Pol Phi 2

SA-M1. In the Dedicatory Letter to the Discourses, Machiavelli explains who he dedicates the work to and why. What does he say about his choice, and what does it reveal about his view of how knowledge and recognition work and ought to work?

Machiavelli dedicates the Discourses not to powerful princes but to his friends, arguing that those who truly understand and appreciate his work deserve it more than those with high status. He suggests that recognition should be based on merit and understanding, not wealth or rank. This reveals his belief that knowledge ought to circulate among those capable of using it well, rather than simply serving the powerful.

SA-M2. In the preface to Discourses Book I, Machiavelli describes his project and criticizes his contemporaries. What is his project, and what specific error does he say people of his time make in their relationship to antiquity?

Machiavelli's project is to draw practical political lessons from ancient Rome to guide modern republics. He criticizes his contemporaries for admiring antiquity in art and literature but failing to imitate it in politics. This, he says, is a major error: people praise the past without learning from it in any meaningful, practical way.

SA-M3. In Prince chapters 15-16, Machiavelli recommends that a prince learn when not to be virtuous. Lay out his argument. Why does he say a prince who always acts virtuously will come to ruin?

Machiavelli argues that a prince must learn how not to be virtuous because strict virtue can lead to political failure. Since the world is full of people who are not good, a ruler who always acts morally will be taken advantage of and lose power. Therefore, a prince must be willing to act immorally when necessary to maintain the state.

SA-M4. In Prince chapter 6, Machiavelli distinguishes between armed and unarmed prophets as founders of new states. What is the distinction, and what conclusion does he draw from it?

Machiavelli distinguishes between armed prophets, who can enforce their vision, and unarmed prophets, who rely only on persuasion. Armed prophets succeed because they can compel belief and maintain order, while unarmed ones fail when support fades. He concludes that force is essential to establishing and securing new political orders.

SA-M5. In Discourses I.2-I.4, Machiavelli discusses the conflict between the Roman Senate and the plebs. What is his surprising argument about this conflict, and why does he think most historians have misjudged it?

Machiavelli argues that the conflict between the Roman Senate and the plebs was actually beneficial, not harmful. He claims it produced laws that protected liberty and strengthened the republic. Most historians misjudge it because they see conflict as disorder, rather than recognizing its productive political effects.

SA-M6. In Discourses I.2, Machiavelli discusses the types of goverment, noting that some say there are six types. What are they are how do they differ? Which of them does he recommend and why?

The six types of government are three good forms—monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy—and their corrupt counterparts—tyranny, oligarchy, and mob rule (or anarchy). The good forms serve the common good, while the corrupt forms serve private interests. Machiavelli recommends a mixed government, like Rome's, because it balances these elements and is more stable over time.

SA-M7. In Discourses I.9, Machiavelli argues that Romulus's killing of Remus was not only excusable but necessary. What is the argument? What general principle about founding does he draw from it?

Machiavelli argues that Romulus's killing of Remus was justified because it secured the founding of Rome and prevented division. He suggests that founding a stable political order may require violent and morally questionable acts. The general principle is that extraordinary actions, even cruel ones, can be necessary to establish lasting political institutions.

SA-L1. What is the "law of nature" in Locke's state of nature (chapter 2)? Who has the right to enforce it there, and what problem does this create?

In Locke's state of nature, the law of nature is a moral law discoverable by reason that requires people to respect others' life, liberty, and property. Everyone has the right to enforce this law by punishing violations. The problem is that individuals are biased in their own cases, leading to inconsistent and excessive punishment, which creates conflict.

SA-L2. Locke distinguishes between a state of nature and a state of war in chapter 3. What is the difference, and why does this distinction matter for his overall argument?

The state of nature is a condition of equality and freedom governed by reason, while the state of war arises when someone uses force or attempts to dominate another unjustly. The distinction matters because the state of nature is not inherently chaotic or violent, contrary to Hobbes. This supports Locke's argument that government is created not to escape constant war, but to better preserve rights.

SA-L3. In chapter 5, Locke explains the origin of property. What is it? He also says that the introduction of money fundamentally changed the natural limits on property. How? What did money make possible that those limits had previously prevented?

Property originates when individuals mix their labor with natural resources, making them their own. Initially, property was limited by spoilage and the requirement to leave "enough and as good" for others. Money removes these limits by allowing people to store value without spoilage, making accumulation of large amounts of property possible.

SA-L4. According to Locke in chapter 9, what are the three things the state of nature "wants" — that is, the three things it lacks — that lead people to form political society?

Locke says the state of nature lacks three things: a known and established law, an impartial judge, and the power to enforce judgments. Without these, disputes are uncertain and biased. These deficiencies lead people to form political society for greater security and stability.

SA-L5. Locke argues in chapter 8 that most people give their consent to government only tacitly rather than expressly. What does he mean by tacit consent? State one possible objection to this account.

Tacit consent means that individuals implicitly agree to a government by living within its territory and enjoying its benefits. They are not required to explicitly state their consent. One objection is that this "consent" is not truly voluntary, since most people have no realistic option to leave.

SA-L6. What does Locke mean when he says in chapter 19 that a government can "dissolve" itself? What must a government do — or fail to do — for the people to be justified in forming a new one?

Locke argues that a government dissolves itself when it fails to protect the rights it was created to secure or acts against the public good. This can happen if rulers abuse power, violate laws, or undermine the legislative authority. In such cases, the people are justified in replacing the government with a new one.

SA-R1. In the preface to the Second Discourse, Rousseau identifies two principles he says are "prior to reason" and together generate all the rules of natural right. What are they, and what role does each play in natural man's life? Why does Rousseau think we need both, rather than just one?

Rousseau identifies self-love (amour de soi) and pity (pitié) as the two principles prior to reason. Self-love drives individuals to preserve themselves, while pity restrains them from harming others unnecessarily. We need both because self-love alone would lead to selfishness, while pity alone would not ensure survival; together they balance preservation and compassion.

SA-R2. Rousseau says in the Second Discourse that perfectibilité — the capacity for self-improvement — is humanity's most distinctive feature. Why does he also call it the source of "all of man's miseries"? What is the tension between these two claims?

Perfectibilité allows humans to learn, adapt, and improve, distinguishing them from animals. However, it also leads to comparison, inequality, and dependence, which generate suffering and vice. The tension is that the very capacity that enables progress also corrupts natural simplicity and happiness.

SA-R3. In Social Contract Book I, chapter 3, Rousseau argues that force cannot be the basis of right. Lay out his argument. What exactly is wrong, in his view, with claiming that we are obligated to obey whoever is strongest?

Rousseau argues that force creates necessity, not obligation—people obey the strong only because they must, not because it is right. If force justified authority, then any stronger power could overthrow it and claim legitimacy. This makes "right" meaningless, so true political authority must rest on something other than force.

SA-R4. In Social Contract Book II, chapter 3, Rousseau distinguishes the general will from the will of all. Define each in your own words and explain how the two can diverge.

The general will is the collective will aimed at the common good, while the will of all is simply the sum of individual private interests. They diverge when individuals pursue personal advantage rather than the common interest. In such cases, the will of all may conflict with what is best for the community as a whole.

SA-R5. In Social Contract Book II, chapter 6, Rousseau asks what makes something a law. Rousseau's answer is that law must be general in both its source and its object. What does each requirement mean? What happens — on Rousseau's account — when the general will addresses a particular person or thing?

A law is general in its source when it comes from the whole people acting as a collective body, and general in its object when it applies to all citizens or classes rather than specific individuals. If the general will targets a particular person or case, it ceases to be a law and becomes a decree. For Rousseau, true laws must always be impersonal and universally applicable.

SA-R6. In Social Contract Book II, chapter 4, Rousseau says the sovereign can require its members to risk their lives in defense of the state. But Book I argued that life and freedom cannot be legitimately alienated. How would Rousseau resolve this tension?

Rousseau resolves this tension by arguing that individuals, as members of the sovereign, will the laws that may require them to risk their lives. In defending the state, they are effectively preserving their own collective existence. Thus, this obligation is not an alienation of life but an expression of their participation in the general will.

SA-R7. In Social Contract Book III, chapter 1, Rousseau introduces a crucial distinction between the sovereign and the government. Define each in Rousseau's terms. What is the government's role, and why must it always remain subordinate to the sovereign?

The sovereign is the collective body of citizens expressing the general will, while the government is the executive body that carries out and enforces the laws. The government's role is administrative, not legislative. It must remain subordinate because only the sovereign has legitimate authority to make laws reflecting the common good.

SA-R8. In Social Contract Book III, chapter 15, Rousseau attacks representative government directly. What is Rousseau's argument against elected representatives making law on behalf of the people? What does his remark about English liberty mean, and is it a fair characterization?

Rousseau argues that sovereignty cannot be represented because the general will cannot be transferred to others without being distorted. Elected representatives substitute their own judgment for that of the people, undermining true freedom. His remark about English liberty means that the English are free only during elections, but otherwise are subject to their representatives; whether this is fair is debatable, as it criticizes representation more harshly than many modern systems would justify.