Political Theory Term test

Normative Theories

Action-guiding — they are thoeries about what we ought to do

Consent-based justification

Consenting to obey the law each of us impose on ourselves an obligation to obey the law adn we have to in fact consent to obey the law

Tacit consent

Claim that sometimes we agree to do something wihtout ever explicity saying so

Residence as tacit consent

If you enjoy any part of the dominions of any government (possession of land), you give tacit consent and are obligated to obey the state

Voting as consent

Two primary objections: what about non-voters and political minorities. Voting for the party you least dislike is coerced consent.

Hypothetical consent

Consent that we would give in an imagined situation that does not match reality. Dworkin argues that ‘A hypothetical contract is not simply a pale form of an actual contract; it is no contract at all”

“benefits-foisting” objection

Nozick asks what if I dont want the benefit that are generated by compliance with rules? You cant force a benefit on someone without their consent, and demand they pay you back.

Community

Dworkin believes in belonging and the importance of relational duties — political association as an analogue to family ties.

Morality

Nozick believes we have a duty to obey the state beacuse the state’s laws only make us do what we already have a moral duty to do anyway

Natural Duty View

We have a basic moral duty to obey the laws of just institutions

Anarchy

We should not obey the law because obedience to the law requires us to neglecy our primaru obligation to act autonomously

Negative Liberty

Absence of constraints on someone’s opportunities for action. The less our actions are blocked, the freer we are.

Positive Liberty

Presence of control, of self-mastery, of self-realization. Also known as “personal autonomy”— Limits that are supposed upon us by nature.

Pure Negative Conception

Excercising social power over a person to make her do something does not make her unfree to do otherwise, for the successful excercise of socail pwoer over a person depends on that person’s desires

Pure Positive Conception

They make a persons freedom depend in some way on the nature of her desires or values

Republican Liberty

Absence of domination, where this is understood to mean the arbituary power of one group or person of people over another

Libertarians on equality

Argues that ones degree of liberty is not a function of one’s material wealth, any more than it is of ones person physical or mental abilities; instead it depends on how far one’s opportunities are intentionally closed off by the actions of others

Intrinsic value of negative liberty

Being allowed to make choices is more important than the choices we actually make

Instrumental value of negative liberty

Letting individuals make choices produces a variety of better outcomes or consequences (unlimited freedom of expression was the best strategy for discovering truth and social progress)

Paternalism

Making people do what’s good for them and stopping whats bad for them by enforcing laws and punishments

Nudging

The way choices are structured so that we would rather choose “the right option” over the other (aka nudging people towards the right direction) but still gives people the illusion of free choice

Max Weber’s description of state

"the form of human community that (successfully) lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a particular territory”

3 types of harms of punishing lawbreakers

1. physical, emotional, psychological harms to family

2. financial, emotional, psychological to family

3. imposes enormous costs on innocent parties

Instrumental way of justifying punishment

While the imposition of suffering is bad, such suffering also produces good consequences that outweigh the badness of this suffering.

Non-instrumental justification of punishment

Detaches the justification from a narrow/cost benefit analysis. Criminals deserve to suffer.

3 good consequences that derive from punishment

Incapacitating criminals, dettering criminals, reforming criminals

Retributivist justification of punishment

Retributivist theories deny that all suffering is bad because wrongdoers should “get what they deserve” and criminals deserve to suffer

Fair play

Punishment is justified because we have a duty to obey the state because we benefit from other peoples compliance to the rules, therefore lawbreakers get an unfair advantage. Morally problematic with rape and murder.

HLA Hart’s Model

The general aim of a system of punishment is to deter crime; individuals have rights that contain how that general aim can be pursued — these rights forbid the punishment of the innocent and disproportionate punishment.

Anthony Duff’s communicative model

Punishment communicates a message of censure of wrongdoers’ conduct; that message is primarily communicated to criminals, but also to the victims and society at large

Victor Tadros’s duty view

Offenders have a duty to provide a remedy to their victims (for the wrongful harm they’ve caused); the remedy is their own punishment, which is meant to deter potential criminal