Plato and Hobbes: On the Foundations of Political Philosophy

Unpublished, 2005

Free download. Unpublished. 138 pages. Fifteen recommendations and over 2,530 reads on ResearchGate as of January 17, 2025. This is a law school student paper I wrote for Don Regan’s and Joseph Raz’s jointly taught political philosophy course at the University of Michigan School of Law in 1994. I finished editing it for my Web site in 2005. The paper is a critical study of Joseph Raz’s book, The Morality of Freedom. Topics include authority justified by reason, perfectionist moral ideals vs. neutralism, rights-based liberty, incommensurability of values, human well-being, political autonomy, value-pluralism, and harm and toleration. Other philosophers and thinkers discussed include Richard Bellamy, Panayot Butchvarov, William Edward Deming, Gerald Dworkin, R. E. Ewin, G. C. Field, John Martin Fischer, William K. Frankena, Gordon Graham, G. W. F. Hegel, W. T. Jones, Charles Kelbley, Loren E. Lomasky, Rollo May, Andrew Oldenquist, Troy Wilson Organ, P. H. Partridge, Bertrand Russell, Henry Sidgwick, P. F. Strawson, L. W. Sumner, Paul Tillich, J. O. Urmson, W. J. Waluchow, Max Weber, and Wilhelm Windelband. The title of the paper is just a word play, reversing Raz's book title to suggest that I am turning him upside down. When I selected the title, I was well aware of Paul the Apostle's view that to follow either morality or evil (righteousness or sin) is in that sense (or to that extent) to be their willing slave, and that to be the slave of either is to be free of the other. Thus Paul's view is that 'the freedom of morality' is the freedom from being a slave to sin - though paradoxically it is also to be a (voluntary) slave to morality. See Paul, Letter to the Romans, 6: 6-23. That strikes me as a rather conservative view, at least insofar as it is about individual choice and personal responsibility, as opposed to setting up a political structure to help people be moral and avoid sin. And to that extent it goes against the unabashedly liberal Raz, who is fairly strong on autonomy, but is against value-free autonomy. But Paul's view is not a topic in my paper. Paul's religious / moral topic is not in Raz, and therefore it is not in my paper either, precisely because my paper is a paper on Raz, not on Paul. But this does raise an issue that is not in my paper either, but should have been a main criticism of Raz. Namely, philosophers are supposed to be neutral and objective, and should not be announcing at the outset, as Raz does in his book, that they are liberal or conservative. It used to be thought that the ideal political philosopher is one whose personal views you cannot even tell from what they say in class, even if they end up concluding for liberal or conservative views in their works. That is not one of Raz's ideals in classroom teaching, LOL! Nonetheless, Raz is full of ideas, and I learned much from him. If his arguments were not interesting, I would not have written this paper. Also, my paper would have been uninteresting if I were simply reporting my agreements with him. In that case, you would do better to read Raz instead of me. My "Plato and Hobbes: On the Foundations of Political Philosophy," also on ResearchGate, is an independent companion paper written for the same course. It adds a deeper dimension of positive thinking on, and in fact it offers a positive theory of, political philosophy. It is not very new - I end up supporting democracy over other forms of government. In any case, as an ontologist and metaphysician, I cannot say that political philosophy is a logically very deep subject. It is popular, but not deep. No doubt those two facts are related! Unfortunately, theory of government (theory of the state) is as deep as it gets in political philosophy. At least logical vagueness (due to logical incommensurability of ideas), which Raz discusses, is a deeper and more general subject.

1986

%is lnnk is sold rahjert to the, mnrlition that if shall not, hy way of t,orle or olhtmise, he lent, re-sold, hired our ot othmmire cirrulored without rhr publisher's prior consrnr in any form of hindinp or rover orhcr than tho[ ,n which it is published and withorit n rimilar condition rnrludinr rhir lrrnditlon hein,q im@sed on thp subseyrrent purrhorer

DESCRIPTION This graduate seminar will give a philosophical grounding in the normative concepts that guide political theory. We will examine the origin and justification of basic concepts such as freedom and autonomy, equality and social justice, crime and punishment, coercion and authority of the state. We will look for the origins of concepts and principles in two sources: Nature and right (and law). Part I will be devoted to political theorists who ground their political concepts in nature, naturalized norms, and power: Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Nietzsche. We begin with the pessimistic moral psychology lying at the basis of Machiavelli and Hobbes's political writings on power and sovereignty. Among the topics we will examine: What motivates people? Do people naturally tend toward doing evil? Are they unavoidably and inherently selfish and self-interested? Other topics will include autonomy and expressive unity with nature in Rousseau; Rousseau's account of natural inequalities in a state of nature; and his account of how our psychologies in a pre-political state of nature underwent development in the political sphere. Problems arise, however, from placing natural norms at the basis of political theory. If people are inherently and unavoidably self-interested, as these political theorists think, this will effect the kinds of safeguards and checks that need to be in place to protect people from each other. Their pessimism about human nature results making political life essentially coercive. This paradox that people need to be " forced " to be free will be a continuing theme throughout our discussions. Does the state the right have to coerce humans to do what is right, in accordance with universal principles of right and freedom? Or do these unwanted implications mean we have the wrong psychological profile of human nature? Next, we look to ways that philosophers have sought to remedy problems arising on the natural approach. By contrast, Part II looks to a rational origin for political principles. We'll examine how Kant, Hegel, and Marx derive their norms out of considerations about right and law. Some basic questions will arise in connection with concerns about freedom, individual freedom, and coercion: What is a person? Does a concept of a person limit what you can do to them? Do persons have intrinsic rights, like dignity, or is this something acquired (earned)? Is their right to live free something they can lose or give up? The transition to right and law raises problems of its own, such as: Is a bias toward rationality detrimental to individualistic self-realization and self-expression? Are authoritative models of the state detrimental to individual freedom?

Entelekya Logico-Metaphysical Review, 2019

Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 431 pp.

2008

Hobbes and Republican Liberty he offers a dazzling comparison of two rival theories about the nature of human liberty. The first originated in classical antiquity, and lay at the heart of the Roman republican tradition of public life. It flowered in the city-republics of Renaissance Italy, and has been central to much recent discussion of republicanism among contemporary political theorists. Thomas Hobbes was the most formidable enemy of this pattern of thought, and his attempt to discredit it constitutes a truly epochal moment in the history of Anglophone political thought. Professor Skinner shows how Hobbes's successive efforts to grapple with the question of human liberty were deeply affected by the claims put forward by the radical and parliamentarian writers in the course of the English civil wars, and by Hobbes's sense of the urgent need to counter them in the name of peace. Skinner approaches Hobbes's political theory not simply as a general system of ideas but as a polemical intervention in the conflicts of his time, and he shows that Leviathan, the greatest work of political philosophy ever written in English, reflects a substantial change in the character of Hobbes's moral thought, responding very specifically to the political needs of the moment. As Professor Skinner says, seething polemics always underlie the deceptively smooth surface of Hobbes's argument. Hobbes and Republican Liberty is an extended essay that develops several of the themes announced by Quentin Skinner in his famous inaugural lecture on Liberty before Liberalism of 1998. Cogent, engaged, accessible and indeed exhilarating, this new book will appeal to readers of history, politics and philosophy at all levels, and provides an excellent introduction to the work of one of the most celebrated thinkers of our time.

Mind, 2011

Philosophy in Review, 2011

Routledge, 2024

This volume brings together diverse sets of standpoints on liberalism in an era of growing skepticism and distrust regarding liberal institutions. The essays in the volume: - Relate concerns for liberal institutions with classical themes in perfectionist politics, such as the priority of the common good in decision-making or the role of comprehensive doctrines. - Analyse how perfectionist intuitions about the political life affect our concepts of public reason or public justification. - Outline various moral duties we have toward other persons that underlie the liberal institutions or notions of rights functioning across the contemporary political landscape. - Explore various aspects of pluralism from within influential religious or philosophical traditions, applying insights from those traditions to issues in contemporary politics. The comprehensive volume will be of great interest to scholars, students, and researchers of politics, especially those in political philosophy and political theory.

, and by appointment Catalog Description A survey of political thought from the ancient world to the modern day. Includes examination of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx. About the Course Political philosophy explores the nature and justification of government. It includes considerations of forms of political systems, the relationship between the individual and society, and ideals such as liberty, equality, justice, and individual rights. This course provides an introduction to some major political philosophers from various traditions of political thought. Much of the course will focus on the liberal political tradition of Western thought along with its significant critics (note that the use of liberalism here refers to a broad philosophical philosophy grounded in the ideals of liberty and equality. This usage is distinct from the meaning the term "liberal" has acquired in contemporary American politics). We will begin with examination of the historical development of Western political thought and roots of liberal theory. We will then turn to contemporary discussions of liberalism before examining some recent challenges to it and alternative theoretical approaches. We will encounter a number recurring themes, including the limits and justification of political authority, the role of private property, the permissibility of political resistance or revolution, limits on individual liberty, the scope of pluralism, tolerance of religion, and the significance of morality in the political system.