|
20489
|
Human beings can never really flourish in a long-term state of nature [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must agree with Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau that nothing genuinely worthy of being called a state of nature will, at least in the long term, be a condition in which human beings can flourish.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 1 'Conc')
|
|
A reaction:
Given our highly encultured concept of modern flourishing, that is obviously right. There may be another reality where hom sap flourishes in a quite different and much simpler way. Education as personal, not institutional?
|
|
20532
|
Should love be the first virtue of a society, as it is of the family? [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
Love, or at least affection, not justice, is the first virtue of the family. Should mutual affection also be the first virtue of social and political institutions?
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 6 'Transcending')
|
|
A reaction:
Surely this ideal should be at the heart of any society, no matter how far away from the ideal it is pushed by events and failures of character? I take 'respect' to be the form of love we feel for strangers.
|
|
20490
|
For utilitarians, consent to the state is irrelevant, if it produces more happiness [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
On the utilitarian account the state is justified if and only if it produces more happiness than any alternative. Whether we consent to the state is irrelevant.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 2 'Intro')
|
|
A reaction:
The paternalistic character of utilitarianism is a familiar problem. I quite like this approach, even though liberals will find it a bit naughty. We make children go to school, for their own good. Experts endorse society, even when citizens don't.
|
|
20493
|
Social contract theory has the attracton of including everyone, and being voluntary [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
Social contract theory ...satisfies the twin demands of universalism - every person must be obligated - and voluntarism - political obligations can come into existence only through consent.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 2 'Voluntaristic')
|
|
A reaction:
I'm going off the idea that being a member of large society is voluntary. It can't possibly be so for most people, and it shouldn't be. I'm British, and society expects me to remain so (though they might release me, if convenient).
|
|
20497
|
How can dictators advance the interests of the people, if they don't consult them about interests? [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
Even if a dictator wants to advance the interests of the people, how are those interests to be known? In a democracy people show their interests, it seems, by voting: they vote for what they want.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 3 'Knowledge')
|
|
A reaction:
I suppose a wise and kind despot could observe very carefully, and understand the interests of the people better than they do themselves. Indeed, I very much doubt, in 2017, whether the people know what is good for them.
|
|
20506
|
'Separation of powers' allows legislative, executive and judicial functions to monitor one another [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
The Federalists took the idea of 'separation of powers' from Locke and Montesquieu. This places the legislative, executive and judicial functions in independent hands, so that in theory any branch of government would be checked by the other two.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 3 'Representative')
|
|
A reaction:
[The American Federalist writers of 1787-8 were Madison, Hamilton and Jay] This is a brilliant idea. An interesting further element that has been added to it is the monitoring by a free press, presumably because the other three were negligent.
|
|
20530
|
Political choice can be by utility, or maximin, or maximax [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
Political choices can be made by the utility principles (maximising total utility), or maximin (maximising for the worst off, a view for pessimists), or maximax (not serious, but one for optimists, being unequal, and aiming for a high maximum).
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 5 'Choosing')
|
|
A reaction:
[my summary of a page of Wolff] Rawls embodies the maximin view. Wolff implies that we must choose between utilitarianism and Rawls. Would Marxists endorse maximin? He also adds 'constrained maximisation', with a safety net.
|
|
20487
|
A realistic and less utopian anarchism looks increasingly like liberal democracy [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
As the anarchist picture of society becomes increasingly realistic and less utopian, it also becomes increasingly difficult to tell it apart from a liberal democratic state.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 1 'Anarchism')
|
|
A reaction:
Nice challenge to anarchism, which is clear in what it opposes, but isn't much of a political philosophy if it doesn't have positive aspirations. Anarchists may hope that people will beautifully co-operate, but what if they re-form the state to do it?
|
|
20511
|
Democracy expresses equal respect (which explains why criminals forfeit the vote) [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
Democracy is a way of expressing equal respect for all, which is perhaps why we withdraw the vote from criminals: by their behaviour they forfeit the right to equal respect.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 3 'Conc')
|
|
A reaction:
I disagree, and he has converted me to franchise for criminals. One-off criminals do not forfeit my respect for them as people, though their action may merit a controlling response on our part. Bad character, not a bad action, forfeits respect.
|
|
20499
|
Condorcet proved that sensible voting leads to an emphatically right answer [Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
Condorcet proved that provided people have a better than even chance of getting the right answer, and that they vote for their idea of the common good, then majority decisions are an excellent way to get the right result.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Wolff (An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) [2006], 3 'Voting')
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] The point is that collective voting magnifies the result. If they tend to be right, the collective view is super-right. But if they tend towards the wrong, the collective view goes very wrong indeed. History is full of the latter.
|