72 terms

WPP Final


Terms in this set (...)

State of Nature- Hobbes
The state of nature is a state of war. No morality exists. Everyone lives in constant fear. Because of this fear, no one is really free, but, since even the "weakest" could kill the "strongest" men ARE equal.
State of Nature- Locke
Men exist in the state of nature in perfect freedom to do what they want. The state of nature is not necessarily good or bad. It is chaotic. So, men do give it up to secure the advantages of civilized society.
State of Nature- Rousseau
Men in a state of nature are free and equal. In a state of nature, men are "Noble Savages". Civilization is what corrupted him.
Human Nature- Hobbes
-The Materialist View of Human Nature

-Instead, he saw human beings as essentially machines, with even their thoughts and emotions operating according to physical laws and chains of cause and effect, action and reaction. As machines, human beings pursue their own self-interest relentlessly, mechanically avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. Hobbes saw the commonwealth, or society, as a similar machine, larger than the human body and artificial but nevertheless operating according to the laws governing motion and collision.

-Believed that people were wicked,
selfish, and cruel and would act on behalf of
their best interests. "Every man for every
Human Nature- Locke
Believed that people were by
nature good and that they could learn
from their experiences.

-men were rational, the state of nature was simply lacking in ways of enforcing what the majority of people regarded as right (especially the right to 'life, liberty and property').
Human Nature - Rousseau
-In other words to define 'human nature' we have to think about what humans would have been like before society.

- natural man would be roving individuals; there would be no permanent relationships, but a "loose companionship"; there would be no love, no family, no morality, and no property; people would be free, but without knowledge, language, morality, or industry - they would be neither moral nor vicious: in a word - "innocent". (Berki)
-For Rousseau, then, the 'savage' in the state of nature was not selfish (as in Hobbes) nor even rational (as in Locke) - for these abilities, he argued, arose as a result of our interaction with others, and especially in 'civilisation'.

Rousseau's view of human nature (before society changes it) is that we all have two natural (pre-social) sentiments or feelings (sensibilité). Again, and most importantly, unlike the other Enlightenment thinkers, Rousseau does not attribute reasoning powers to us as 'natural' or pre-social... We have feelings first, and he identifies two such sentiments/feelings: amour de soi, and pitié:
amour de soi VS. amour-propre
-one of the two natural sentiments or feelings in his view of human nature
- means (love of oneself); self-preservation
- [love of oneself] is not the same as amour-propre, [self-love]: self-love develops in society, especially after the institution of property... and it is the basis of false values such as "honour", pride and vanity... Rather amour de soi could be self-respect or self-preservation. Simply: the desire to satisfy our own short-term needs - and presumably not to be hurt.
Rousseau on Pity
-one of the two natural (pre-social) sentiments or feelings in his view of the human nature

-- pitié - [pity] but probably best translated as sympathy or compassion. Pitié is not the same as altruism, but rather the desire not to hurt others.
Hobbes's view of the commonwealth
-Thus the basic social contract of the commonwealth must vest power in one central, sovereign authority, with power to punish those who break the contract. Under the rule of the sovereign, men are impelled, by fear, to keep the commonwealth functioning smoothly.

-if viewed as a person, the soul is the concept of soverignty and the soverign himself is the person's head
-This artificial person, representing the state in its totality, is called the Leviathan

- Desiring to escape the state of the nature through contract, all persons erect a common power at the head of their commonwealth, whether one man or an assembly, and agree to submit to its will to escape fear of each other. The sovereign is charged with doing whatever necessary to defend the commonwealth.

-Commonwealths can be formed in two ways: through institution, or agreement; and through acquisition, or force.

-There are three possible forms of sovereign authority created by contract: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Of these, Hobbes proclaims that monarchy is the best because it offers the greatest consistency and lowest potential for conflict, limiting the decision-making body to one.

-He also points out "birth defects" by which the Leviathan may be a dysfunctional body. The possible scenarios by which the Leviathan may be doomed and unhealthy include the sovereign lacking absolute power, subjects maintaining faith in the supernatural rather than submitting to the learned doctrine of the sovereign, matters of good and evil being decided by individuals rather than civil law, and civil and religious authority being divided and under different powers and imitating the governments of the Greeks and Romans.

-A healthy and stable commonwealth depends on absolute respect and abeyance of the one sovereign's will.
Hobbes on Liberty
-Liberty may be defined as the ability to act according to one's own individual will without being physically hindered from acting as one wishes.

- From a strictly materialist perspective, only chains or imprisonment can prevent one from acting as such. Thus, under the rule of the sovereign, free subjects, unencumbered by chains, maintain their liberty. Although there may be certain laws and "artificial chains" arising from law under the sovereign, subjects have no right to complain about such chains because they have entered into a contract with the sovereign.

- Furthermore, since fear dominates the state of nature and hinders a person's ability to act as he wishes, true liberty does not exist in the state of nature. Only when the subject has forsworn his own fear and power to the sovereign to be used as tools is he absolutely free.
Hobbes's view of Reason
-therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blows, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature; and so it is also in all debates of what kind soever."

-Hobbes points out that there is no "right Reason constituted by Nature," again noting the ineffectiveness of employing nature as the foundation of knowledge. He also points out that the judge who will settle definitions--the definitions upon which everyone agrees to agree--is appointed by the participants "by their own accord." It is this judge (eventually revealed as "the sovereign" in Chapter 18) who then becomes the needed foundation of all knowledge.

-The process of science, Hobbes says, is reason, and "Reason . . . is nothing but Reckoning (that is, Adding and Subtracting) of the Consequences of generall names agreed upon."

-Each step of the reasoning process must itself be secure in its claims, like a carefully wrought object of perfect integrity: "The Use and End of Reason, is not the finding of the summe, and truth of one, or a few consequences, remote from the first definitions, and settled signification of names; but to begin at these; and proceed from one consequence to another. For there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmation and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred." From this mathematical process of philosophical reasoning, with its language of arithmetic and its geometric accretion of consequences and conclusions, one arrives at proper science: "Reason is . . . attayned by Industry; first in apt imposing of Names; and secondly by getting a good and orderly Method in proceeding from the Elements, which are Names, to Assertions made by Connexion of one of them to another; and so to Syllogismes, which are the Connexions of one Assertion to another, till we come to a knowledge of all the Consequences of names appertaining to the subject in hand; and that is it, men call SCIENCE."

-Reason involves the logical relationships among defined terms. That is what Hobbes said in chapter five. Note also that there are no examples of practical reasoning, reasoning that concludes in action or a desire for action.

-Reason is identified by its output. Someone who desires self-preservation is rational; someone who doesn't is not.
Locke on Liberty/Freedom
-Man is by nature free, no one can be stripped of their freedom without their consent. This natural state of liberty is not a state of license.

-the natural state of man is a "state of perfect freedom" to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit within the laws of nature

-He notes, however, that this liberty does not equal license to abuse others, and that natural law exists even in the state of nature.

-Locke starts Chapter 4 by defining natural liberty as a person's right to be ruled solely by the laws of nature, and social liberty as the right to be under no legislative power other than that founded by the consent of the commonwealth, functioning for the commonwealth's benefit.

-Locke disputes Filmer's definition of freedom, which states that all men can do what they want and not be subject to any laws. Under a government, freedom is actually characterized by a common law that all men are subject to; men retain their autonomy and free will as long as they do not violate the accepted law, and the authority should not act arbitrarily, erratically, or imprecisely.
Locke on Equality
-People are born equal so "power and jurisdiction are reciprocal" among people, meaning all have authority to punish violations of natural law.

-all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, with no one having more than the other

Locke on State of War
-Locke starts off by defining war as a state of "enmity and destruction" brought about by one person's pre-meditated attempts upon another's life.

-State of nature and state of war not the same

-The state of nature involves people living together, governed by reason, without a common superior, whereas the state of war occurs when people make designs of force upon other people, without a common authority. In this case, the attacked party has a right to war. Want of a common judge or authority is the defining characteristic of the state of nature; force without right is adequate basis for the state of war.

-The difference between war in Society and war in Nature depends on when they conclude. In Society, war ends when the "actual force is over," because both parties can then resort to the common authorities for arbitration of past wrongs. In Nature, war does not end until the aggressive party offers peace and reparations for the damage done; until then, the innocent party has a right to try to destroy the aggressor. Locke notes that in the presence of a common authority that fails to act justly, the only possible state is a state of war, because the arbitrating power in place to stop war is itself in violation of the laws of nature and justice. Locke ends the chapter by noting that one of the major reasons people enter into society is to avoid the state of war, for the presence of a supreme power limits the necessity for war and increases stability and security.
Locke on Slavery
-Locke bases his ideas about slavery on the idea that freedom from arbitrary, absolute power is so fundamental that, even if one sought to, one could not relinquish it; it is therefore impossible for one to enlist into slavery voluntarily. The only possible state of slavery is the extension of the state of war, between a lawful conqueror and a captive, when the captive has been forced into obedience. Locke notes that even in Exodus, the Jews did not sell themselves into slavery, but simply into drudgery, for their masters did not have full power over their lives, and therefore, did not have full control over their liberty.

-Slavery is no more than a state of war between a conqueror with absolute power and the conquered. The conqueror and the conquered can agree to form a compact where the conqueror accedes to limited rule and the conquered promises obedience; in this case, the state of war and slavery are over.
Rousseau on Slavery
-we cannot agree to slavery
-agreeing to slavery is absurd
Rousseau on natural law/divine law
-all justice comes from God, but its inexessable bc we disagree with it


-but there is a universal justice that arises from us all
Small Republic
-says that small republic should be size of state

-need relatively small territorry to be self governing
Locke on Labor
-For individual property to exist, there must be a means for individuals to appropriate the things around them. Locke starts out with the idea of the property of person--each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor. He uses the simple example of picking an apple--the apple becomes mine when I pick it, because I have added my labor to it and made it my property.
Locke on Property
-The limitations that Locke places on property in the state of nature without money are as follows: one must put one's labor into something to claim it; one cannot take more than one can use (rule of subsistence); and money subsumes both.
Tacit Consent
-Different from "Express Consent" which is given by your voice or in writing

-Tacit consent: Silent consent given by your actions

-Locke says you can only become a member of society by giving your express consent. Tacit consent can move to another commonwealth. Express is binding, unless commonwealth does not hold its obligations to its citizens.

-Locke's most obvious solution to this problem is his doctrine of tacit consent. Simply by walking along the highways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory. This, Locke thinks, explains why resident aliens have an obligation to obey the laws of the state where they reside, though only while they live there. Inheriting property creates an even stronger bond, since the original owner of the property permanently put the property under the jurisdiction of the commonwealth.
Dissolution of Government

-This is important because Locke also affirms that the community remains the real supreme power throughout. The people retain the right to "remove or alter" the legislative power (Two Treatises 2.149). This can happen for a variety of reasons. The entire society can be dissolved by a successful foreign invasion (2.211), but Locke is more interested in describing the occasions when the people take power back from the government to which they have entrusted it. If the rule of law is ignored, if the representatives of the people are prevented from assembling, if the mechanisms of election are altered without popular consent, or if the people are handed over to a foreign power, then they can take back their original authority and overthrow the government (2.212-17). They can also rebel if the government attempts to take away their rights (2.222). Locke thinks this is justifiable since oppressed people will likely rebel anyway and those who are not oppressed will be unlikely to rebel. Moreover, the threat of possible rebellion makes tyranny less likely to start with (2.224-6). For all these reasons, while there are a variety of legitimate constitutional forms, the delegation of power under any constitution is understood to be conditional.
Powers of Government - Locke
-legitimate gov is based on the idea of speration of powers

-legislative power as supreme in having ulitate authority over how the force for the commonwealth shall be employed; The legislature is still bound by the law of nature and much of what it does is set down laws that further the goals of natural law and specify appropriate punishments for them

-Executive power = charged with enforcing the law as it is applied in specific cases.

-Federative power = the right to act internationally according to the law of nature. Since countries are still in the state of nature with respect to each other, they must follow the dictates of natural law and can punish one another for violations of that law in order to protect the rights of their citizens.

- Moreover, Locke thinks that it is possible for multiple institutions to share the same power; for example, the legislative power in his day was shared by the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the King. Since all three needed to agree for something to become law, all three are part of the legislative power ( 1.151). He also thinks that the federative power and the executive power are normally placed in the hands of the executive, so it is possible for the same person to exercise more than one power (or function). There is, therefore, no one to one correspondence between powers and institutions.

-The concept of an "appeal to heaven" is an important concept in Locke's thought. Locke assumes that people, when they leave the state of nature, create a government with some sort of constitution that specifies which entities are entitled to exercise which powers. Locke also assumes that these powers will be used to protect the rights of the people and to promote the public good. In cases where there is a dispute between the people and the government about whether the government is fulfilling its obligations, there is no higher human authority to which one can appeal. The only appeal left, for Locke, is the appeal to God. The "appeal to heaven," therefore, involves taking up arms against your opponent and letting God judge who is in the right.
Locke on Political Power
The power that each individual in a society consents to submit to the commonwealth for the protection of their property

The right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property. It is backed by the public good because it is for the welfare of the people
Locke on Absolute Monarchy
-rejects absolute monarchy as violating the principles of civil society

-Absolute monarchy places no common authority over all; thus, by investing the authority in one person, the entire system suffers. Since the monarch can impinge on people's property and welfare without fear of retribution, the people lack the comfort, protection, and incentive to contribute to the good of the commonwealth. To prevent such an imbalance of power, the legislature and executive must be placed in a collective body. Thus, no individual is exempted from or above the laws of the commonwealth.

-He challenged the idea of an absolute monarchy on the basis that leaving the absolute monarch free to take the property or life of any member of society without redress violated natural rights.
Locke on Paternal Power
-All people are born with an equal right to freedom. Why are they then under their parents power?

-bc children are born without reason, which is the tool tha tpeopel use to survive in both the state of nature and society

- Parental power extends until the child is grown old enough (Locke uses twenty-one as an example age) to function independently within society. Likewise, the commonwealth at this age attributes the responsibilities and duties of an adult to a person who reaches this age of readiness. Thus, reason leads to personal freedom.

-political power and paternal power are totally different
perogative/ executive power - locke

-"Good judgment" exercised by the executive when situations arise that have to be dealt with before the legislative can be assembled to provide laws for the civil society.

-The executive is qualified to take actions that are outside the framework of the laws (not breaking them, just not provided for by them), if their actions advance the society's best interest. Locke defines this prerogative as "nothing but the power of doing public good without rule."
Locke on Marriage
-the relationship btw a man and his wife was teh first society created

-not only exist for the purpose of procreation but to provide mutual assistance, affection, and the ability to better nourish and educate children.

-It is only natural that in a marriage the rule, or last word/decision, should be placed in one member: that is, the man. However, his power over his wife is not absolute and if she wants to break their compact and separate from him, it is her natural right to do so.

-In a society where there is a government, the government only has the power to mediate disputes between the husband and wife. Only in societies where the husband had absolute authority over his wife could an absolute ruler have any other such control over his subjects' marriages. Matrimony in general does not require absolute power be instilled in the husband.

-The point of discussing conjugal society is to contrast it with that of political society. Locke strongly differentiates between the two, for the man and woman have equal power within their marriage and neither one gives up their natural liberty.
Conquest- Locke
-Unjust conquest is always unjust; unjust conquereor never has the right to rule the conquered

-There is lawful conquest

-In lawful conquest, "The conqueror gets no power by his conquest over those that conquered with him." In other words, those that help the conqueror conquer cannot suffer from having given their aid; rather, they should benefit from it.

-The just conqueror's right extends only to the lives of the aggressors, not to their estates, since others have a prior claim and right to the latter.

-Locke's ideas of righteous conquest are what one might expect--retribution rooted in the law of nature, and a protector of the victim's property, privileged over his life , on the basis of his family's natural rights to that property.
natural law for locke
-Naturally existing moral principles that obliges mankind to obey, that follow from the existence of God

-Natural law exists even in the state of nature

Each individual in the state of nature has the power to execute natural laws, which are universal. Locke then posits that proof of this natural law lies in the fact that, even though a person cannot reasonably be under the power of a foreign king, if a person commits a crime in a foreign country they can still be punished. Locke states that natural law simply demands that punishment fit the crime--a person in the state of nature can redress any crime to discourage the offender from repeating it
locke on liberty/freedom
-Natural liberty: a person's right to be ruled solely by the laws of nature

Liberty in society: the right to be under no legislative power other than that founded by the consent of the commonwealth, functioning for the commonwealth's benefit.
locke on sovereign
-places sovereignty in the hands of the people or commonwealth

- The civil state is beholden to the people, and has power over the people only insofar as it exists to protect and preserve their welfare.

-Locke's fundamental argument is that people are equal and invested with natural rights in a state of nature in which they live free from outside rule.
Lockes purpose of gov
-To secure natural rights, namely man's property and liberty.
Hobbes purpose of Gov
-To impose law and order to prevent the state of war.
Rousseau purpose of Gov
-To bring people into harmony. To unite them under the "General Will".
social contract - locke
(1) Account of the state of nature
(2) Account of the inconveniences of state of nature without political life
(3) Account of agreement, social contract, that ends state of nature
--Right of property out of self-preservation, need things from nature to survive without being stopped by others
--Possibility of conflict w boundaries
(4) Argument that humans might come up with type of exchange media as convenience, $$
(5) Lots of things you can do in state of nature, but inconveniences make you want to leave it

-• When you come to the age of reason, you should be able to consent to living under a social contract.
• Tacitly consenting. By not saying "no" we are saying "yes"
o Like paying taxes or voting
• But we never physically sign a document or anything.
• What happens when we
lockes limits of gov
-A morally legitimate government coerces only those who freely and voluntarily consent to its
authority. (See section 95, and elsewhere in the Second Treatise.)

-A government that claims absolute, unlimited authority to coerce its subjects cannot be morally
natural right for Locke
-life, liberty and property

-everyone is entitled to live

-everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it does not conflict with the first right

-everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain thorugh gift or trade so long as it does not conflict with the firs t2 rights
acquisition for locke
-by labor

-a person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage.

-one can only take so much as one can use
Hobbes view of Pride
-Hobbes's ninth law of nature forbids pride.

-Pride disrupts Hobbes notion that all men are equal in ability and that if men are equal in terms of giving up something, then they can enter into conditions of peace.

- Hobbes believes that fear is sufficient for destroying and controlling pride and the expressions of pride, which is to Hobbes resentence to the governmental authority.
Rousseau on social contract
-The agreement with which a person enters into civil society. The contract essentially binds people into a community that exists for mutual preservation. In entering into civil society, people sacrifice the physical freedom of being able to do whatever they please, but they gain the civil freedom of being able to think and act rationally and morally. Rousseau believes that only by entering into the social contract can we become fully human.
Rousseau on liberty/freedom
-The problem of freedom is the motivating force behind The Social Contract. In the state of nature people have physical freedom, meaning that their actions are not restrained in any way, but they are little more than animals, slaves to their own instincts and impulses. In most contemporary societies, however, people lack even this physical freedom. They are bound to obey an absolutist king or government that is not accountable to them in any way. By proposing a social contract, Rousseau hopes to secure the civil freedom that should accompany life in society. This freedom is tempered by an agreement not to harm one's fellow citizens, but this restraint leads people to be moral and rational. In this sense, civil freedom is superior to physical freedom, since people are not even slaves to their impulses.
Rousseau on soverign
Strictly defined, a sovereign is the voice of the law and the absolute authority within a given state. In Rousseau's time, the sovereign was usually an absolute monarch. In The Social Contract, however, this word is given a new meaning. In a healthy republic, Rousseau defines the sovereign as all the citizens acting collectively. Together, they voice the general will and the laws of the state. The sovereign cannot be represented, divided, or broken up in any way: only all the people speaking collectively can be sovereign.
general will
The will of the sovereign that aims at the common good. Each individual has his own particular will that expresses what is best for him. The general will expresses what is best for the state as a whole.
Rousseaus view of gov
-This is the executive power of a state, which takes care of particular matters and day-to-day business. There are as many different kinds of government as there are states, though they can be roughly divided into democracy (the rule of the many), aristocracy (the rule of the few), and monarchy (the rule of a single individual). The government represents the people: it is not sovereign, and it cannot speak for the general will. It has its own corporate will that is often at odds with the general will. For this reason, there is often friction between the government and the sovereign that can bring about the downfall of the state.
Rousseau on civilization
-Civil society is the opposite of the state of nature: it is what we enter into when we agree to live in a community. With civil society comes civil freedom and the social contract. By agreeing to live together and look out for one another, we learn to be rational and moral, and to temper our brute instincts.

-And here, as always, Rousseau comes back to his view of civilisation and his central point, that man has fallen from his ideal state and become corrupted:

-He says that in becoming civilised we have renounced freedom. Man is innately good, but civilisation forces him into badness. He states: "Nature made man happy and good, but society depraves him and makes him miserable."
Roussea on inequality
-people try to get more control of land and wealth; happens because of the rise civilization
Roussea on property
-A right to claim property in our now civil society involves the code o f "right of first occupant." To establish this state of occupancy three essential strictures must be in place. There can be no prior inhabitation, ownership must be based on need not greed whereby no individual takes more land than they can work, and the individual must actually work the land they claim. The individual rights of property are combined with the whole to create a public community or territory. Thereby each individual property is protected by the government of the whole.

-In the social contract, each individual surrenders all his property along with himself to the sovereign and the general will. In doing so, he does not give up his property since he is also a subject of the sovereign.
Rousseau on legislator
-the legislators ends should be preserving freedom and equality

-ensures that the law supports the preservation of the state

-Because the populace often does not know how to pursue the common good, Rousseau asserts that there must be a guide to help the people in making the law. This guide, who Rousseau calls the "legislator," ensures that the law supports the preservation of the state. The legislator protects the law from being manipulated by private wills, and also aids the people in weighing the short-term benefits of a decision against its long-term costs. The legislator must thus be an extraordinary person in many respects. He must be extremely intelligent and able to resist the passions of the people while still taking an interest in their happiness. He must also be able to consider the present and future when making the law. The legislator is in a position to transform human nature, to substitute a moral existence for a physical one in the state of nature, and to strengthen the power of the state. Although the legislator is of a superior intellect, the people must approve his proposals before they become laws. The people cannot give up this legislative right, because only the general will can bind private individuals.

Because sovereignty remains with the people, the legislator must make the law comprehensible to the masses and must compel the people to obey the law without using violence. For this reason, lawgivers throughout history have referred to a divine authority to persuade people to support the law. Rousseau claims that religion and politics do not have the same purpose, but that in the beginning stages of a nation, religion can serve as a powerful political tool.
tocquville on local governemtn
-one of the 3 unique aspects of american democracy and how it runs smoothly

-local gov has strenth
-townships are the introduction to self-governance
-township is a product of nature

-not indestructible and threatened constantly by invasive federal gov

-Tocqueville thinks that beliefs/mores are more important than the laws

-mores are habits of the heart
T on american religiousity
-in america, there is no single religion that messes up democracy

-religion is the most important of the political institutions of our country

-not sure if everyone is sincere about their faith in america

-our seperation of church and state is why we are reliogious in america
free institutions/civil associations
-individualism paves the way for despotism (absolute power), but combat indiviudalism with free or civil institutions
triangle of freedom

-the cultivation and transmission of the conviction that freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom, which in turn requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom and so on, like the recycling triangle, ad infinitum.
omnipotence of the majoritity
-The majority is extremely influential within America
Spreads to legislation and judges → becomes the legal system, leaving no way to appeal
This is due to the fact that people believe a majoritarian consensus equates wisdom

-leads to instability in natural democracy
Toc on christanity
-Catholics form the most democratic and republican class

-In Catholicism: "The priest raised above the faithful; all below him are equal" (288)
"It mingles all classes of society at the foot of the same altar, just as they are mingled in the sight of God"

-powerfully contributes to teh maintence of a democractic republic among the americans

-Christian moriality is common to all sects

-Influence of religion on american mores

-religion limits and moderates changes

-Religion and politics go hand in hand in America, because the Christianity of the settlers was highly democratic and republican in character.
tryanny of the majority

-a detrimental aspect to the essential democratic principle of public opinion

-majority will inevitably seek to tyranize the minority

-his reason that he felt the majority has so much power is bc tehere is no aristocracy to hold them back

-power of the majority needed to sustain democracy, while on the other hand, tyranny of the majority can destroy democracy

-lawyers minimize majoirty tyranny

-thinks majority tyranny will fall into despotism

-The fact that America has not yet fallen into this tyranny of the majority is due not to its governmental institutions or laws but to its mores.
Education in Ts America
-produce "enlightened self-interests

-Because women primarily shape the mores of a society, the education of women is of great importance. Women in America are not brought up in naïve ignorance of vices of society; rather they are taught how to deal with them and they allow them to develop good judgment.

-Education also helps men to maintain their independence, because systems which maintain liberty are more complex than those with a uniform central power.
taste for material well-being
-beneath public opinion this lies

-arises out of democracy

self-interests well understood
-While Americans generally do not speak of the abstract beauty of virtue, they recognize its usefulness and realize that "by serving his fellows man serves himself and that doing good is to his private advantage." While the doctrine of self-interest properly understood does not lead to great virtue, it does establish virtuous habits. Because this doctrine is not always entirely self-evident, it is necessary to educate people about it.

-used to combat individualism
Spirit of Religion
-The soul has a natural desire for the infinite and immortal, and the pleasures of the senses can never completely numb or pacify it. As a result, there are occasions of great religious fervor when they break out of the confines of searching for material pleasures.

-The laws demonstrated great knowledge of advanced social and political theory. They included provisions for the poor and public education (on the grounds that ignorance is an ally of the Devil). In this way, the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom were combined. In the sphere of morality everything was absolute, but in the sphere of politics everything was open to debate. As a result, religion and political freedom mutually supported one another. Religion is better off if it gains support without state coercion, and political freedom is strengthened by religion because it helps to create and maintain good mores, which are necessary for the responsible use of freedom.
-Americans cleave to their material prosperity with a feverish anxiousness, making them restless in their desire to enjoy as many pleasures as possible in a limited time. A result of this insatiable drive for comfort is that Americans are generally unable to sustain an enduring effort towards one goal, because they are so accustomed to instant gratification.

Equality is another cause of this restlessness. Equality can never be complete, because there are always inequalities of talent and intelligence. Yet the more equal conditions become, the more noticeable and irritating the slightest inequalities become, and the more insatiable the longing for equality becomes as well. This insatiable longing is the cause of general anxiousness and uneasiness.
-In times of equality people tend to be individualistic, disposing each citizen to isolate himself and limit his interests to a small circle of relatives and friends. This individualism is dangerous to society because it eventually merges into egoism, which "sterilizes the seed of every virtue."

-Because despots have every interest in keeping people isolated, the individualism resulting from equality makes despotism a great danger to democracy. Exercising freedom through participation in public affairs is therefore extremely important, because it gives people a personal interest in thinking about others in society. Local self-government forces the people to act together and feel their dependence on one another.
toc on equality and freedom
-People in democratic nations love equality much more than liberty. The most perfect form of equality requires complete freedom. Yet imperfect equality can allow for great despotism. Equality is so deeply ingrained in laws, social conditions, mores, habits and opinions that destroying it would be extremely difficult. Political liberty, on the other hand, is easily lost. In addition, the dangers of liberty are immediate and easy to see, but the dangers of equality are subtle and visible only in the long run. Conversely, the benefits of liberty can only be seen over time and exercising liberty requires sacrifice, while the advantages of equality are felt immediately and easy to obtain. In most modern nations, equality preceded liberty, and it is a more deep-seated passion. As a result, democratic peoples want equality even if it means losing liberty.
democratic honor
-The notion of honor is derived from people's dissimilarities and inequalities. As equality of conditions grows, the idea of honor will progressively fade away.
human agency/ statesmanship
-There is a tendency for people in democracy's to want public appointments in order to have a comfortable and prosperous life. This tendency for place-hunting is a great social evil because it tends to make people lose their independence and become servile to the state. Democracy's should limit the number of public appointments.
Democratic/soft/schoolmaster despotism
-Democracies are in danger of a milder despotism in times past, in which leaders are not tyrants but more like schoolmasters. This type of despotism would "degrade men rather than torment them." The scenario would look something like this: There are a multitude of equal citizens, completely absorbed in looking after their own comforts and material well-being, completely apathetic to the rest of society. Above them, there is a huge, protective power giving them securing and ensuring their happiness. Free choice becomes narrower and narrower. They allow this to happen because the people are sovereign so they think the government's policies represent their own choices. This sort of subjection is mostly concentrated in petty affairs and details of daily life. It seems less severe, but greatly erodes the ability of people to exercise their free will and even their ability to think for themselves.
Rousseau on Pity
One of the two key principles that Rousseau identifies as existing prior to reason and upon which he bases his theory of natural right. All humans feel a strong distaste on seeing the suffering of another sentient (pain-feeling) creature. Rousseau argues that because humans feel this impulse of pity towards others they will not willingly mistreat other creatures unless their own self preservation is at stake. Savage man does not actively attempt to do good towards others, but is rather restrained by the principle of pity from harming them. Natural Right is established on the principles of pity and self- preservation because for Rousseau they are the most basic impulses that exist in men independent of society.
natural right for rousseau
- Natural Right is established on the principles of pity and self- preservation because for Rousseau they are the most basic impulses that exist in men independent of society.

-Natural right is very often linked to natural law. To many thinkers, natural rights are the claims or entitlements we have by virtue of being rational beings. We can have a natural right to do or to have something, such as the right to protect our own lives. The problem with such a definition, Rousseau argues, is that it emphasizes the role of reason, which may be a recent development. Instead, Rousseau founds his idea of natural right on the principles of pity and self-preservation, which, he claims, existed before reason. One of the aims of the reconstruction of human nature that Rousseau offers is to show that an idea of natural right was possible before man became social and created political institutions, and thus he claims that the state of nature was not the terrible place that some suggest. See pity, self-preservation, and natural law.
Rousseau on Origins of Family
-family is the most ancient of all socities and the only one that is natural

-the faimily may be called the first model of political socieites: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the chhildren; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for thier advantage

-AS men grew enlightened due to contact with each other they grew industrious, whihc was the first epoch of the first revolution and is where families stemmed from
Rousseau on slavery
-every man born into slavery is born for slavery

-the lose their desires to escape from slavery and love their servitude

-if then there are slaves by nature, it is bc there have been slaves against natuere.

-force made the firest slaves and their cowardice perpetuated the condidiont

-no natural slavery but institutional
lockes limits of gov