Key concepts

WEEK 1 LECTURE

We are about to discuss economic and philosophical basics of a commercial society. Furthermore, let's explain two distinctions and apply these distinctions to the idea of property rights. The first distinction are between normative claims and descriptive claims.

Descriptive claim: meant to describe the world as it is and not as it should be. Descriptive claims can be true or false even though true claims are descriptive.

Normative claims: a value judgment about whether a situation is desirable or undesirable; talking about the world as it should be.

Knowing these distinctions are important because it helps to identify a fallacious argument called is-out fallacy. Is-out fallacy happens when someone states that because things are a specific way, they should be that specific way or vice versa (because things aren't a specific way…). Fallacy was famously introduced by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. For instance, you are committing fallacy if you say since you don't see many men cooking and cleaning, it is immoral; if you believe something is morally permissible because it is legal, you are committing this fallacy. Claims about how the law is does not prove how the law should be.

Another distinction to discuss are distinctions pertaining to normative theories about how vital the consequences of an action in regard to morally assessing these actions. The following duties are deontology and consequentialism.

Consequentialism: this requires actions to be morally assessed simply by the consequences they result to. 18th century British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, is the father of consequentialism or utilitarianism.

Deontology: requires an action to be morally wrong or right. It does not rely only on its consequences; according to 18th century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (the father of deontology), deontology relies on moral duties regardless of their consequences.

When relating these distinctions to the notion of property rights, we should refer to two kinds of rights: self ownership (the rights over our body and our capacities) and the right over external resources (the right to use resources whenever we want, including the right to transfer them). In this case, when speaking about property rights, we are referring to moral rights, not legal; it's about what the law should say.

Next, we will respond to the normative question: why are property rights valuable from a moral point of view? There are two moral foundations or answers in regard to property rights.

Deontological answer: these rights are valuable within of themselves and not valuable in relation to the achievement of good consequences. In his second treatise of government, for example, the 17th century English philosopher John Locke offers a deontological theory of property rights. He believes property rights are not a human creation (they are natural rights).

Consequential answer: valuable because a legal system that has already established property rights has the ability to reach good consequences or results (more wealth, economic efficiency, the less property, more opportunities, etc.) David Hume believe property rights are needed to maintain the society. He also views it as a human creation but a morally valuable to promote the common good.

OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT BY DAVID HUME

Political authority has to start with a mutual agreement because humans start out nearly equal in physical and mental strength (no one person actually has the right to rule over others). Philosophically, people willingly share or give up some of that power to gain safety, order and peace in their daily lives. As a matter of fact, the details of the agreement were so obvious that explaining them was a waste of time. It cannot be denied, however, that all governments started by force and conquest, not by voluntarily social contracts.

Initially, the rights and freedoms are people did not come from a written document, law or government decree. Mr Hume argues that political power and government authority are fake or artificial human creations, not organic facts. The early leaders gained their power, through the continuance of war, more by persuasion than command and acquired influence during that same continuance of war. The leaders could not force people to obey without punishing the disobedient. Mr. Hume addresses the early people as savages and states that they cannot understand a form of social contract at the time. Eventually, the people accepted the leader’s help because as more problems occurred, the leader stepped in more often but this voluntary obedience was weak or precarious because it depended solely on fear, necessity and the leader continuing to be helpful.

On the other hand, some philosophers say that government still depend only on the agreement that the government started when people freely agreed or allowed it to happen. They also believe that people are born to only obey a ruler if they willingly promised to do so and a government has a right to rule only through social contract: the people owe the government loyalty only if the government protects the people. If these philosophers actually look at how the real world works, they will see that fair government systems do not exist; they will find that powerful rulers only treat people like property and claim total control through family inheritance or force. People all over the world naturally submit to the government out of habits by treating authority like a physical law instead of something they actually agreed to; people follow their government because their ancestors did the same thing for a very long time without questioning it; the minute people learn they belong to a certain ruler, they accept that they have to obey without asking for proof of that agreement.

If you tell people in most places, though, that government only exists because citizens allow it to exist, the authorities will treat you like a criminal (seditious) because they would think that you're trying to break society apart and ordinary people will believe your delirious for saying something so unrealistic. Additionally, Mr Hume is confused because if every single person made this choice to agree to a social contract with the government, there should be historical records or memories of it happening everywhere on Earth but there's no trace of it existing and even if there was an original contract, because time and numerous amounts of regime changes have erased it, the ancient agreement holds no legal authority over us today.

Hume claims that it was less leader does not gain power by voluntary consent but by isolating citizens so they won't be capable of communicating or organizing. Even if the people helping the ruthless leader might hate him too, because they don't know what others are thinking they stay too afraid to revolt. Again, when Hume looked at the real history of humans, he saw conquest, war and subjugation instead of peaceful promises even though John Locke argue that people agreed to a state through a social contract. Even agreed transfers of power through marriage or inheritance treat their citizens like property, not active participants. Him even argues that peaceful elections are rare and idealized and when a peaceful election actually does happen without force, it usually results too one of two bad outcomes: an oligarchy of powerful elites or mob rule driven by a demagogue.

In reality, however there is nothing more dangerous and chaotic than the total collapse of government according to David Hume. He also wants us to remember that because clear consent is basically non-existent in human history, we have to acknowledge that political authority and obedience also rely on other practical foundations like public utility, long-standing habit and the basic need for social order. Mr Hume claims that humans are not naturally considerate enough to respect each other's property without laws and not knowledgeable enough to always know that true desires; because humans are imperfect, societies could not have ever started through a calm, logical and mutually agreed upon social contract. Consent is only important after a constitution is already settled and stable.

Mr Hume uses the insect comparison to explain why governments can't simply be restarted from scratch. Silkworms and butterflies hatch, live and die in different waves or one whole generation leaves and a completely new generation takes over. On the other hand, some people in human society die while others are born which create generation overlap constantly. As a result, we cannot stop society to vote a brand new government because of humans are always in the middle of their lives and to prevent chaos during the continuous overlap, new generations must adopt to the current constitution.

People can sometimes obey an illegal usurper or ruler for years without protesting because they simply just want to stay safe and survive. Hume argues in this essay that we have two kinds of moral duties: actions driven by natural instincts like pity or the love of children and actions like allegiance to government and justice. The first duty moves us before we think about moral duty and we praise the good results for the community only after feeling the natural urge. The second moral duty has no inmates, initial impulse to obey a ruler or respect property. These duties only occur primarily from realizing that society cannot survive without Justice in order.

Our main instincts lead us either to seek dominion over others or to indulge in total freedom. Through reflection, humans understand that ulimitated freedom leads to chaos. We must sacrifice some freedom to gain peace, safety and public order common sense or little observation lets us see that society collapses without leaders and magistrates or judges. In conclusion, humes claim that John Locke’s arguments that people are loyal to government because of consent is incorrect; even if there was an original contract, that still would be a government today because society cannot survive without it.