February 21, 2006
-
Socrates Cafe Topic: Purpose of Politics
The Primary Purpose of Politics is to Insure Justice in an Imperfect World
The association of politics and justice is an ancient one. Philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries were especially conscious of relationship between the social institution of government and natural rights as they saw them. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau based much of their philosophies on the Social Contract; the idea that humans were willing to modify some of their individual natural rights for the benefits of living in an ordered society but that rightly the individual demanded that the society protect those natural rights and allow them the benefits on a equal basis.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident; That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...” is a clear abbreviated statement of this idea.
Our society accepts this idea of a just government insuring our civil rights and our Constitution spells out how the political process is supposed to work.
In practice the “imperfect world” often leads to a less-than-perfect implementation of this ideal. the democratic political process, however, is probably the best way to insure justice for us all as it allows the individual maximum input in the process.A modern social philosopher, John Rawls has somewhat updated the concept as follows:
“...Two Principles of Justice. These two principles determine the distribution of both civil liberties and social and economic goods. The first principle states that each person in a society is to have as much basic liberty as possible, as long as everyone is granted the same liberties. That is, there is to be as much civil liberty as possible as long as these goods are distributed equally. (This would, for example, preclude a scenario under which there was a greater aggregate of civil liberties than under an alternative scenario, but under which such liberties were not distributed equally amongst citizens.)”
“The second principle states that while social and economic inequalities can be just, they must be available to everyone equally (i.e., no one is to be on principle denied access to greater economic advantage) and such inequalities must be to the advantage of everyone. This means that economic inequalities are only justified when the least advantaged member of society is nonetheless better off than she would be under alternative arrangements. So, only if a rising tide truly does carry all boats upward, can economic inequalities be allowed for in a just society. “ (Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, 1972)Other modern movements, notably Feminism, have objected to the Social Contract on grounds that some of its basic assumptions, i.e. Equality of individuals and rejection of Paternalism include a basic assumption of sexual inequality. Others have implied the same about Racial inequality.
In almost all serious discussions of Politics, Justice and Ethics are important considerations just as in discussions of those concepts, politics is often at the forefront.
The idea “Practice what we preach” comes to mind.
Comments (17)
"In almost all serious discussions of Politics, Justice and Ethics are important considerations just as in discussions of those concepts, politics is often at the forefront.
The idea “Practice what we preach” comes to mind."
This is the conversation one might hear in the Ivory Tower. Problem is, most of the 'free' are no longer admitted into the Ivory Tower. Sure, we blog about justice, we rant about it even, but how many times a week do we see it take a back seat to injustice. I think we've let it go too far and we will never get it back.
I tend to be a little more optimistic. Just a one person's "terrorist" may be another's "freedom fighter", so might Justice and Injustice be confused. In our society, politics is the method we have chosen to direct the government.
Like you, I am very dissatisfied with our present administration; for three reasons (at least): I think it is incompetent, I think it is dishonest, and I think it tends toward autocracy.
However, I think I have a duty to my nation and society: To work as hard as I can to change the government's policies toward those more to my liking and I think the political process is the proper way to do this. Hey! sometimes my side even wins!
Can you suggest a better way of organizing and guiding our government?
Linking you now.
I must admit that I see no hope. Eventually anarchy and total breakdown of most of the nations of the world is inevitable. We are already slaves to the economy, it will get much worse, then total anarchy will be the rule of the day. I believe the problem started with improper use of technology, or the fact that technology outgrew our control and wisdom. It is the old saying; it is not that we can do a thing, it is whether we should do it. We never ask that any more. Morality is bankrupt, money is not real, character and integrity no longer are the rule. Everyone knows the end is coming so they are out to get whatever they can from whomever they can before it happens. Meanwhile we broadcast fantasy to the people telling them how great we are, how things are improving. Look around.
Da__Vinci: These sentiments can be found written (publicly or privately) throughout history though. Imagine how the citizens felt before the fall of Rome. Yes, Rome did collapse, but the world did not fall into anarchy, it maintained a generalized order and structure (Heck, the Aztecs didn't even notice!
). There are always signs of doom on the horizon, which I think helps keep us focused on that eventuality, ideally so that we can avoid it, but that is not always the case. I do agree that things look dismal indeed, and more often than not when I watch the news, or discuss it or what have you, my mind is taken back to the works of Thomas Paine, specifically: "These are the times that try men's souls." But I do not think that it will be the end of the world. I hope not anyway, we've still got a long long way to go before we're done exploring this universe.
Maybe I'm just an optimist after all ...
Hi. I am your host.
This discussion is wonderful! I am reminded of the fact that the political system is not an object. It is a process. It swings from one extreme to the other, and, hopefully, as it passes through the middle, it hesitates a little and things are good for awhile. It is also a process of constant disagreement, which is a good thing, because is means that everyone gets a say and every viewpoint has a hearing and a moment.
I like Heliotal's comment. It's true that, throughout history, people have thought that the degeneration of humanity was complete. Retrospect is interesting, isn't it? Do we learn from the past? Or do we only perpetuate the past?
Great post ... I will be around later to read more thoroughly and discuss
Before we sink completely into an Existential morass, let me try to bring us back to the point: Is there a better way for individuals to combine themselves into a society and have some input into its policies and managment, or is the political process the way it must be done?
Maybe the question should be: Should we combine ourselves into a society?
Or maybe: Should individuals all have an equal input into the development of a society's policies, or should we follow the Platonic ideal and let those most qualified call all the shots?
In a country with 300 million people from differing ethnic backgrounds, I think it is foolish to think we can ever agree on anything important, therefore whatever is necessary is all that ever gets done.
The handful of corporations and banks that own the free and not so free world are, through their policies, enslaving the folks to an economic system that is dehumanizing to say the least. Our public education system is marching in step with this new philosophy of sameness for all. We are raising a generation(s) of politically correct thralls, who don’t even know that they don’t know.
Late to the game, but perhaps I can offer a relevant diversion...
Perhaps we have too long depended on institutionalized society (whether through government authority, or economic structures, or judicial review, or media, or public opinion polls, etc.) to try and provide an abstract, overconceptualized idea of justice. Bad things happen, and there is no recourse that will prevent what has already happened, so in one sense, justice is already unattainable. But perhaps what we want is something other than pure equity or equal opportunity. Maybe in the nature of relationships and in human nature's social dimension we can find the real motivations that should structure society. I tend to believe those motivations are there in the desires for intimacy, understanding, respect, belonging, and charity, and that institutions can never adequately provide those needs. Organizing principles are useful, but individuals can't hand over their responsibility to social structures and institutions and feel satisfied with their own existence--injustice will always seem the the state of affairs for one who is unfulfilled.
Sorry, that wasn't a question at all. But I hated to ask the obvious: What do we mean by justice? Is justice what we really want? Can goverment and politics ever be the loci for such provisions?
I will ask a similar question to the one I just asked on Da_Vinci's site. Whose fault is it when the political system does not work?
Dear Dick,
I am visiting through the Socrates Cafe blogring. I believe this is the first time I have ever visited your site, so firstly I'd like to offer a "howdy".
Since you begin your dissertation in the postive, rather than rephrase the question, you believe that politics' main purpose is to insure justice in an imperfect world.
1. You quote from the American Constitution. Even before the Magna Carta was established, mankind has been a political animal. The Senate during the Roman Empire was established to give a political base to the "people" as well as to the ruling classes. Was the political process ever established because mankind's rulers actually wanted to give the "common man" a voice or is the process in fact a sham by the ruling constituency to keep the plebes in line?
2. Ethics and political maneuvering always make strange bedfellows. Who is ultimately to decide what is "moral" or "ethical" about any decision regarding the social contract?
Michael F.Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
A lot of this boils down to how people define "liberty" and "freedom." These words are oft spoken of but rarely considred in a serious manner. If one defines preserving the liberty of man in a negative sense ("negative freedom"), that it is the freedom from interference by the government save for "mala in se" criminal offenses, this advocates inequality from a social and economic perspective since it condones "taking advantage of" other people for one's own economic or social benefit. For example, can people exlude members from a private club for any reasons, i.e. gender or race? Proponents of negative liberty would say yes.
If we think of freedom as "positive liberty," or guaranteeing equal opportunity for everybody (as in the example above, ruling that you can't exclude people on the basis of race or gender), one must consider that a large portion of guaranteeing equal opportunity for people includes social and economic perspectives. What good is freedom from persecution if one lacks the capacity to do anything with their freedom, the proponents of this viewpoint will argue.
I suppose the purpose of politics is to strike a balance between these two concepts; clearly, justice can be argued for either case.
A really great essay on this subject, if you haven't read it (you seem remarkably well read, might I add), is Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty."
Hello colleagues, you are sharing your view on the topic of weblog Search engine optimisation, I am also new user of web, thus I am also getting more from it. Thanks to all.
先週、三重県多度まで見に行ってきました。やっぱり遼くんはかっこいいですね～勇太、青木、ジャンボもかっこよかったです。自分もかっこだけでも、あ～なりたいと思いながら帰ってさぁ練習と思ったのですが、その翌日自宅のペンキ塗り中、脚立から降りる時に足首をくじき（痛）現在松葉杖状態で・・・情けない・・・とほほひやりはっと 読まなくちゃ（汗）
Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read something like this before.