Poli Theory: Exam 2?

What is the role of natural law once governments are established? (L)

Even after governments are formed, natural law remains the permanent moral foundation for all human conduct. Positive state laws are created to clarify and enforce natural law with explicit penalties, but they can never contradict it. Natural law serves as an eternal, unyielding boundary for both citizens and lawmakers.

Can a legitimate government have absolute power? Can it have arbitrary power? (L)

A legitimate government cannot possess absolute or arbitrary power over its citizens' lives, liberties, or property. Because individuals lack absolute power over their own lives, they cannot grant such authority to a ruler. Government must govern exclusively through established, published laws rather than unpredictable, extemporary decrees, ensuring predictability and equal protection.

What limits must be placed on the legislative power? (L)

Locke places four strict constitutional bounds on the legislative branch. First, it must rule through uniform, published laws that apply equally to all people. Second, every law must be designed solely for the public good and the protection of property. Third, it cannot raise taxes without the direct or representative consent of the people. Fourth, it cannot delegate or transfer its lawmaking authority to any other body.

What is the “federative” power?

The federative power is the natural authority to manage international affairs, including war, peace, treaties, and external alliances. Although distinct in principle from the executive power, Locke notes that both are almost always held by the same hands because external diplomacy and domestic enforcement both rely on the unified management of public force.

What powers should be given to the executive? (L)

According to Locke, the executive should be given the power to enforce and execute the laws made by the legislature, maintain continuous oversight since the legislative body is not always in session, and exercise prerogative power—the discretionary authority to act for the public good in emergencies or when the law is silent or overly rigid. Additionally, while theoretically distinct, the executive should also hold the federative power to manage foreign relations, treaties, and defense, as both functions depend on the unified force of the commonwealth.

What is prerogative, and when may it be exercised? (L)

The executive branch enforces laws, maintains continuous oversight, and handles foreign relations. Additionally, the executive holds prerogative power—the discretionary authority to act without explicit legal direction, or even contrary to written law, during unforeseen emergencies or situations where strict adherence to law would cause public harm. This power must always serve the public good, never private interest.

In what ways can governments be dissolved from within? (L)

Governments dissolve from within when the trust placed in them is betrayed. This occurs either when a ruler arbitrarily alters the legislative structure—disrupting its function or subjecting citizens to foreign control—or when the legislative or executive powers invade the lives, liberties, and property of the people, thereby creating a state of war between the government and its citizens.

Why won’t a right to revolution lead to constant instability? (L)

Locke argues that recognizing a right to revolution does not produce constant social upheaval. People are naturally habitual and slow to abandon established systems, tolerating minor errors and inconvenience. Revolutions occur only after a long, continuous pattern of severe abuse makes tyranny undeniable; in fact, the threat of revolution acts as a crucial deterrent against tyranny.

To whom does power revert when a government is dissolved? (L)

When a government is dissolved due to breach of trust, political power reverts entirely back to the community. The people regain their original right to establish a new legislative body and framework of government that will effectively protect their safety, rights, and property.

What is the proper role of the state, and what means can it use toward this end? (L)

The state's exclusive role is the preservation and advancement of civil interests—specifically life, liberty, health, physical well-being, and property. To protect these outward interests, the state relies solely on coercive physical force, including laws, fines, imprisonment, and bodily punishment

Why shouldn’t the magistrate care for people’s souls? (L)

Locke gives three reasons why civil rulers should not manage salvation. First, God has given no human authority over another's soul, nor can individuals surrender that power to the state. Second, state force compels outward actions, but true religion requires genuine, internal belief, which physical coercion cannot produce. Third, because world rulers hold conflicting religious beliefs, linking salvation to civil power would make a person's eternal fate depend entirely on their birthplace.

What is the proper role of the church, and what means can it use toward this end? (L)

A church is a voluntary society formed to publicly worship God in a manner members believe will secure salvation. Its authority is strictly spiritual and non-coercive, relying exclusively on persuasion, advice, and admonition. Its strongest disciplinary action is excommunication, which removes a member from the religious community without depriving them of civil rights or property.

Where should the line be drawn between the church and state with regard to outward worship (rites, ceremonies, etc.)? (L)

The state must not mandate or prohibit religious rites within a church as long as those practices do not violate civil safety or infringe on public rights. Any act lawful in daily civil life (like eating bread or drinking wine) remains lawful in a religious ceremony. However, acts illegal in civil society to protect public welfare (like human sacrifice) do not become permissible simply because they are labeled religious acts.

Does morality fall under the domain of the church or the state, or both? (L)

Morality falls under both domains, but for different reasons: the state regulates outward behavior to maintain civil order, while the church focuses on internal conscience and spiritual purity for salvation. If a law directly violates an individual's conscience, they must obey God first by refusing compliance, but they must peacefully accept the civil penalties without violence.

Should people follow their conscience or the law if they come into conflict? (L)

When a civil law directly conflicts with an individual's genuine moral or religious conscience, the individual must prioritize their conscience and duty to God over the state's command. However, Locke stresses that this refusal to obey must remain peaceful. The person must passively accept the law's civil punishment or penalty without resorting to violence, rebellion, or civil disorder, trusting God as the ultimate judge.

What four sorts of doctrines shouldn’t be tolerated, and why? (L)

Locke denies religious freedom to four groups that threaten civil stability. He excludes doctrines contrary to basic moral order because they actively subvert the peace of society; sects claiming special privileges or the right to break promises with "heretics" because they destroy trust between citizens; groups owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign (such as Catholics loyal to the Pope) because their divided loyalty imperils state sovereignty; and atheists because denying God dissolves the sacred authority behind oaths and covenants that hold society together.

What historical examples demonstrate that the arts and sciences are corrupting? (R)

Rousseau argues that moral decline follows the rise of the arts and sciences. Egypt fell to foreign conquest after abandoning its original courage to cultivate philosophy and fine arts. Athens and Rome both collapsed after shifting from civic duty, bravery, and simple living to philosophy, luxury, and polite culture. Conversely, Rousseau praises Sparta for preserving its strength and freedom by driving out artists and scholars, while noting that China's deep learning could not protect it from repeatedly falling to less educated invaders.

How do the arts and sciences undermine virtue? (R)

Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences actively degrade virtue because they stem from human vices—such as greed spawning geometry, vanity spawning physics, and pride spawning moral philosophy. Cultivating these disciplines requires leisure and wealth, which fuel luxury and divert citizens from necessary practical labor and civic duties. Consequently, society begins valuing talent and cleverness over moral integrity, while polite culture promotes hypocrisy and philosophical skepticism weakens shared moral ties.

Are the arts and sciences corrupting for everyone? (R)

The arts and sciences are not corrupting for everyone, but exceptions are limited to rare geniuses like Francis Bacon, René Descartes, and Isaac Newton. Rousseau believes these exceptional minds possess the innate capacity to pursue truth without succumbing to vanity or laziness. However, for the average person, engaging in abstract philosophy and high arts leads only to vanity, moral confusion, and social decay.

Should we try to get rid of the arts and sciences? (R)

No, he clarifies that once a society is corrupt, removing knowledge will not restore lost innocence; it will only leave people both corrupt and violent. In decadent societies, the arts and sciences serve as a necessary distraction that keeps idle citizens from committing worse crimes, though uncorrupted nations should strictly keep them out.

Does Rousseau see the state of nature that he describes as a historical reality? (R)

Rousseau explicitly frames the state of nature as a hypothetical thought experiment rather than a historical reality. He notes that it is a state which no longer exists, perhaps never existed, and probably never will exist. However, constructing this idea is necessary to distinguish what is truly innate in human nature from what has been added by society and culture.

What mistake did thinkers like Hobbes and Locke make in their depictions of the state of nature? (R)

According to Rousseau, thinkers like Hobbes and Locke made the mistake of projecting modern, social traits back into the state of nature. They mistakenly attributed artificial qualities—such as greed, ambition, ideas of property, and pride—to natural humans. Hobbes in particular assumed that because natural humans lacked modern moral rules, they were naturally evil and aggressive, missing the fact that natural humans had no desire for conflict in the first place.

What are human beings naturally like? (R)

Natural humans are simple, physically strong, and completely self-sufficient. They are driven by two primary instincts: amour de soi, a natural urge for basic self-preservation and avoiding pain, and pitié, an innate compassion or reluctance to see any sentient being suffer. Because their needs are easily met, they live peaceful, solitary lives.

How are human beings in the state of nature different from the (other) animals? (R)

While both humans and animals operate on instinct, humans possess two distinct faculties: free agency and perfectibility. Free agency allows humans to choose, resist, or yield to their impulses rather than remaining strictly bound by instinct. Perfectibility is the unique capacity to learn, adapt, and evolve both as individuals and as a species.

What is “perfectibility”? (R)

Perfectibility is the dynamic human capacity for self-improvement and development over time. Paradoxically, Rousseau sees this as a double-edged sword. While perfectibility drives all human intellectual progress, reason, and innovation, it is also the ultimate root cause of human vice, social misery, and inequality.

Why were people so much happier in the state of nature? (R)

People were much happier in the state of nature because their desires never exceeded their immediate physical needs. Living entirely in the present, they were free from anxiety about the future, fear of death, and competitive desires. Without permanent relationships or property, they experienced no envy, social pressure, or artificial dependencies.

Were people in the state of nature virtuous? (R)

Natural humans were not virtuous in a moral sense, but rather amoral and innocent. Because they had no concept of duty, justice, or law, they were neither inherently good nor bad. Their peacefulness came from their complete ignorance of vice and the absence of complex social desires, not from a conscious choice to act virtuously.

Is pity stronger in the state of nature or in civilized society? (R)

Pity is far stronger in the state of nature because it operates as an immediate empathetic impulse. In civilized society, abstract reason, philosophy, and self-interest weaken this natural compassion. Civilized individuals learn to rationalize away the suffering of others, whereas natural humans act directly on instinct to avoid harm and distress.

How much inequality was there in the state of nature, and how much did it matter? (R)

Natural or physical inequalities, such as differences in age, health, or strength, were minor and largely irrelevant in the state of nature. Because people lived solitary lives without property or social structures, oppression and enslavement were impossible; no one could force another to obey when anyone could simply walk away.

What is pride or amour-propre, and why didn’t it exist in the state of nature? (R)

Amour-propre is an artificial, relational form of self-love that depends on the opinion of others, giving rise to vanity, envy, and the desire for social status. It did not exist in the state of nature because natural humans lived isolated lives without self-awareness relative to others. It is distinct from amour de soi, which is simple, non-competitive self-preservation.