American Heritage Midterm 1 GQ

General Questions

According to Whittington, what is the significant contribution of America to the development of political thought?

An emphasis on constitutionalism.

Anna learns of a Provo law that makes it illegal for any person to throw a snowball, but she loves to have snowball fights with her friends and is frustrated by this law. According to Dallin H. Oaks’s 2020 talk “Love Your Enemies,” what should Anna do?

Organize a peaceful public snowball fight using cotton balls to protest the law’s unfairness.

In your estimation, is America a liberal or a republican nation? What would you need to know to answer this question?

America cannot be classified strictly as a "liberal" or "republican" nation; it is politically diverse and its character is defined by both competing and overlapping ideologies, varying by region, election cycle, and issue focus. Answering this question requires specific information about how "liberal" and "republican" are defined

How do the two fundamental American political commitments that Whittington describes on page 11 oppose one another? What do they have in common?

Whittington describes two fundamental American political commitments as democracy and constitutionalism, which tend to oppose one another because democracy emphasizes rule by the majority and responsiveness to popular will, while constitutionalism stresses limits on government power and protection of individual rights even against majority rule. Despite this opposition, both commitments are essential for American political identity, aiming to create a government that is both responsive to the people and restrained by the rule of law.

What does President Oaks say is our relationship to politics? Do our political ideas take precedence over our duties to people? What should we do when we face deep disagreements with others?

President Dallin H. Oaks teaches that our relationship to politics should be principled and moderate—always guided by the Constitution, the rule of law, and a commitment to civil discourse and religious freedom. He emphasizes voters should prioritize moral agency and vote based on conscience, not strict party loyalty; the needs of people and communities come before unwavering political affiliation. Political ideas, therefore, do not take precedence over our duties to other people; compassion, understanding, and unity are paramount, even when disagreements are deep.

How do President Oaks and Jonathan Rauch each view compromise?

President Oaks sees compromise as a means to constructive politics and achieving peace—negotiating differences while honoring the law and the common good, but never compromising on one's core, divinely held values. He teaches that peacemaking and respectful negotiation are virtues but insists that unity and fairness should be achieved "without compromising core principles," especially regarding faith and moral truths. The Utah Compromise is a notable example he cites, where opposing interests found a workable solution respecting religious liberty and LGBTQ rights without either side abandoning fundamental beliefs.

Jonathan Rauch, meanwhile, argues that willingness to compromise is essential for democratic governance and civic peace. In his recent work and lectures, Rauch advocates for compromise as a republican virtue; he believes the health of democracy depends on citizens and leaders embracing negotiation and accommodation, even when it requires partial sacrifice of preferences for the greater good. Rauch sees compromise not as a weakness but as a positive, stabilizing force—and is deeply concerned that contemporary American dysfunction stems from a growing refusal to compromise, particularly in Congress and on cultural issues

What does Rauch say differentiates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from other American Christian churches? Why does that matter for American politics?

Jonathan Rauch distinguishes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from other American Christian churches by highlighting the Church’s “civic theology”—a uniquely articulated approach that fuses constitutional pluralism with Christian principles of mutual respect, patience, and peacemaking. He observes that, unlike many other churches which have become deeply politicized (“sharp Christianity” among evangelicals) or have lost their spiritual distinctiveness (“thin Christianity” among mainline Protestants), the Latter-day Saints actively promote constructive engagement in civic life while consciously avoiding partisan entanglement. Rauch praises the Church’s emphasis on accommodation, negotiation, and the protection of both religious liberty and individual rights, citing its role in the Respect for Marriage Act and the Utah Compromise as examples of working for common ground without sacrificing doctrinal integrity.

This matters for American politics because Rauch believes the LDS approach models how religious organizations can strengthen democracy rather than contribute to polarization. The Church’s stance, rooted in teaching respect for pluralism, encouraging engagement with politics without divisiveness, and actively fostering compromise, provides a template for how American Christianity can help bridge divides and reinforce the moral underpinnings needed for a healthy constitutional republic. Rauch argues that such examples are “countercultural” and vital as religious communities in America face the challenges of secularization and polarization, making the LDS model especially relevant for the future of American civic life.

What does President Oaks say about how people ought to respond to strong differences of opinion in society?

President Oaks teaches that when people face strong differences of opinion in society, they should respond with civility, mutual respect, and a sincere effort to understand others' experiences and concerns, rather than pursuing total victory or allowing conflict and resentment to dominate. His advice includes accepting the reality of pluralism, seeking fairness for all, and engaging in good faith negotiation—a process that emphasizes tolerance but goes beyond it to pursue harmony and peace, even while standing firm on core values.

What should be done when someone strongly disagrees with the law? Why?

When someone strongly disagrees with the law, President Oaks teaches that individuals should still accept and respect the rule of law as a foundation for peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society. He emphasizes that living together with those whose values differ requires acknowledging legitimate differences, making every effort to understand others, and working for fairness through mutual respect and good faith negotiation—rather than seeking total dominance or succumbing to polarization. This approach upholds the law’s stabilizing function and allows for peaceful social progress while protecting fundamental rights.

What does President Oaks say about personal rights? How does he see the balance between protecting rights and maintaining order?

President Oaks teaches that personal rights—including freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience—are divinely inspired and fundamental to American democracy, but must be balanced carefully against the need to maintain social order and respect for others’ rights. He repeatedly highlights that no single set of rights should be seen as absolute or as automatically overriding every other consideration; instead, there must be careful accommodation and balance when rights come into conflict, such as between religious liberty and non-discrimination.

How does the Constitution aim to create an American community?

The Constitution aims to create an American community by providing a framework of shared principles—like popular sovereignty, individual rights, and the rule of law—that bind a diverse group of people together as a single nation. Its opening words, "We the People," affirm that the government derives its power from all citizens, not from states or factions, laying the foundation for unity and collective belonging. Through the Preamble, the Constitution articulates goals that foster community: forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for collective defense, promoting general welfare, and securing liberty for current and future generations.

Why might it be difficult to reconcile the values of a Good Society with one another?

It can be difficult to reconcile the values of a Good Society with one another because these values—such as justice, liberty, equality, prosperity, sustainability, security, and community—often pull in different directions and can directly conflict when applied to real-life problems. Each value represents deeply held moral commitments, but advancing one (like individual freedom) may limit another (like equality or collective well-being), making the balance complex and often contentious.

What is the relationship between sovereignty, political legitimacy, and justice?

Sovereignty, political legitimacy, and justice are deeply interconnected concepts in political theory. Sovereignty refers to the supreme authority a government or political entity holds over its territory and people, giving it the power to create and enforce laws. Political legitimacy is the accepted right to rule—when a government is seen as justified and its authority is recognized by its people, often because its actions serve the common good and reflect shared values. Justice is the standard by which the exercise of power is judged: it demands fairness, equity, and respect for rights within the laws and institutions created by sovereign states

What responsibilities do citizens have according to Doctrine and Covenants 134? What powers should the government have? What does it mean to be accountable for our acts in relation to government?

According to Doctrine and Covenants 134, citizens have a duty to uphold, respect, and obey the law, as long as those laws preserve freedom of conscience and do not violate divine commandments. Citizens are responsible for peacefully seeking redress when laws are unjust, for supporting government leaders in maintaining order, and for promoting principles of justice and good faith within their communities.

How a government ought to regulate illicit drugs has been a serious debate in recent years. What might a proponent of “libertarianism” say is the role of government in relation to drugs?

Government ought to prioritize personal freedom—it should not place limits on a person’s ability to obtain and use drugs if the drug use is not harmful to others.

What is the relationship between human nature, collective action, and institutions?

Human nature, collective action, and institutions are fundamentally linked through the way people’s motivations, abilities, and limits shape how groups cooperate and how formal or informal rules emerge to make coordination possible.

• Human nature consists of individual desires, reasoning, biases, and social instincts—influencing whether people seek self-interest, fairness, empathy, or group belonging.

• Collective action arises when people work together to achieve common goals; however, human nature means individuals often need incentives or shared motivations to overcome problems like free-riding and competition.

• Institutions are the structures, rules, and norms—such as laws, traditions, partnerships, or governance systems—that society creates to guide, motivate, and enforce cooperation, channeling human behavior towards successful collective action.

What is the highest ethical consideration of libertarian thought?

individual liberty—the conviction that each person has an inherent right to make choices and direct their own life, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others. This is often articulated through the nonaggression principle (NAP), which holds that initiating force or coercion against others is always immoral, and social arrangements must maximize the freedom and autonomy of individuals.

Why are strains of libertarianism found in both the Republican and Democratic parties?

Strains of libertarianism are found in both the Republican and Democratic parties because libertarian principles—especially individual liberty, limited government, and skepticism of authority—overlap with key ideas from both party platforms in different domains.

• Within the Republican Party, libertarianism appeals to those who favor economic freedom (like low taxes, free markets, and deregulation) and limitations on government power, aligning with core conservative beliefs about personal responsibility and small government.

• Within the Democratic Party, libertarian-leaning individuals embrace civil liberties, privacy rights, non-interventionist policies, and social freedoms (such as same-sex marriage and drug decriminalization), aligning with left-leaning values of personal autonomy and socioeconomic tolerance.

According to Aristotle, what is the relationship between the purpose of an object and how the object should be distributed?

The relationship between the purpose (telos) of an object and how the object should be distributed is rooted in justice as proportional equality: the way goods, honors, or offices are distributed should reflect their purpose and the merit or worth of claimants in relation to that purpose. Aristotle teaches that justice is achieved when things are given to those best suited for them according to what they are intended for—their telos. In other words, distribution must match the intrinsic function of the object and be proportional to the recipient’s relevant virtues or qualifications.

Affirmative action is the ability of a university to consider traits beyond academic merit in the application process. How might one use the notion of “telos” to respond to the practice of affirmative action in college admissions?

If the purpose of university is to provide an academic education, then applicants ought to be considered upon their academic merit alone, not unrelated factors.

What does Williams say the relationship between religion and civil society ought to be? How does Cotton think about it?

Roger Williams believed there should be a clear separation between religion and civil society—civil government must concern itself only with maintaining order, justice, and protecting rights, never with enforcing religious beliefs or practices. He saw forced worship, or government-mandated religion, as a profound injustice and distortion of true faith, arguing that “forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils.” For Williams, natural civility and public virtues allow people of diverse convictions to live together peacefully, and he designed Rhode Island so religious plurality could flourish protected from state interference.

John Cotton, by contrast, envisioned a close partnership between church and civil government. Cotton believed civil magistrates should “establish and reform religion, according to the Word of God,” serving not above, but within, the Church. In his view, the state’s purpose includes defending and upholding the Church, while the Church provides moral and spiritual guidance to government. Although he did not believe in compelling individuals to be church members against their will, Cotton’s model is integrative: civil authority should support and serve spiritual ends, acknowledging Christ’s headship over both church and state.

Name the 12 reasons Williams gives against the “bloudy tenet of persecution.”

1. The state of the land of Israel is figurative. The Old Testament state of Israel, with its laws enforced by civil authority, is not a model for contemporary Christian nations to follow. Its practices were ceremonial and symbolic.

2. Enforced religious uniformity is not required by God. Williams argues that God does not command civil states to require and enforce religious uniformity. Forcing belief upon people often leads to civil war, persecution, and hypocrisy.

3. Forced uniformity hinders the conversion of the Jews. If Christian nations continue to persecute people for their beliefs, it discredits their cause and undermines any hope of peacefully converting the Jews to Christianity.

4. Forced uniformity confuses the civil and religious. Enforcing religious conformity mixes the distinct spheres of civil and religious authority, which denies the principles of Christianity.

5. Persecution violates the conscience. Forcing a person to believe against their conscience is a transgression against the very nature of humanity and an offense to God.

6. Spiritual weapons are the appropriate tools for spiritual battles. He distinguishes between spiritual battles, fought with the word of God, and physical battles, fought with swords and other worldly tools. Persecution uses physical force for spiritual ends, which is "vain, improper, and unsuitable".

7. The parable of the tares. In Matthew 13:24–30, Jesus tells the parable of the wheat and the tares. Williams interpreted this to mean that God wants the "weeds" (non-believers) to be tolerated until the final harvest and that people should not attempt to root them out.

8. Persecution does not promote truth. Forced uniformity does not lead to the embrace of truth but instead results in hypocrisy and the destruction of souls.

9. Genuine Christianity and true civility can coexist. A state or kingdom that permits different forms of worship can still have true civility and Christianity flourish.

10. The conversion of the soul is a matter for God alone. Williams argues that belief cannot be compelled by worldly power. It is a gift of God's spirit and a work of conscience.

11. Religious toleration leads to lasting peace. According to Williams, the surest way to procure lasting peace within a civil state is to permit different religious practices, as long as civil obedience is maintained.

12. Persecution is contrary to the doctrine of Christ. Williams maintains that the doctrine of persecution is "most evidently and lamentably" contrary to the merciful teachings of Christ, the "Prince of Peace". 

Flashcard Set - Edit | Knowt

According to Cotton, how does liberty affect people? How much liberty should people have?

liberty affects people in powerful but potentially dangerous ways because human nature is inherently flawed and susceptible to corruption. Cotton argues that when individuals are given too much liberty, especially in matters outside the rule of God, they are likely to misuse it, leading to moral decay, social unrest, and a departure from divine teachings. Liberty must therefore be carefully limited—people should only have as much liberty as God provides, specifically the liberty to follow God’s laws as interpreted by the Puritan tradition

In what ways do Williams and Cotton differ? In what ways are they aligned?

Main Differences

• Church-State Separation: Williams insists on a strict division; government must not interfere in religious beliefs or worship, prioritizing liberty of conscience for all. Cotton defends a partnership, arguing the civil government should uphold and enforce religious doctrine to preserve moral order and unity.

• Religious Liberty: Williams champions full tolerance, opposing all forms of punishment for faith; Cotton favors “well-ordered liberty,” restricting freedom to good behavior as defined by biblical standards.

• Handling Dissent: Williams opposes persecution and compulsion; Cotton supports discipline or exile of dissenters if they threaten communal or religious unity.

Key Alignments

• Puritan Ethos: Both are Puritan ministers invested in biblical authority, spiritual purity, and a community grounded in religious teachings.

• Concern for Justice: Each believes society must be guided by virtue and truth, though they radically disagree on the means.

• Use of Scripture: Both ground their arguments in biblical research and cite scripture to justify their positions.

What distinction does Winthrop draw between natural and civil liberty? Where does our civil liberty come from?

• Natural liberty is the freedom to do whatever one chooses, whether good or evil, just like animals do. It is common to all people and creatures and is unconstrained except by natural laws. Winthrop and his Puritan belief system saw this kind of liberty as dangerous, as it leads to disorder and sin because humans, being inherently corrupt, would naturally abuse it.

• Civil liberty (also called moral or federal liberty) is the freedom to do only what is good, just, and honest. It is the liberty one enjoys by willingly submitting to authority and laws designed to promote the common good and maintain order. Winthrop saw civil liberty as compatible with authority—it is the kind of liberty "wherewith Christ hath made us free," meaning it is based on submitting to godly law and order within a community. Civil liberty comes from this covenant and relationship with God and is maintained through subjection to legitimate, moral authority.

In “A Model of Christian Charity,” what expectation does Winthrop set for the colony the Puritans are going to form? What does this reveal about the importance of community to the Puritans? What does Winthrop say about the inequalities that might be present in a community?

Winthrop’s Expectation for the Colony

Winthrop tells his fellow Puritans that their colony should be united by shared purpose and demonstrate sincere charity, mercy, and care for one another. The settlers are expected to love their neighbors as themselves, to rejoice, labor, and mourn together, and to be knit together “as one man.” Their society should transcend individual interests in favor of collective responsibilities, and their success or failure will be visible to all, affecting not only their own fate but the reputation of God and their faith.

Importance of Community to Puritans

This reveals that community was vital to the Puritans, seen as essential both for religious survival and spiritual prosperity. Winthrop’s rhetoric emphasizes interdependence: each individual is part of one body, and the welfare of all depends on the charity and humility of each member. The emphasis on love, mercy, and unity highlights how deeply the Puritans believed their covenant with God was intertwined with their conduct as a community.

Winthrop on Inequalities

Winthrop acknowledges that inequalities—differences in wealth, power, status—will exist within any community. Rather than viewing them as problems, he frames them as part of God's divine plan, designed to allow for the “manifold wisdom of God” to be manifest: the wealthy may show mercy, the poor may show patience and gratitude, and all may demonstrate Christian love through dependence on one another. Inequalities foster interdependence and are opportunities for community members to serve one another, deepening their mutual bonds and spiritual growth. For Winthrop, these inequalities exist not for selfish gain but for all to grow closer to God through acts of charity and kindness.

What is the relationship between the purpose of a society and the organization of that society? Use Jamestown and Puritan communities as examples.

• The purpose of a society strongly influences how that society is organized. Comparing Jamestown and Puritan communities shows this relationship clearly:

  Jamestown: Profit and Survival

  • Purpose: The Jamestown settlement was founded primarily for economic gain—its main goal was to find wealth, extract resources, and generate profit for English investors.

  • Organization: Because of this individualistic and profit-driven purpose, Jamestown’s society was loosely organized, focused on commercial pursuits, and less unified around social or religious goals. Social bonds and governance were unstable; survival pressures, disease, and labor shortages fostered competition rather than community cohesion.

  • Example: The government in Jamestown gradually developed representative structures (e.g., the House of Burgesses), but social organization was fragmented, with little emphasis on communal welfare beyond the need for defense and survival.

  Puritan Communities: Religious and Moral Mission

  • Purpose: Puritan settlements in New England had a clear spiritual mission. Their goal was to build a model, godly society—a “city upon a hill”—that would exemplify Christian charity, unity, and strict moral conduct. They wanted to purify the church and create a community bound by covenantal relationships.

  • Organization: This purpose led the Puritans to tightly organize their communities around shared religious values. The church was the center of life; civil government and laws were deeply intertwined with religious principles. The community was knit together, education was valued, and members were expected to look out for each other’s spiritual and material welfare. Civic participation was linked to church membership and moral standing, emphasizing collective over individual interests.

In John Winthrop’s Little Speech on Liberty, he outlines the distinction between civil and natural liberty. Which of the following is the best representation of civil liberty?

Colin determines to abstain from smoking in hopes that he can be free from addiction so he will be better able to contribute to his community.

What are Sperling’s three principles for market structure? What might these principles look like in practice?

1. Market competition is always shaped by rules and policies: There is no totally “natural” market; laws, regulations, and institutional choices set the boundaries and incentives for how competition unfolds.

2. Rules should reward competition on quality, price, and performance—not exploitation: High-road competition should be supported. Markets should be structured so businesses compete by offering better goods and services—not by cutting corners on worker treatment, consumer protection, or environmental standards.

3. Corporations and markets exist by public design, not natural right: The structure and privileges of corporations (e.g., limited liability, ability to raise capital) are created and continually shaped by democratic society through law and policy. Their purpose can and should reflect societal values, not just profit maximization.

What These Principles Look Like in Practice

• Setting minimum labor and environmental standards, so companies compete by improving products, not by exploiting workers or degrading the environment.

• Regulations and consumer protections that prevent predatory lending, misleading products, or incentives that would cause "race-to-the-bottom" behavior.

• Designing corporate charters and market incentives that encourage firms to invest in communities and treat employees with dignity, sometimes prioritizing stakeholder interests over just shareholder profit.

To what extent does Sperling feel that the government should be involved in the economy? How are these assumptions based on the telos of businesses?

According to the Mayflower Compact, from where does government derive its power?

from the consent and agreement of the governed themselves.

What are the “two callings” Cotton Mather refers to?

• General calling: The shared Christian obligation to serve the Lord, repent, believe in Christ, and pursue piety—an obligation for all believers.

• Personal calling: A specific occupation, trade, or duty by which an individual serves society and fulfills his or her usefulness—each person’s unique role in their community or work life.

What is the argument Mather makes for why people ought to work? How is his conception different from that of a market economy?

Cotton Mather argues that people ought to work because work is both a Christian duty and a way to fulfill one’s God-given purpose. For Mather, work is a calling—everyone has a specific role or occupation by which they serve God, support themselves, help their family, and contribute to society. He insists work is not just for personal gain, but a means to do good, build moral character, and benefit the broader community. Laziness or neglect of one’s calling is seen as sinful because it wastes the gifts and opportunities God has provided

For the Puritans, what makes an occupation worthy of honor and recognition?

• It is a legitimate calling: Any work that is lawful and aligned with God’s will is dignified. The Puritans rejected a division between “sacred” and “secular” work, teaching that all honorable jobs—whether preaching or washing dishes—could be done for the glory of God.

• It is approached as service: The value and honor of work are measured not by its social status, pay, or prestige, but by the heart and intention of the worker. An occupation done with diligence, integrity, and love for others is inherently honorable.

• It expresses Christian love: Work is seen as the primary arena for glorifying God and serving one’s neighbor, reflecting faith in everyday actions. The pursuit should be motivated by a desire to help, support, and build up others, not simply for self-enrichment.

Which is the best description of the Mayflower Compact?

The Pilgrims signed their names as a statement of the covenant they made with one another.

What is the relationship between justice and compulsion? Is there a difference between compulsion to serve in the armed forces by economic necessity rather than being drafted?

Justice and compulsion are deeply connected: compulsion involves forcing someone to act, and justice asks whether such force is legitimate and fair. In the context of government, laws and social obligations are generally enforced through compulsion—whether by threat of penalty, social expectation, or direct legal action. Justice is achieved when compulsion aligns with moral, legal, and equitable standards, serving the common good without unnecessary harm.

• Draft (legal compulsion): Service is explicitly mandated by government authority. Individuals have little or no choice, and refusal leads to legal consequences. Compulsion is overt and direct, raising clear ethical questions about individual freedom and government authority.

• Economic necessity: Service is technically voluntary, but socioeconomic hardship may leave individuals with few real alternatives. Here, compulsion is indirect, arising from structural inequities. People may choose the armed forces due to limited options, rather than true willingness.

How might the ability to exercise free choice depend on the conditions in which the person finds herself making a choice?

Context, constraints, and available options profoundly shape how free a choice truly is.

• Supportive Environments: When people are in autonomy-supportive environments—where they are given meaningful options, clear information, and encouragement for independent action—their sense of agency and free choice are strengthened. These environments satisfy basic psychological needs and foster intrinsic motivation.

• Constraining Environments: In contrast, environments that limit options, control information, or impose external pressures undermine autonomy. Even if someone technically has a choice, the presence of force, manipulation, or limited alternatives reduces the authenticity and freedom of that choice.

According to Sandel, in what way(s) might a market “degrade” a good?

a market may “degrade” a good when market values and exchange corrupt the meaning or diminish the moral worth of that good. This happens in several ways:

• Commodification corrupts values: When goods like education, civic duties, friendships, or honors are bought and sold, it replaces the appropriate values—such as learning for its own sake, civic responsibility, or genuine relationships—with market attitudes of profit and utility.

• Markets crowd out nonmarket norms: Introducing monetary incentives in areas governed by intrinsic or civic motivation (for example, paying people to vote, learn, or bear burdens for society) crowds out altruism and undermines the social norms important to those practices.

• Lower mode of valuation: Treating certain goods as commodities puts them on a “lower mode of valuation than is appropriate.” For example, selling tickets to public rituals, admissions to elite institutions, or even aspects of personal dignity treats these goods as mere objects for profit rather than matters of honor, virtue, or communal meaning.

What is the Principle of Wrongful Possession? How does it influence what is morally permissible to be bought and sold?

it is morally impermissible to buy or sell goods that are obtained, held, or offered by someone who does not have legitimate or just ownership of them. In other words, if a good is wrongfully acquired—whether it’s stolen, misappropriated, or obtained through fraud—transactions involving that good violate moral and often legal norms.

What do you think of Brennan and Jaworski’s understanding of a market? Is it as easy to differentiate goods from markets in their argument as it is in Sandel’s?

Brennan and Jaworski define a market as the voluntary exchange of goods and services for valuable consideration, and argue in "Markets Without Limits" that if it is morally permissible to do something for free, it should also be morally permissible to do it for money. Their stance is that the market itself does not add any new moral wrongness to an otherwise permissible activity—the act of buying and selling does not inherently change the ethical status of the good or service involved.

What role did the market play in the “wrongness” of involuntary slavery in the United States according to Brennan and Jaworski in Markets Without Limits?

The involuntary servitude of human beings was wrong, independent of market involvement.

What is the highest ethical consideration of utilitarian thought?

Greatest Happiness Principle

similarities between Locke’s view of human nature and a utilitarian view of human nature? What are the biggest differences?

Locke and utilitarianism share some broad similarities in their views of human nature but also significant differences.

Similarities

• Rational self-interest: Both Locke and utilitarians assume that humans are capable of rational thought and act to pursue their own happiness or well-being.

• Happiness as a goal: Locke sees happiness or the "highest good" as the end of human action, paralleling the utilitarian idea that maximizing happiness or pleasure is ethically important.

• Moral rules for mutual benefit: Both accept that rules or laws are necessary to secure well-being and peace for individuals and society. Locke’s natural law (reason) guides people toward actions that avoid harm and promote collective preservation, just as utilitarians adopt rules that promote the greatest utility.

Biggest Differences

• Basis of morality: Locke grounds human rights and moral rules in natural law and, often, in the will of God or a creator, making them prior to and independent of consequences. Utilitarianism bases rightness solely on consequences—actions are right if they maximize happiness, period.

• Source of rights: Locke believes in natural rights—life, liberty, and property—which individuals possess inherently and must not be violated, even for the sake of greater good. Utilitarianism, by contrast, allows rights to be overridden if doing so produces greater overall happiness.

• View of individuality: Locke puts strong emphasis on individual autonomy and rights as limits on collective action. In utilitarianism, the interests and happiness of the individual may be sacrificed for the greater happiness of the group

What are the similarities and differences between Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill? What do each say regarding individual rights? What do they say about ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures?

Similarities

• Utilitarian Principle: Both Bentham and Mill are utilitarians—they believe that the rightness of actions is determined by their consequences for overall happiness or pleasure. The more a choice increases happiness, the better it is morally.

• Consequentialism: Both judge morality based on the outcomes, not intentions or rules themselves.

---

Key Differences1. Pleasures: Quantity vs. Quality

• Bentham:

  • Sees all pleasures as essentially equal and only considers their quantity (intensity, duration, etc.).

  • "Push-pin is as good as poetry" if the amount of pleasure is the same—no type of pleasure is better than another.

• Mill:

  • Argues pleasures differ in quality as well as quantity.

  • Distinguishes between higher pleasures (mental, intellectual, moral, aesthetic) and lower pleasures (bodily, physical). Higher pleasures are intrinsically more valuable, even if less intense, than lower pleasures.

  • Thinks a small amount of higher pleasure outweighs large amounts of lower pleasure—competent judges (those who know both types) will always prefer higher pleasures, even if they bring some dissatisfaction.

Why might Locke’s views protect individual rights better than a utilitarian view?

Locke’s views protect individual rights better than utilitarianism because Locke asserts that certain rights—life, liberty, and property—are natural, absolute, and inalienable.

Which of the following is an objection to using utilitarian calculations to structure a form of government?

Utilitarianism does not adequately protect individual rights.

True liberty

True liberty is defined as genuine freedom to act according to one’s rational will, moral responsibility, and self-determination, bounded by respect for the rights and welfare of others.

What are the four pieces of advice from Poor Richard on how to become wealthy? How do his observations about wealth relate to what you have learned about the basic structure and principles of markets?

Poor Richard (Benjamin Franklin) offers four pieces of advice for becoming wealthy:

1. Industry (Work Hard): "Drive thy business, let not that drive thee." Hard work and diligent attention to one’s own affairs are essential to creating and retaining wealth.

2. Frugality (Be Thrifty): "Beware of little expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship." Saving and avoiding unnecessary extravagance or waste are key to accumulating wealth and preventing loss.

3. Prudence (Make Thoughtful Decisions): "At a great pennyworth, pause a while." Make wise and cautious choices; avoid impulsive purchases or reckless ventures that threaten financial stability.

4. Seek Blessing and Practice Charity: "Do not depend too much upon your own industry, and frugality, and prudence, though excellent things, for they may all be blasted without the blessing of heaven; ask that blessing humbly, and be not uncharitable to those that seem to want it." Recognize that luck, divine favor, and helping others also influence success.

---

Poor Richard’s Observations and Market Principles

• Labor and market value: Industry and effort reflect the principle that value in markets is often created through productivity.

• Saving and investing: Frugality reinforces basic market advice—saving capital allows investment, compounding, and dealing with uncertainty and risk.

• Prudence and rational choice: In markets, wise decisions and rational analysis are vital for success—impulse undermines stability and growth.

• Charity and social responsibility: Markets alone don’t guarantee justice or prosperity for all. Franklin’s last piece of advice acknowledges externalities, vulnerability, and the importance of supporting those less fortunate, connecting markets to broader moral responsibilities.

What does The Way to Wealth say about individual responsibility? What is the relationship between individual responsibility in the market and in the civic sphere?

"The Way to Wealth" by Benjamin Franklin puts strong emphasis on individual responsibility—the idea that each person is ultimately accountable for their own economic success and moral choices. Franklin highlights that personal diligence, frugality, prudence, and wise time management are essential for achieving wealth, and that self-reliance and avoiding debt are the foundation of personal freedom and well-being.

Individual Responsibility in Market and Civic Spheres

• In the market: Individual responsibility means taking charge of one's own finances, working hard, saving, investing wisely, and exercising prudence. Success (and failure) in the market hinges largely on one’s own choices, effort, and discipline, which Franklin sees as essential virtues for prosperity.

• In the civic sphere: The same habits of personal responsibility—honesty, industry, prudence—form the basis of civic virtue. Citizens who are self-reliant, ethical, and proactive are more likely to support the common good, contribute positively to their communities, and ensure the health of a democratic society. Franklin’s proverb “God helps them that help themselves” underscores the value of responsible individuals in upholding institutions and collective prosperity.

What does Franklin's portrayal of the possibility of upward mobility indicate about equality and inequality? What makes people equal?

provides equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, and that individual effort, character, and enterprise are chief factors in overcoming social inequality. Franklin—known as the archetype of the “self-made man”—argued that people could rise in status and wealth regardless of birth or background, provided they worked industriously, practiced thrift, and showed prudence. This made class less deterministic compared to Europe, giving rise to the ideal of the American Dream.

• Equality: According to Franklin, what makes people equal is not wealth or talent, but the equal possession of natural rights (life, liberty, property), the capacity for self-improvement, and equal standing under the law. All individuals possess equal dignity and the freedom to pursue happiness—this is the basis of social and civic equality in America.

• Inequality: Franklin accepted that people differ in talents, ambition, or fortune, resulting in inequalities of wealth or status. He believed such inequality is a natural result of individual differences and marketplace competition, and can be justified if everyone starts with equal opportunity and equal protection.

Of the following, all are practices Benjamin Franklin argues build wealth except:

Relying on trustworthy workers to complete all tasks.

How did the arguments in Common Sense help convince Americans to declare independence?

Paine’s Common Sense convinced Americans to declare independence by arguing that monarchy was corrupt, British rule hurt America, and the colonies deserved self-government and equality. He insisted independence was urgent and preferable to ongoing oppression, using clear, relatable language for all colonists.Paine’s Common Sense argued monarchy was corrupt, British rule hurt the colonies, and independence and self-government were urgent and logical. His clear reasoning and relatable style united Americans to support declaring independence.

In what ways does Paine’s argument rely on the notion of utility?

by showing independence is practical and beneficial: it would increase American security, prosperity, and self-government. He judges British rule by its harmful effects and insists breaking away would maximize the colonies’ happiness and well-being.Paine’s argument is utilitarian: he measures British rule by its harmful effects and claims independence is morally right because it’s best for everyone’s safety, prosperity, and collective happiness.

What is Paine’s view of human nature? How do his views on society differ from Locke’s?

• Paine is more optimistic, believes people remain naturally equal within society, and wants more democratic government.

• Locke is somewhat less optimistic, sees some rights traded for security, and supports constitutional, but still somewhat elitist, government.

According to Paine, what are the ends (goals or purposes) of government?

According to Paine, the main goal of government is security: to protect people’s freedom and property by restraining vice and preventing injustice. Government is a “necessary evil” existing only because people aren’t always virtuous—its best form is the simplest, most accountable structure that secures liberty with minimal interference.According to Paine, the main purposes of government are to provide security, protect liberty, and restrain vice—government is a “necessary evil” needed only because humans are not always virtuous. Its best form is the simplest one that keeps people safe and free with the least interference.

Why does Paine consider the English constitution to be corrupt? How do his arguments about the English government compare with those in the Declaration of Independence?

Paine calls the English constitution corrupt because monarchy and hereditary power breed injustice and harm freedom; its complex government enables tyranny, not accountability. Like the Declaration, Paine condemns British rule for violating rights and liberty, but he’s more direct in attacking monarchy.

What are the self-evident truths that Jefferson identifies? To what extent do they reflect or depend on a Lockean notion of social contracts?

Jefferson’s self-evident truths are:

1. All men are created equal

2. All are endowed with unalienable rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

3. Governments exist to secure these rights and derive power from the consent of the governed

4. People can alter or abolish governments that violate these ends.

These reflect Locke’s social contract ideas: natural rights exist before governments, and government’s legitimacy comes only from the people’s consent. If government betrays these rights, citizens have a right to revolution—directly echoing Locke’s principles.

What set of terms most adequately summarizes how Thomas Paine describes the properties of government?

Necessary and Dangerous

Their exchange took place just prior to the publication of the Declaration of Independence, but given the arguments each makes, how might John and Abigail Adams each understand the Declaration’s statement that “all men are created equal?”

• John Adams: equality in rights and law, but not total social or gender equality.

• Abigail Adams: “all men” should mean everyone, and she challenged the new nation to uphold universal equality, including for women

How are the approaches of Abigail Adams and Benjamin Banneker regarding equality similar? How are they different?

Similarities:

• Both appealed to the core American ideal that “all men are created equal” and called for its fuller application.

• They wrote persuasive, respectful letters to powerful men (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson) demanding rights and justice for the marginalized.

• Both used the language of natural rights and the Revolution to make their case.

Differences:

• Abigail focused on women’s rights and legal protections; she urged her husband not to forget women in the law.

• Banneker called for the end of slavery and racial equality, arguing that Black Americans deserved the same freedom, intellect, and dignity as whites.

• Abigail wrote from within the political elite; Banneker, as a free Black man, challenged both racism and slavery from outside the centers of power.

On what grounds does Banneker argue for equality? How does he appeal for authority?

Banneker argues for equality on the grounds of natural rights—he insists all people are created equal by God and equally deserve freedom, justice, and dignity. He reminds Jefferson that the ideals in the Declaration should apply to Black Americans as well as whites, highlighting the hypocrisy of slavery in a country founded on liberty.

For authority, Banneker appeals to Christian teachings, the language of the Declaration of Independence, and Jefferson’s own words about human rights. He uses moral, religious, and philosophical arguments to urge leaders to live up to their own principles and “recall to your mind that time in which the arms and tyranny of the British Crown were exerted with every powerful effort...[for] your freedom”.

To which principle do both Abigail Adams and Benjamin Banneker appeal in their arguments for equality?

Both appealed to the idea of individual rights.

To what extent does Jefferson believe that differences between races are a result of environmental factors? As a result of inherent natural differences?

Jefferson believed racial differences were mostly due to inherent, natural distinctions rather than environmental factors, arguing that these differences would persist regardless of social conditions or education. He sometimes acknowledged limited environmental influence, especially about Native Americans, but held that most differences between races were fixed by nature.Jefferson mostly believed that differences between races were caused by inherent, natural distinctions—not just by environment or social conditions—though he occasionally admitted environment might have some influence in certain cases.

In the Slaves’ Petition to Massachusetts Governer Thomas Gage, what reasons do the Petitioners give for why the law should permit them their liberty?

The Petitioners say law should permit their liberty because all people have a natural right to be free, slavery is unjust and inhumane, and Christian morals demand equal treatment and brotherhood for all.The Petitioners say the law should grant their liberty because freedom is a natural right, slavery is an injustice and breaks families, and their Christian faith calls for brotherly love and equality.

Why do the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments uses the same format and phrasing as the Declaration of Independence?

The Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments uses the same format and phrasing as the Declaration of Independence to connect the women’s rights movement to America’s founding principles and to legitimize their demands. By echoing the Declaration, the authors showed that women’s struggle for equality was as fundamental as the colonists’ struggle for freedom and made their cause familiar, patriotic, and difficult to dismiss.The Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments copies the Declaration of Independence’s style and language to show that women’s rights are as important and legitimate as the founding principles of the nation. This familiar format made their demands relatable, patriotic, and hard to ignore.

What does Sojourner Truth mean when she asks, “Ain’t I a woman?”

to challenge the idea that only white women deserve rights and respect. She shows that, despite being Black and having endured hard labor and slavery, she is fully a woman and deserves the same rights, dignity, and recognition as any other woman. Truth’s question exposes the racism and sexism that exclude Black women from true equality, demanding that both kinds of injustice be addressed.

Does Truth’s speech combine the arguments made in the Slaves’ Petition and the Declaration of Sentiments? What arguments are distinct to each author?

Truth’s speech does blend arguments from the Slaves’ Petition and the Declaration of Sentiments: she uses natural rights and the injustice of slavery from the Petition, and demands women’s rights and dignity from the Declaration of Sentiments.

Distinct to each author:

• The Slaves’ Petition focuses on freedom as a natural right and religious/moral brotherhood for enslaved people.

• The Declaration of Sentiments demands equal rights for women, challenging “male tyranny” and the denial of access to law, education, and property.

• Truth uniquely combines both, showing that Black women are doubly denied rights by racism and sexism, and highlighting lived experience as an enslaved woman neglected by both men and white women.

Which is NOT a reason the Enslaved Petitioners gave to Governer Thomas Gage to urge the legislature to abolish slavery?

Laws enforcing slavery often led to violence and caused slaveholders to forget the humanity of those who were enslaved.