete. Welfare
liberals, therefore, must necessarily use the power of the government to
(sometimes forcibly) take resources away from advantaged individuals (usually
through a progressive income tax) and redistribute some of those resources to
the least advantaged. Some commonly proposed positive rights or entitlements
include: the right to basic health care, the right to competent legal
assistance, the right to a sufficient quantity of food, and the right to basic
shelter.
YOU MUST BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING CONCEPTS?
Issue to Think About
Are you a libertarian or a welfare
liberal? If you are a welfare liberal, which, if any, of the following do you
think the government ought to distribute equally: educational opportunity,
basic health care, basic housing, economic security in old age, clean air and
water, competent legal representation, a safe workplace?