Friday, May 6, 2011

Post 5: Political philosophy

Monday, May 9th

Last week you answered, "What is justice? How would you define justice in your own words? What would be examples of a just government? Of an unjust government?"

This week I want you to answer how one of the philosophers we have studied answered these questions. Your choices include: Hobbes, Locke, Rawls, Marx, Socrates and Thoreau. Write an explanation of how your philosopher would have answered the questions and then write your reaction to what you agree/disagree with in their vision of justice.

22 comments:

kevinr said...

FIRST

Autumn M. said...

Hobbes thought we needed a government to protect our natural rights, sacrificing some of their own things to get something in return would be justice. Locke thought there should be a government to give people their rights but they should also have the right to demand a better government. Justice is decided by the people. Russeau thought there shouldn't be a government and justice is maintained by the people. People protect their own rights and are fair to others on their own will.

Ben5454 said...

Socrates would say that justice is teaching the truth. Letting the people know what is going on and keeping them informed. I do agree with this because the people do have a right to know what, either the government or businesses, is going on. I think Socrates would say this because he spent a long time searching for the truth.

hayley said...

Marx would say that a minimal state of justice was acceptable, and that people are entitled to property gained by honest means. So basically, if people are handed things, it is okay as long as they earned it by honest means. If people are entitled truthfully, it is acceptable.

Kristin said...

Locke would say that justice is when the government protects the citizens' natural rights from abuse from other people and government abuse. Locke would say that a just government is one that protects everyone's right to life, liberty, and property. Locke would also say that a just government would yield to public rebellion if the government would fail to fulfill the social contract. An unjust government is one that impedes on peoples' natural rights and retains power after the people rebel. I agree with Locke's vision of justice because the main purpose of the government is to protect the rights of citizens to promote equal rights.

Amanda J. Lerom said...

I believe Marx would have said that justice is equality. To receive what you've worked for and gain a voice. Marx doesn't believe in our government today. A perfect government to him would be a communist government, completely run by people and the will of people. An unjust government is one that groups people together and slashes out individaulity.

Kelsey said...

Hobbes believed that life is short, nasty and brutish. He also believed that people are bad. He thought that the government should protect only life and that people shouldn't rebel against the government. Because of all of these things, Hobbes would think that justice is being protected by the government. A just government protects life; nothing more and nothing less. If one were to rebel against the government, Hobbes believed that they should be punished. Hobbes believed that the right to a government is just as it sounds-a right- but we can't take this right for granted.

Tammie Powell said...

From what I know, I believe that Marx would say that justice is synonymous with equality. His ideal society would be one that held all individuals equally- at least economically. He proposed that the perfect government would be one that didn't necessarily even need to exist, because a truly just society wouldn't need one. Accordingly, Marx thought that an unjust government would be a capitalist one, where personal incentives influence economic success, and ultimately, the people are not equal.

Amanda.Eiss said...

Rawls believed that "justice" is the same as "fairness". He uses the "social contract" to better detail this belief. He believes that liberty and equality are important principles of justice. He considers the veil of ignorance important in making fair and just decisions.
Rawls would say that a "just government" would utilize the "veil of ignorance" when making decisions. They would not base their decisions on having an outcome that would be beneficial only for them, but rather for everyone in the society.
I agree with Rawls stance on justice. I think that of the philosophers he has the most well rounded perspective on what justice is.

Nick said...

I think that Marx believed equality to be justice in great part. The idea that if everyone has the same terms that everything would just be better. He thought that just "even terms" brought justice to everyone, and that an unjust government would be subjective, capitalist. A just government is communism, because the entire system is based on the belief of equality and flatness of principle.

JPanger said...

Rawls thinks a just society is a fair society, thus, justice as fairness as he proposed. Justice to him would be equality and making sure everyone is treated fairly in due process. A just government is one that allows for for people to raise their arguments in a safe place and then have an arbitrary third party decide on the case. This would be fair to both parties because their complaints were heard and, hopefully, the most right person wins. An unjust government on the other hand wouldn't care for its citizens natural rights. Complaints wouldn't be heard nor would anybody care, creating Nozick's minimalist state. This state isn't fair and helps the strong and hurts the weak; fairness, here, is by who has the larger stick

Anonymous said...

I think Locke would’ve had a similar view to what we generally think as a society of what justice is. He seems to be more middle of the road in terms of governmental power and place. I think Locke would have said that justice is upholding the natural rights that we as citizens have. Given we give up some of these for the safety our government offers, there are many that need to be upheld. He would have thought that it is necessary to “rebel” if these rights are taken away in any way.

AWOOLL said...

Rawls saw the definition of justice in two principles, equity and difference. He thought social and economic differences will happen, but they should be set up for the advantage of everyone. The only way to make sure this happens is to create a society under the 'Veil of Ignorance,' in which nobody knows their own position in society. That way, decisions benefit the whole. Because it is impossible for our government to actually behave under total ignorance, his principles are impractical. Rawls would see the formation of our government as unjust because our founding fathers acted to benefit themselves and others like them, rich, white, male landowners. I agree that this is not the most fair way to set up a government but it is impractical to actually be completely blind when setting up a society.

Rutger said...

In the mind of Rawls, justice can only be achieved if the person who administers it does not know who their decision will apply to, wether it be to themselves or to someone close to them, or even a complete stranger. Thus, a just government could only be achieved if the people who made the decisions would not know where their district would be next, or who the decisions would affect. The current system in the United States could never be just in Rawls’ opinion because each politician knows who they will be elected by next, and where their decisions will be inacted. This justice is in my opinion as close to perfect as can be achieved in the current iteration of our society. As their has yet been no proof of a single philosophy of ethics being correct, no administration of justice can be universal, however if each person who decides anothers fate thinks that they could be deciding their own, it is as near to justice can come.

RJ said...

Rawls would argue that justice is based upon fairness in society, and calls this idea justice in fairness. His idea of fairness is based upon two principles he has. One is called the equality principle, which states that everyone must get some fundamental human rights, and that when it is possible to expand those rights for everyone it should be done so. The second principle is called the difference principle, which says that economic and social differences in society must both be to everyone’s advantage as well as each position in society must be open to anyone. Rawls’ definition would be something to the effect of “justice is where all things are fair, to the effect of everyone having an expanding set of unalienable rights and also being beneficially unequal.” A just government would follow these tenets, especially in the case of expanding rights for everyone. An unjust government would oppose these ideas; unequal positions that solely benefit those on tops, basic rights only available to some people, lessening rights.

Personally, I can see the merit of this conception of justice, but I don’t personally agree that fairness is the real basis, the be-all-end-all, of justice.

AnthoNOVA said...

What is justice? How would you define justice in your own words? What would be examples of a just government? Of an unjust government?
According to Rawls

According to contemporary philosopher John Rawls, justice is based in fairness of opportunity. He holds that a just society is one in which people of equal talent and motivation have equal ability to gain status. Rawls’s ideal government is one in which decisions are made beneath a veil of ignorance: the decision-makers have no conception of how their decisions would personally affect them.
Overall I agree with Rawls’s philosophy but believe its principles are too lofty to be practically implemented as more than a thought experiment. Rawls’s difference principle is certainly a fair and just idea to strive for, but circumstance will continually create unjust inequality. Constantly “resetting” the difference principle to give an equal start trends towards Marx’s idea of total economic equality. While the veil of ignorance can help guide our conception of the ideal political decision-maker, it cannot actually be accomplished.

Henry.n said...

This week I want you to answer how one of the philosophers we have studied answered these questions. Your choices include: Hobbes, Locke, Rawls, Marx, Socrates and Thoreau. Write an explanation of how your philosopher would have answered the questions and then write your reaction to what you agree/disagree with in their vision of justice.

Hobbes thought we needed a government to protect our natural rights, sacrificing some of their own things to get something in return so i believe hobbes would view justice as a unified punishment for specific crimes people commit.

Allison said...

The "Social Contract" is an alternate phrase for "Government." John Locke has a very democratic ideology of social contacts, much of which influenced the creation of America's federal system. He believed in the existence of natural rights to which each individual is entitled (freedom of actions, right to life/health, property, etc.). A just government, states Locke, upholds and respects the natural rights of its citizens. An unjust government is one which exploits these rights for its own gain or abuses its power. I agree with Locke's definition of a just government. It is very important for a powerful entity to remember the importance of the individual and the rights it deserves, but also to maintain a sense of equality when exercising its power.

Benjamin David Trieu said...

Thoreau would say that justice is doing the right thing. While that sounds very ambiguous it is what he would say, because he thinks that people should follow what they believe, as shown by the time he got thrown in jail for not paying taxes and going off into the woods to live better. He would think that a world where everyone did what they believed was right without much outside influence. He would not think that there is a universal form of justice, but that justice depends on the person much as what is right depends on the person. I would not completely agree with this, because lots of people do not have a very good sense of right and wrong, and it would be unjust for them to be making things worse while everyone else is doing things that make things better because they think helping is right.

Alex Eckberg said...

HD would have said justice is the execution of what is morally right, and what is morally right comes from what one’s conscience tells you and not what the establish law declares. Now with that how does justice get served if what is just is subject to individual moral conscience? Well it falls back on government. A government successfully run by a democratic process where the law is a product of the will of the majority, but also where the minority has a say.
Thoreau would have felt along this line of thought because he pioneered the idea of civil disobedience in response to “injust” government. In his case he protested the war with Mexico by refusing to pay taxes. I support the position of resisting an action you feel opposed to because without that resistance nothing changes, progress stops, and people become ignorant. I also think you need to be truly committed to your cause if you endeavour to make change through disobedience, and so there is not total chaos that comes from people blatantly disobeying. If those are followed as Thoreau modeled, civil disobedience in pursuing justice is an effective course of action.

Alex Eckberg said...

In response to Ben Trieu:

So who is to say that the action said "wrong doer" is actually wrong, or that he is making "things" as you say worse? Isn't the notion that things are now worse just another individual or individuals own perspective? What makes one person's judgment more valid than another?

Riddle me that riddler.

J. Sengly said...

Hobbes believed in the social contract between individuals and the government. Basically, he would believe justice is served if this contract is preserved and honored. He would believe that a just government is one that serves to protect its people and an unjust one that doesn't protect its people. His priority for a government was to preserve order and stability; anything is acceptable as long as it preserves this idea.