Post by Gelare on Mar 5, 2008 1:58:43 GMT -5
Political Authority
"It is good to be the king."
Welcome back, class, to the second lecture of Philosophy 101 - Survey of Moral and Political Philosophy. In my continuing efforts to write on pretty much whatever subject crosses my mind, we'll be talking about where political authority stems from. Governments around the world are not always well-loved, so what gives them the right to rule over us? Let's examine this question, and feel free to discuss it in the discussion thread.
A Pragmatic Approach
"Yes, officer, I'm so sorry about speeding, it'll never happen again, if you can just let me off with a warning..."
We recently talked about Libertarianism, which presented a challenge that anyone could rightfully impose limits on the actions of other persons. Yet everyday we have restrictions imposed on us by our governments, which tell us we cannot do this or that - usually in the form of laws which we had no part whatsoever in crafting! It's been this way for thousands of years, with parliaments, monarchs, and tyrants exercising rule over their subjects. Why do people agree to this situation?
Well for starters, one good reason for people to accede to political rule is because the (FBI/constable/local thug) will (sue you/shoot you/stab you) if you don't. That's what we'd call a pragmatic reason - you don't do it because you necessarily agree with it, you do it because it's easier than making a big fuss. No one likes paying taxes, for example, and few people would want to fund projects like a bridge to nowhere, or in times of war there are always those opposed to it and would rather not fund it. But rather than do what Henry David Thoreau did, which was refuse to pay taxes and go to jail, most people go right on sending big ol' checks to the government, because they do not want the IRS to audit them with meat hooks.
While it may be true that some people agree to the political power exercised over them merely out of convenience, that doesn't give us a moral reason, or really what most of us would consider a legitimate reason, to let ourselves be ruled. Yet it definitely seems like there might be a moral case made for political rule. After all, plenty of people have certain kinds of authority over others. When we are young, our parents have extensive authority over us, their children. Military officers have authority over those below them in the food chain of command. In the Catholic Church, the pope's authority surely also stems from somewhere. Let's consider a few possibilities.
Divine Right
"God likes me best, so do what I say."
Speaking of the pope, one of the oldest justifications for political rule is that of divine right. From England to Japan, almost all countries wound up with some form of this justification for most of recorded history. What divine right means is that the ruler's right to rule over his subjects is somehow justified by a divine entity; there are a couple different ways this can play out.
1) The ruler is God.
2) The ruler is related to God.
3) The ruler is mortal, but God really likes them.
Each of these views has been practiced somewhere in history, and we're going to take a look at each of them in turn and consider whether these can answer our question of where legitimate political authority stems from.
First we have option 1, which is that the ruler simply is God. If you think that God has absolute authority, as many religions claim, then clearly if this person is God, they have that authority – it's a perfectly valid argument. The same pretty much goes for option 2, since if the ruler is divine, they've got the same divine authority God has.
We're not going to bother arguing against the premise that God has absolute authority – proponents of divine right theory can have that as granted. However, it seems like it is going to be very difficult to prove that one is divine, whether they're trying to prove that they're related to God, or that they are God. Sure, they can say they're divine, but anyone can do that – it's worthless as far as verification goes. Alternately, they can make earthquakes tear fissures in the land and have volcanoes rumble, but for some reason we don't see that happening too often, so we can't expect any direct proof of a ruler's divinity either.
The third option, however, was very popular throughout the second millennium A.D., so let's switch over to that one and see if we can make any more progress with it than we have with the first two. This one states that a ruler can have legitimate political authority if the ruler has been granted that authority by God. The most popular variant of this argument came around the mid-1600's, which stated that God had given authority to Adam, and that the current monarchs of Europe were descendants from Adam in a line going through all the eldest sons - eldest sons got all the cool stuff in those days - and therefore had received his divine authority. The philosopher who came up with this argument, Robert Filmer, wanted to impress upon the rebels running around at the time that their ambitions were illegitimate, and the current monarchies should remain in place.
The whole divine bloodline argument is great and all, but can it form a good base for legitimate political authority? (I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but I'll give you a hint: no!) First, we have the problem of verification. We have no way to prove that God has given authority to any individual person. And, of course, since all the kings ruling at the time were from families that had deposed other kings, either the current rulers were illegitimate, or the ones before were illegitimate. So maybe God can remove his approval from one royal bloodline and bestow it on another bloodline? But during times of revolution, how are we supposed to know who got the approval? Well, clearly the person who wins has God's approval, because otherwise, how could they have won?
Yet that really just boils down to "might makes right", and nobody buys that. Besides, do rulers with God's sanction continue to have authority even if they rule badly? Do all rulers have God's approval by definition, since they are, of course, ruling, and would be struck by lightning if they weren't supposed to rule? This theory doesn't look like it's going to do us any good. It's got too many holes, and doesn't actually get us any closer to knowing who should be ruling – and, in all fairness, we don't really want our philosophical theories to hinge on God if we can help it. So, let's look at another possibility.
Natural Superiority
"Oh come on, you suck at driving, give me the keys."
"It is good to be the king."
Welcome back, class, to the second lecture of Philosophy 101 - Survey of Moral and Political Philosophy. In my continuing efforts to write on pretty much whatever subject crosses my mind, we'll be talking about where political authority stems from. Governments around the world are not always well-loved, so what gives them the right to rule over us? Let's examine this question, and feel free to discuss it in the discussion thread.
A Pragmatic Approach
"Yes, officer, I'm so sorry about speeding, it'll never happen again, if you can just let me off with a warning..."
We recently talked about Libertarianism, which presented a challenge that anyone could rightfully impose limits on the actions of other persons. Yet everyday we have restrictions imposed on us by our governments, which tell us we cannot do this or that - usually in the form of laws which we had no part whatsoever in crafting! It's been this way for thousands of years, with parliaments, monarchs, and tyrants exercising rule over their subjects. Why do people agree to this situation?
Well for starters, one good reason for people to accede to political rule is because the (FBI/constable/local thug) will (sue you/shoot you/stab you) if you don't. That's what we'd call a pragmatic reason - you don't do it because you necessarily agree with it, you do it because it's easier than making a big fuss. No one likes paying taxes, for example, and few people would want to fund projects like a bridge to nowhere, or in times of war there are always those opposed to it and would rather not fund it. But rather than do what Henry David Thoreau did, which was refuse to pay taxes and go to jail, most people go right on sending big ol' checks to the government, because they do not want the IRS to audit them with meat hooks.
While it may be true that some people agree to the political power exercised over them merely out of convenience, that doesn't give us a moral reason, or really what most of us would consider a legitimate reason, to let ourselves be ruled. Yet it definitely seems like there might be a moral case made for political rule. After all, plenty of people have certain kinds of authority over others. When we are young, our parents have extensive authority over us, their children. Military officers have authority over those below them in the food chain of command. In the Catholic Church, the pope's authority surely also stems from somewhere. Let's consider a few possibilities.
Divine Right
"God likes me best, so do what I say."
Speaking of the pope, one of the oldest justifications for political rule is that of divine right. From England to Japan, almost all countries wound up with some form of this justification for most of recorded history. What divine right means is that the ruler's right to rule over his subjects is somehow justified by a divine entity; there are a couple different ways this can play out.
1) The ruler is God.
2) The ruler is related to God.
3) The ruler is mortal, but God really likes them.
Each of these views has been practiced somewhere in history, and we're going to take a look at each of them in turn and consider whether these can answer our question of where legitimate political authority stems from.
First we have option 1, which is that the ruler simply is God. If you think that God has absolute authority, as many religions claim, then clearly if this person is God, they have that authority – it's a perfectly valid argument. The same pretty much goes for option 2, since if the ruler is divine, they've got the same divine authority God has.
We're not going to bother arguing against the premise that God has absolute authority – proponents of divine right theory can have that as granted. However, it seems like it is going to be very difficult to prove that one is divine, whether they're trying to prove that they're related to God, or that they are God. Sure, they can say they're divine, but anyone can do that – it's worthless as far as verification goes. Alternately, they can make earthquakes tear fissures in the land and have volcanoes rumble, but for some reason we don't see that happening too often, so we can't expect any direct proof of a ruler's divinity either.
The third option, however, was very popular throughout the second millennium A.D., so let's switch over to that one and see if we can make any more progress with it than we have with the first two. This one states that a ruler can have legitimate political authority if the ruler has been granted that authority by God. The most popular variant of this argument came around the mid-1600's, which stated that God had given authority to Adam, and that the current monarchs of Europe were descendants from Adam in a line going through all the eldest sons - eldest sons got all the cool stuff in those days - and therefore had received his divine authority. The philosopher who came up with this argument, Robert Filmer, wanted to impress upon the rebels running around at the time that their ambitions were illegitimate, and the current monarchies should remain in place.
The whole divine bloodline argument is great and all, but can it form a good base for legitimate political authority? (I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but I'll give you a hint: no!) First, we have the problem of verification. We have no way to prove that God has given authority to any individual person. And, of course, since all the kings ruling at the time were from families that had deposed other kings, either the current rulers were illegitimate, or the ones before were illegitimate. So maybe God can remove his approval from one royal bloodline and bestow it on another bloodline? But during times of revolution, how are we supposed to know who got the approval? Well, clearly the person who wins has God's approval, because otherwise, how could they have won?
Yet that really just boils down to "might makes right", and nobody buys that. Besides, do rulers with God's sanction continue to have authority even if they rule badly? Do all rulers have God's approval by definition, since they are, of course, ruling, and would be struck by lightning if they weren't supposed to rule? This theory doesn't look like it's going to do us any good. It's got too many holes, and doesn't actually get us any closer to knowing who should be ruling – and, in all fairness, we don't really want our philosophical theories to hinge on God if we can help it. So, let's look at another possibility.
Natural Superiority
"Oh come on, you suck at driving, give me the keys."