In “The Conflict of Autonomy and Authority” Robert Paul Wolff argues that the state’s authority is in conflict with having genuine autonomy. He reasons as follows. If there were a supreme political authority, which have a right to rule, there would be an obligation for a man to obey its laws. However, a man has an obligation to be autonomous, which means taking responsibility for making one’s own decisions about what one should do. Autonomous man has primary obligation to refuse to be ruled. Therefore, a supreme political authority does not have a right to claim authority over a man who has a moral obligation to be autonomous. He concludes by denying the concept of de jure legitimate state. The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the …show more content…
He claims that the authority has a right to rule and it means that people need to obey the laws. He links the “right to rule” and “obey the law”. It is not necessarily true that the“right to rule” and “obey the law” is linked. If we look at the relationship between parents and children, parents have natural authority over their children. The parents may command children to go to school. Although the children were told to go to school, they may not obey the parents’ command to go to school. Just because the parents have a right to rule over their children, it does not mean that they are taking away children’s autonomy. While Wolff suggests that the authority’s “right to rule” is followed by individual’s “obey the law”, he does not clarify the case when some people have natural or professional
insist on our right of and capacity for being self-governing individuals. But we find ourselves again under the rule of a king - an authority exterior to the self. This time, however, we cannot as easily identify the king and declare our independence." Despite
Authority can only become an issue once the rights of the individual are being impinged, a concept represented in both V for Vendetta and the Stanford Prison Experiment. These two texts, along with the study of the concept of authority and the individual, have expanded my understanding of myself, individuals and the world. It has especially broadened my knowledge on the crossover of the concept, the ability for the individual to have authority and the ability for both sides to be perceived as good or bad and the power of a person’s individuality. “The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.”
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Power is earned, not given. There are many different types of power that people can earn. Power becomes a problem when it is not questioned or tested. Therefore, the one with the power would have total control over anything or anyone they wanted, or they would feel that way. People with power feel invincible when it is not questioned. Throughout history it has been proven that this creates a problem. For example, Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal is similar to the scandal with Father Flynn in Doubt. Doubt, by John Patrick Shanley, exemplifies an underlying message that unquestioned faith leads to abuse of power. Specifically, shown in Father Flynn’s reputation, cover up, and resignation, which all correlate to Richard Nixon’s Watergate Scandal.
One of Locke’s broadest conclusions is his definition of the role of the state. He defines the states only real role is to ensure justice is done based on what he states are unalienable rights granted to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of estate. Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories.
...should either live the life of those that they rule, as an equal, or as a superior allow the necessary input of those whom they rule, to decide the best course of action, as is done in a democracy.
There are several arguments against philosophical anarchism. Most of the arguments are in line with either the theory that consent is not required or of the theory we have already consented. For the sake of being brief, this essay will attempt to refute only the latter of the two. Along with the idea of individual consent is the longstanding, traditional theory of the authority of God. Other arguments follow a less anarchist view and are that of tacit consent and more specifically that of majority consent.
In “Autonomy and Benevolent Lies” Thomas Hill presents the case of benevolent lies and if they are morally troublesome. Philosophers have been debating the moral difference between a malicious lie, told in order to hurt people, and a benevolent lie. According to Hill benevolent lies are “intended to benefit the person deceived, for no ulterior motives, and they actually succeed in giving comfort without causing main” (Thomas E. Hill). Many argue that benevolent lies are no different from a malicious lie because telling a lie is morally wrong. Others argue benevolent lies and malicious lies differ because of the deliberate intentions. Hill provides the reader with three cases of a benevolent lies. The three cases he presents are the possible suicide of a student which a Professor lies to the student’s mother, the
In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.
Philosophy can be defined as the highest level of clarity and understanding human thought can aspire to. In some ways, Plato’s Republic can be compared to George Orwell’s book 1984. It may seem strange to compare the two, however they are quite similar. Plato writes from the Western philosophy, while Orwell tells of a totalitarian society where all free thought is banned. However, the two versions of government, one being a utopian government, and the other being horrific, contain certain connections that will be made clear over the course of this paper.
Therefore to conclude we can say that it is therefore evident that Hobbes’ idea of the state as such can fit thoughts for individual freedoms. His authoritarian Leviathan is only the way in which society should be organised; it by no means implies that the individual is to behave like a machine driven by the state, this idea would fit the idea of communism better than Hobbes’ Leviathan. His main thought on the relation between individual rights and the well-functioning of the state is that the people should be enabled to posses these rights as long as they respect the fact that they have been given these rights. In other words the status quo should be maintained, law and order being enforced accordingly and the individual will have rights that, controlled by the state, will enable the sovereignty to be organised, prosperous and peaceful.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
Tom Paine described the state as a “necessary evil”. It is necessary in that it establishes order and security and ensures that contracts are carried out. Yet, it is “evil” since it enforces collective will upon society, thus constraining individual freedom. Negative freedom also supports economic freedom.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.