Book review reminder

As per Sean's request below:

Book review is Due Friday, March 4th. Here's a link to the original post detailing the assignment.

Sorry

For the lack of posting. Hectic on my end. Hope your long weekend was a good one. I'll have feedback on your rough drafts tomorrow in class at the latest. For class, I'll finish up with Mill and Begin lecturing on Marx. No need to have read any Marx yet, I'll just be introducing him, given likely time constraints. At least 40 minutes with your groups, in case you need to review my feedback before you begin.

Grading scale

Here's your grades:

98-100 4.0
95-97 3.9
93-94 3.8
90-92 3.7
88-89 3.6
86-87 3.5
84-85 3.4
82-83 3.3
80-82 3.2
78-79 3.1
75-77 3.0
73-74 2.9
71-72 2.8
68-70 2.7
66-67 2.6
64-65 2.5
62-63 2.4
60-61 2.3
58-59 2.2
56-57 2.1
54-55 2.0
51-53 1.9
48-50 1.8
45-47 1.7
42-44 1.6
40-41 1.5
38-39 1.4
36-37 1.3
34-35 1.2
32-33 1.1
30-31 1.0

Below 30 bad news

Mill, On Liberty, Chapters I and II

This is an important and major philosophical text, but it's not well organized. My general advice is to just plough ahead and try to sort it out when you finish the chapter, reskimming certain sections as necessary. Mill is a liberal theorist. Like our previous liberal theorist, Locke, he'll offer an elaborate defense for why we should value something most people value anyway, without really thinking to hard about it (in Locke's case, property; in Mill's case, it's freedom of speech and lifestyle).

(of course, as a sidenote, perhaps I'm being naive about public opinion regarding freedom of speech--see here for an interesting report on a survey of high school students, teachers and principles on free speech. Observe with concern that 83% of high school students think "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions," which means that fully one in six high schoolers presumably think we shouldn't! And only half of our nation's youth think newspapers should publish freely without government approval of stories. Parents, don't forget to teach your kids about the first amendment.)

Many people in our society, bolstered by the legal tradition surrounding the first amendment, have more or less Lockean reasons for defending freedom of speech. That is, we think speech, even mean, nasty vile speech, should be free because freedom of speech is a fundamental right. What I'm about to say is important, so pay attention: This is not the reason Mill gives for freedom of speech. I'm not saying Mill disagrees with this position, but it's not the reason he gives. Instead, he wants to tell us that freedom of speech, even for the most vile and reprehensible political speech, should be allowed because it is in our interests to do so.

Imagine, if you will, a neo-nazi setting up shop with her soapbox and literature on the stairs in the middle of campus. For 70 hours a week, she gives loud, angry speeches filled with hate and vitriol, and hands out literature in the same vein. You hear her every time you come to campus, unavoidably. Those of us with a rights-based approach to free speech, this person represents in many ways the unfortunate downside to freedom of speech. In other words, we have to tolerate her because she is within her rights, but we really with she would go away and stop exercising her speech rights.


In chapter one, be sure to note Mill's "harm principle" (which would be more accurately named the no-harm principle). This is Mill's liberal foundation. Think about a) how it's similar to Locke's concept of natural right, b) how it's different, and c) problems with the harm principle. Here's one problem for you: is it possible to make a clean, sharp distinction between other regarding and self regarding practices? What might some borderline cases be?

What does Mill think about the relationship bewteen democracy and freedom of speech?

One reason we have to have freedom of speech, Mill says, is fallibility. Explain.

In chapter two, Mill goes to great lengths to show why freedom of speech is valuable in the following cases:

Freedom of speech that is entirely false
Freedom of speech that is entirely true
Freedom of speech that is partially true and partially false.

Give an account of his reasons in each case.

Finally, consider some counter-arguments. Why might we want to consider restricting freedom of speech.

(Those of you doing "rights of individuals" in the social contract, compare your freedom of speech provisions to Mill's, just for fun. Did you come to similar conclusions?)

First Draft of social contract

Instructions:

Please bring a hard copy to class. You should each be responsible for your particular section. If you can't attend, try to arrange for another member of your group to bring in a hard copy. Make sure your group number is displayed prominently for easy sorting.

There is no need for "connecting tissue" at this point (by this I mean, introductions, conclusions, making it one seamless document with a table of contents and that sort of thing). You can each turn in your own section.

Here is where I think your essay should be by Monday. You should take your original statement, and revise it in the following ways. First, you should try to incorporate as much of your group's feedback and suggestions as possible. Second, you should make an initial effort to "square" your section with the sections of the rest of your group. Third, you should make an explicit effort to acknowledge how theorists from class have influenced your position (if they have). Fourth, you should think about how to justify or "sell" your positions. Remember, you've got to convince 5000 people (or as many as possible; we don't have a majority rule or unanimity rule yet) that your position is correct. The key to this is also the difficulty to you--you've got to come up with reasons that very different people who might disagree with your politics would agree with your social contract.

This is a first swipe at each of these features. If you do them all really well, you won't need to do much but come up with a conclusion and merge the documents for the final draft. I don't expect any group to have done all of this thoroughly yet, but if you do, congrats!

Reading for Wednesday

On Wednesday, we'll be discussing Classical conservatism. We'll be reading two conservative responses to the French Revolution. In many ways, the revolutionaries drew on some of the ideas of both Locke and Rousseau to justify their actions. Despite their differences, Locke and Rousseau share a deep dislike of tradition as a justification for arbitrary power, and that's what the revolutionaries correctly saw at work France circa 1789.

More and Burke were both British, and neither had a reputation we might consider "conservative." The French revolution alarmed them, and it was in the process of articulating what they found so objectionable about that revolution that they began to articulate a conservative philosophy. Conservative philosophy is inherently opposed to social contract theory. Try to think about why as you're reading.

A note on the Burke reading--it's a pretty stream of consciousness affair. In it's full form, it's 200 pages of reflections; no chapters; no sections, and very little structure (he wrote it in just a few months). So don't look for a carefully constructed argument; it's more a series of wise reflections. Burke is a complex thinker--he was unpopular amongst British politicians for a while because of his support for the American revolutionaries. His reasons for supporting were complicated and idiosyncratic; he disagreed very much with a good deal of revolutionary ideology.

The other reading is by Hannah More, a playwright and educator. She wrote this pamphlet under a pseudonym, "Will Chip." As you'll see fairly quickly, this piece is written as a two man, one act play extolling the virtues of British conservatism and traditionalism. Specifically, it is an attack on the revolutionary ideas of Tom Paine, an enthusiastic supporter of the French revolution and the "rights of man."

Here's a link to a version of "Village Politics" online.

And now--back to your midterm studying!

Midterm: Update

I said this in class, but to repeat myself....

I won't be asking you any questions that would assume that you read any of the selections I asked you to read from Rousseau, the Social Contract, Book II, chapters 11-12, and Book IV. In other words (I don't have the book on me or I'd give you page numbers) you should be prepared to discuss material from the SC up to those three consecutive chapters in Book II that are all called "The People..."

Carry on...

Rousseau, Social Contract, Book II and IV, 7-9

Some things to consider:

What is the general will? How does it relate to the sum total of particular wills? What obstacles prevent a people from ascertaining the general will? Why is the general will infallible?

What is the role of the Legislator? Isn't this contradictory to Rousseau's democratic politics? Why does Rousseau feel this is an important figure?

What kind of people are amenable to being given laws and participating in a social contract? Why is this form of government so difficult to achieve? (Bonus question: What is the only place in Europe Rousseau sees as being capable of given laws?)

What is a "civil religion" as you understand it? Why does Rousseau think such a thing is important to discuss? What is Rousseau's view of the appropriate role of religion in a political society?

Midterm review

A couple of quick observations I made in class Monday. Remember my pledge: I promise not to use this exam to try to trip you up. This will be a straightforward exam on major themes from the course.

First, there are two parts. Short answers (60%). There will be 5-6 of these, and you'll respond to four of them. Your answers will require a couple of paragraphs, or about one full-sized page or a little more for those with averaged sized handwriting.

Compare and contrast Hobbes and Locke's views on the State of War and how such a state relates to the State of Nature.

What is Locke's explanation for why slavery might be permissible in some cases? How does Rousseau criticize this view?

Some have suggested that the discourse on inequality is really just an elaborate way of criticizing Hobbes and Locke's understandings of human nature. Explain.

Why, according to Hobbes, must we give up all our rights to the sovereign? What is the one exception, and why?

------------

These are good examples of what I might do. You've got four texts to prepare for; in each case, the most important thing, that will be on the exam in multiple forms, is being able to explain the nature, function, and logic behind their view of the social contract--why it's necessary and wise, what form it takes, and what kind of world it creates. Also be able to explain each theorists account of human nature, life in the state of nature, "natural law," the state of war, the role of reason, the place of property in the theory, and so on.

------------

Part II (40%). There will be some number, 6-8 is likely, of key quotes from the texts. In this section, you'll identify the author (and in Rousseau's case, the text) and explain briefly what the point is and why it's important to that theorist. Students think this will be harded than it is! Students don't do any worse or better on this section of my exams than any other so don't let it stress you out. The passages won't all be super-easy like "nasty, brutish and short" or "life, health, liberty and property" but it'll be something that contains content that makes it particularly identifiable as the theorist it is from. You'll also have at least two you can safely ignore.