SOCIAL & POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Social and Political Philosophy is one of the (many) “branches” of (western/analytic) philosophy. It deals with questions like the following: What exactly is equality? What is (political) freedom? What is democracy? What justification can be given for the state restricting the freedom of law-breakers? What is civil disobedience? Is this a justifiable form of law-breaking? It should be noted that social and political philosophy overlaps with: ethics, economics, political science and the history of ideas. This should be clear enough from the above – which is only a sample of the questions social and political philosophy deals with.

EQUALITY Some thinkers advocate a certain political goal which they call “equality”. And, the motivation for achieving this equality is usually a moral one. They claim, for instance, that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God, or that the Kantian moral imperatives dictate that all human beings should be treated equally. The advocates of equality are known as “egalitarians”. Their philosophical perspective/theory is known as “egalitarianism”. It should be specified that the egalitarian does not argue for the position that all human beings should be equal in every respect. Such a view would create insuperable problems for egalitarianism. Rather, the egalitarians position is this: it is indeed true that, from the political perspective, human beings should be equal to each other; more specifically, they should be equal in certain respects.

EQUALITY – MONEY 1 Some egalitarians argue that human beings should be equal in one particular respect: the distribution of money. Some extreme egalitarians argue that money should be equally distributed between all adult human beings. To be more specific, it is their position that: all adult human beings should be receiving the same income. The egalitarians try to justify this position in a variety of ways – e.g. on utilitarian grounds. The crucial question here is this: “Can this extreme form of egalitarianism really be justified?”.

EQUALITY – MONEY 2 The fact of the matter is that this position faces a number of serious problems. Let us examine some of them. It seems that this particular goal, the equal distribution of money, is unattainable. Can you see why this is so? There are a number of practical problems that hinder the effort for the equal distribution of money. Perhaps, the best the egalitarian could hope for is a more equal distribution of money. And, even if we were to suppose that this goal may (somehow) be achieved, the equal distribution of the wealth would be short-lived. This is due to the nature of human beings. To preserve the equal distribution of money the forceful intervention of the state would be required. But, is such an intrusion of the state into people’s lives ever justifiable? Apparently not.

EQUALITY – MONEY 3 It is often claimed that another objection to this form of egalitarianism is the following: The fact of the matter is that different people deserve different amounts of money. For instance, the general manager of a financial institution deserves more money than others as he/she makes a greater contribution to the nation/economy. If we do not allow these people to receive the salaries they require, then they will not have the incentive to do the required work. This may prove to be detrimental to the economy and the nation in general. Does the egalitarian have a point when he states that: higher salaries may indeed be justified in some cases? Putatively, this is necessary in order to ensure that the economy of a country remains healthy. However, the vast salaries some people receive cannot ever be justified.

EQUALITY – MONEY 4 A third objection (to this form of egalitarianism) is this: If we do enforce the policy of equal distribution of money, then some people may not be able to survive. For instance, if we do insist on giving person A an amount of money X, which is the same for everybody, and A needs more in order to pay his medical bills, then it is very likely that this person will not be able to survive for very long. It is for this reason that may egalitarians insist that money should not be distributed equally, but according to the needs of each individual.

EQUALITY – MONEY 5 Finally, some thinkers, like R. Nozick, have argued that the equal distribution of money is unjustifiable because it violates some people’s natural property rights. In other words, they claim that: to distribute money equally, we will have to violate some people’s natural right to keep their/possess property. There is, however, a serious problem with this objection. Nozick, and those who agree with him, simply assume that human beings have natural property rights. Nonetheless, it is not quite clear what the source of these rights is. Do you agree with this point?

EQUALITY – EMPLOYMENT 1 Some egalitarians argue that there should be equality as far as employment opportunities are concerned. That is to say, they argue that: all those who have the relevant skills and abilities should have equal opportunities to do the job in question. There are some things that ought to be noted here: discrimination is still present in many professions – e.g. discrimination on grounds of gender or race. Furthermore, it is a fact that some people are still suffering from the results of these forms of discrimination. Is it enough to declare that as of now all people should have equal opportunities when it comes to employment? Is this ever going to eliminate the existing imbalances in certain professions?

EQUALITY – EMPLOYMENT 2 Many egalitarians claim that this will not be enough; the simple implementation of the policy for equal opportunities in employment will not “fix” the problem. Thus, they argue that what is required is the implementation of the policy of reverse discrimination. Before we get to see what reverse discrimination is, we need to clarify what discrimination in general is. Discrimination = treating one group of people different/worse than the rest/others, for no good reason. It should be noted that according to the definition above, many instances where some people are treated different than others may not be counted as discrimination. We will examine a couple of these cases in class.

EQUALITY – EMPLOYMENT 3 What exactly is reverse discrimination? Here is Warburton’s definition (textbook, p. 72): “Reverse discrimination means actively recruiting people from previously underprivileged groups. In other words, reverse discriminators deliberately treat job applicants unequally in that they are biased towards people from groups against which discrimination has usually been directed”. Putatively, this policy is the only way to: (a) Correct the problems created by past discrimination against certain groups of people, and (b) Speed up the process intended to correct the present imbalances in certain professions. The measure is supposed to be implemented for a limited time: until balance is brought about at the workplace. This point will be explained in class; see also your textbook, p. 72.

EQUALITY – EMPLOYMENT 4 There are a number of objections against the measure of reverse discrimination. [Do note that: in some countries reverse discrimination is illegal, whereas in others it is required by law.] We will examine a couple of these objections. Reverse discrimination is advocated by the egalitarian, i.e. somebody who believes that human beings should be equal to each other – in some respects. It is for this reason that some thinkers argue that the supporters of this measure violate the very principle they try to defend, namely, the principle of equality. In other words, the objection here is that reverse discrimination is essentially an anti-egalitarian measure. The fact of the matter is that the egalitarians do have answers to the above objection.

EQUALITY – EMPLOYMENT 5 One answer is the following: The present state of things is far more unfair (to the members of disadvantaged groups) than a situation in which reverse discrimination is practiced. A second answer: The objection may be eliminated if we do stipulate that the racial origins or the gender of the applicant are relevant qualifications for a certain job. For instance, we may argue that: a woman applicant should be given preference as she could act as a role model for the rest of the employees in a certain company. It should be noted, however, that if we do accept this suggestion, then it is debatable whether the above still constitutes a case of reverse discrimination. See also the discussion in your textbook, p. 73.

EQUALITY – EMPLOYMENT 6 There is another well-known objection to reverse discrimination: it may lead to resentment. The measure of reverse discrimination is meant to reduce or eliminate discrimination in certain professions. The problem here is this: those who fail to get a particular job because they happen not to come from a disadvantaged group may feel resentment against those who get the jobs because of their gender or racial origin. The advocates of reverse discrimination argue that this objection may be readily dealt with. We can eliminate the risk noted above, of actually increasing discrimination (of all kinds), by ensuring that the candidates hired do actually have the qualifications required to do the job in question. Is this a good answer – to the objection mentioned above?

DEMOCRACY 1 How is democracy connected to the topic of equality? Putatively, it is the political system that gives all citizens a(/an equal) share when it comes to the process of political decision-making. Ancient Athens is usually considered to be a model of democracy; it was the first democratic state. Yet, by modern standards, does it really merit the name of “democracy”? See also the discussion in your textbook, p. 74. It should also be noted that there are two “types” of democracy: (a) Direct Democracy and (b) Representative Democracy.

DEMOCRACY 2 Direct Democracy: All citizens participate directly in the process of political decision- making. Early democratic states were direct democracies, e.g. the city-state of (ancient) Athens. Is this system at all feasible today? There are a number of practical problems here. Can you see some of them? What about electronic voting? Can it solve some of these problems? Representative Democracy: Voters select/vote for their favorite representatives; these representatives make all political decisions on behalf of the people/the voters. All modern democracies are representative democracies.

DEMOCRACY – OBJECTIONS 1 There are a number of criticisms of democracy – they apply to both direct and representative democracy. We will briefly examine three of them. The “Marxist objection”: Roughly, the objection here is that the existing forms of democracy provide (people) with an illusory sense of participation in political decision- making. The existing system cannot guarantee rule by the people: the voters may be duped by skilful politicians; voters do not really have genuine choices; voters may not understand where their best interests lie. [For further details on the above, see p. 76 in your textbook.] The Marxists claim that this problem, the problem of “bourgeois democracy”, may be resolved through a radical re-organization of the economic relations within society.

DEMOCRACY – OBJECTIONS 2 The “Platonic objection”: Sound political decision-making is based on a great deal of expertise/knowledge concerning the related matters. Most citizens do not have this kind of knowledge/expertise. Thus, it is quite likely that: in a direct democracy citizens will be taking the wrong decisions; in a representative democracy citizens will vote for inadequate politicians. The answer to the above objection seems to be obvious. All of these problems may be solved by educating citizens so that they may effectively participate in democracy. In other words, this objection does not give us sufficient reason to believe that democracy should be abandoned.

DEMOCRACY – OBJECTIONS 3 The “paradox of democracy”: One of the most fundamental principles of democracy is this: The decisions of the majority should be respected/enacted. But, what happens in a case where the majority makes a decision that violates my moral beliefs? Let us consider an example. The majority has voted in favor of capital punishment. At the very same time I find capital punishment to be barbaric – and unethical in general. In this case I find myself in a rather difficult situation. My two beliefs are incompatible with each other. This is the problem labeled as the “paradox of democracy”. Is this a real problem for democracy? What do you think? Take a look at the relevant material in your textbook, p. 77.

POLITICAL FREEDOM 1 There are two senses of freedom in the political context: (a) negative freedom and (b) positive freedom. Both of them are identified and analyzed by Isaiah Berlin. Negative freedom: It is the absence of coercion. If no one is forcing you to behave in a certain way, and if no one is stopping you from behaving in a particular way, then you are free in the negative sense. It is believed that governments ought to restrict the freedom of individuals to some extent – in order to protect all members of the society. Do you agree with the above claim? Or, do you agree with Mill who claims that citizens should be allowed to do and say whatever they like as long as they do not harm others in the process.

POLITICAL FREEDOM 2 The main objection to negative freedom is this: It is extremely difficult to determine what is to count as ‘harming others’. It would seem that whatever we decide to do may, in some way or another, harm others. See some of the examples in your textbook, p. 78. Mill believed that harming others = physically harming other people; offending others does not amount to harming them. Do you agree with Mill’s view?

POLITICAL FREEDOM 3 Positive freedom: It is the freedom to exercise control over your own life. It should be noted that one may have negative freedom, i.e. no one is coercing him, but he may not have positive freedom. To clarify this point, we should examine a relevant example, e.g. the example of the rich drug addict. The case will be analyzed in some detail in class. See also the discussion in your textbook, p. 79. There is one well-known objection against positive freedom. It does in principle give the state the authority to interfere with a citizen’s life – in order to ensure that this citizen may have positive freedom.

POLITICAL FREEDOM 4 Mill states that in cases where a man has no control over his own life, the state, or other people, are entitled to reason with him. Nevertheless, the state or other people may not coerce this person (into a better way of life) in any way whatsoever. Do you agree with the supporters of positive freedom, or do you find Mill’s view to be more convincing? What you need to bear in mind here is that the positive conception of freedom can and has been used to license all kinds of unjust coercion – usually by agents of the state.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 1 In totalitarian regimes citizens do not have the freedom of expression/speech. The citizen’s views are censored by the state. Putatively, it is only in democracies that the freedom of expression may be secured. It should be noted, however, that even in democracies there is a certain degree of censorship. Mill had some interesting views on this topic.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 2 Mill believed that: a person should be allowed to express his views up to the point where one runs the risk of (physically) harming other people; offending other people is acceptable. Mill used a number of arguments to defend freedom from censorship. Here are the main ones: If the censor is to justify his actions, then he must assume infallibility. But, this seems to be an absurd assumption. Criticism of the existing views is beneficial: (a) it helps us get rid of false beliefs, and (b) it helps us solidify the true beliefs we have. It should be noted that Mill’s general argument for freedom from censorship is essentially a utilitarian one.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 3 That is to say, Mill thinks that censorship leads to violations of the principle of utility. But, what happens when censorship does promote the principle of utility? What is the utilitarian supposed to do in such a case? The answer here is obvious. Presumably, a better argument against censorship is this: human beings have the natural right to freedom of speech, and the state should respect it. At this point, a familiar objection seems to arise: what is the basis for what we call the ‘natural right to freedom of speech’.