Political Thinking POL 161 Erik Rankin D&B- 97-109.

Political ThinkingPOL 161

Erik Rankin

D&B- 97-109

Adam Smith – Wealth of Nations

Discussion of the division of labor Humans have a natural disposition towards trade

or commerce No other race of animal seems to have the ability

to barter and trade Ex: The dog

Animals have to resort to begging to get their desires fulfilled

Man has the ability to offer another man something in exchange for services or goods

Adam Smith – Wealth of Nations

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

- The Wealth of Nations Man instinctively becomes a specialist

The maker of bows and arrows, a trade that grows into his chief business to acquire all other things

Man takes all surplus for his trade and enters into the marketplace

Man choice of profession is usually due in part to his habits, customs, and education

Adam Smith – Wealth of Nations People are quite similar for the first 6 to 8 years of their

lives After that they begin to exhibit differences These differences lead to their professions that will allow

them to trade and barter Without trade and barter a person will be required to

acquire all that they desire on their own Return to the dogs: Mastiff, Greyhound, Spaniel,

Shepard’s dog All in all animals cannot rely on each other to make life

more convenient where as humans divide their labor for the benefit of all

Freedom and Enlightenment- Immanuel Kant According to Immanuel Kant, enlightenment is

when a person grows out of his self-imposed immaturity (this might be on a quiz later!)

He defines immaturity as one’s inability to use his own understanding without the guidance of another

He says that people impose immaturity on themselves because they fear the use of their own understanding without someone else’s help

Furthermore he adds that laziness and cowardice cause people to gladly remain immature for life

Because of these qualities, he says that others may easily establish themselves as the guardians or authorities on certain subjects.

Freedom and Enlightenment- Immanuel Kant

He gives the following examples of guardians, “a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on.”

He says that guardians will often warn you of dangers you could encounter should you attempt not to use their aid

They tell the people whom they guard that the step to maturity is very dangerous and difficult.

Kant says that this frightens people from making attempts towards maturity.


Kant states that it is often difficult for people to emerge from immaturity.

He says that people would often remain content in a state of immaturity.

According to him, rules and formulas bind people to a state of immaturity.

A person who would dare to defy the rules and formulas would only be taking a small step towards maturity because he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement

Only a few people, according to Kant, have succeeded in emerging from immaturity.

He says that such people have done so by cultivating their minds.


Kant says that the only thing required for enlightenment is freedom, namely the freedom to publicly use reason.

By public use of reason he means, a scholar's use of reason before the entire literate world

He says that this public use of reason alone can bring about enlightenment among people.

Private reason, he points out, may be narrowly restricted as long as it does not hinder the enlightening process.


Thus, freedom is essential for enlightenment People must be able to express their

thoughts By spreading ideas and information, people

will be able to be their own guardians because they will have all the things necessary to do so

By allowing freedom of thought, people will spread ideas which will urge others to think for themselves

Liberty and Individuality- John Stuart Mill

Mill with what he calls "the object of his essay." He writes that he will argue that the only time individuals or

society as a whole can interfere with individual liberty is for self-protection

Mill states that the argument that a certain law or public opinion might be for an individual's own good or welfare does not suffice to justify that law or public opinion as a coercive force

coercion by the many toward the individual is only acceptable when an individual poses a threat to others

It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to compel him.

Mill writes, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."


Mill notes that the right of liberty does not apply to children, or to "backward" societies

It is only when people are capable of learning from discussion that liberty holds; otherwise the people must be taken care of

Mill also notes that he is not justifying the claim of liberty as an abstract right

Rather, he is grounding it in utility, on the permanent interests of mankind.


Mill writes that if a person causes harm to others actively or inactively, it is appropriate for society to condemn him legally or through general disapprobation

Individuals can even be compelled to do good for other people, such as to save someone's life, because to do otherwise would be to cause evil to another person

In contrast, society only has an indirect interest in what a person does to himself or to other freely consenting people.


Mill divides the appropriate sphere of human liberty falls into three categories, claiming that any free society must respect all three

First, there is the domain of the conscience, and liberty of individual thought and opinion

Second, there is planning one's own life, and the liberty of tastes and pursuits.


Third, there is the liberty to unite with other consenting individuals for any purpose that does not harm others

These liberties reflect the idea that true freedom means pursuing one's own good in one's own way, as long as it does not prevent others from doing the same

These ideas directly contradict society's increasing tendency to demand conformity, and unless moral conviction turns against this tendency, the demand for conformity will only increase.


Mill turns to the issue of whether people, either through their government or on their own, should be allowed to coerce or limit anyone else's expression of opinion

Mill emphatically says that such actions are illegitimate Even if only one person held a particular opinion,

mankind would not be justified in silencing him Silencing these opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it

robs "the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation."

In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions.


Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions.

His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true.

He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments..


Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.

Mill contends that such confidence is not justified, and that all people are hurt by silencing potentially true ideas

After presenting his first argument, Mill looks at possible criticisms of his reasoning and responds to them.

Journal Entry

React to Mill’s assertion, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Discuss the 3 categories in Mill’s sphere of human liberties. Does he miss anything?

Is lying ever justified? If so, when and why?

Political Thinking POL 161 Erik Rankin D&B- 97-109.

Documents

Transcript of Political Thinking POL 161 Erik Rankin D&B- 97-109.