POL113 Tutorial Notes

Sept 18: Positive liberty: - Has proven particularly susceptible to rhetorical abuse - Possession of power - Berlin says “positive liberty is involved in the answer to the question ‘what or who is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?’ Negative liberty: - Freedom from external restraints on one’s actions - Berlin says “liberty in a sense involves an answer to the question; what is the area within which the subject - a person of groups or group of persons - is or should be left to do or to be what is able to do or be, without interference by other persons What is negative liberty? Why is it called negative? - Freedom from government - Freedom from prejudice - It's not obstructing your freedom - About the others of not telling you or forcing you to do something - Capacity for you to choose; more of the capacity than the object - Secure a sphere where you can choose without the coercion of others What is positive liberty? Why is it called positive? - Some person interfering in the life of others - Freedom to … - We are free to choose particular things - To be free is to rule yourself - Self-determined in yourself Liberalism = Socialism Berlin is more sympathetic to negative liberty; - Berlin is not an anarchist - Has nothing to do with the political regime Sept 25: Week 2 & 3 reading: 1. What is the definition of ideology? How is it connected to Marx’s theory? Pejorative understanding of ideology? - A set of ideals and beliefs that are dominant in society and are used to to justify the power and privilege of the ruling class - Main core values and beliefs of how the world should be run

- Is related to truth; could be false - Ideologists are not scientific; not giving us the truth; idea of truth is very important 2. What are the main features of the freedom approach? - More generally accessible - More philosophical - Freedom wants to move the conversation in a different way; languages, values - Political concepts always have different meanings 3. Why can’t we move to a post ideological approach? - We can move beyond ideology - We run things as they should be - Scientific or expert knowledge to run things; so we can automize Oct 2; week 4 reading: Rawls: Justice as Fairness Chapter 7: ● One way of thinking about justice is to imagine a social contract in which people come together to choose the basic principles that will govern their society ● Some parties to the social contract might be stronger, or wealthier, or savvier than others ● Some might take advantage of a superior bargaining position ● According to Rawls, the way to think about justice is to ask what principles would be chosen by people who came together behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ that temporarily deprived them of any knowledge about where they would wind up in society ● Only a hypothetical contract such as this, carried out an original position of equality, would produce principles of justice untainted by differences of bargaining power of knowledge ● Here are some questions to consider as you read Rawls: 1. Is the idea of a hypothetical contract behind a veil of ignorance a compelling way of thinking about justice? 2. What principles does Rawls think would be chosen in the original position? 3. Do you agree that these principles would be chosen? A theory of Justice; John Rawls The role of justice: ● Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought ● A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue, likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust ● Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining oe to the calculus of social interests ● Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising

● There is an identity of interests since social cooperation makes possible a better life for all that any would have or each were to live solely by his own efforts ● A set of principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine an agreement on the proper distributive shares ● These principles are the principles of social justice; they provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation The Main Idea of the Theory of Justice ● My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found, say, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant ● These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established ● This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness ● Men are to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation charter of their society ● Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what os to count among them as just and unjust ● In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract ● One feature of justice as fairness is to think of the parties in the initial situation as rational and mutually disinterested ● The concept of rationality must be interpreted as far as possible in the narrow sense, standard in economic theory, of taking the most effective means to given ends Oct 2; tutorial 1. What is justice as fairness? Do you find it compelling? What does justice as fairness demand? - Justice as fairness is a theory of distributive justice developed by philosopher John Rawls. - It demands that society ensures equal basic liberties for all (First Principle) and that social and economic inequalities are arranged to benefit the least advantaged (Difference Principle). - Whether one finds it compelling depends on personal values, but it's influential in discussions of social justice and equality. 2. What is Rawls' original position? Do you find the veil of ignorance helpful in producing judgments about justice? The veil of ignorance blocks 'arbitrary' facts of one's life such as race, gender, and wealth; do you think this helps produce fair judgments about what is best for everyone? Or does it bracket politically necessary questions? Or both? - Rawls' original position is a hypothetical situation where individuals make decisions about principles of justice behind a "veil of ignorance" that blocks knowledge of their personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, wealth).

- The veil of ignorance is helpful in producing fair judgments about justice as it prevents biases based on one's self-interest or privileged position. It aims to generate principles that are impartial and considerate of everyone's well-being. - However, some critics argue that it may not address all politically necessary questions or adequately account for cultural and contextual factors. - It's generally considered a valuable tool for thought experiments but not a complete solution to complex issues of justice. 3. Are you satisfied with the principles Rawls derives from justice as fairness? - Rawls' principles from justice as fairness have been influential in ethical and political philosophy, but whether they are considered satisfactory depends on individual perspectives and values. Oct 16; week 5 reading: On being Conservative: Chapter 1: ● The common belief that it is impossible (or, if not impossible, then so unpromising as to be not while attempting) to explicitly explain general principles from what is recognized to be conservative conduct is not one that I share. ● To be conservative is to be disposed to think and behave in certain manners; it is to prefer certain kinds of conduct and certain conditions of human circumstances to others; it is to be disposed to make certain kinds of choices. ● To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to Utopian bliss. ● It is to be equal to one’s own fortune, to live at the level of one’s own means, to be content with the want of greater perfection which belongs alike to oneself and one’s circumstances. ● Changes are without effect only upon those who notice nothing, who are ignorant of what they possess and apathetic circumstances; and they can be welcomed indiscriminately only by those who esteem nothing, whose attachments are fleeting and who are strangers to love and affections. ● Moreover, to be conservative is not merely to be averse from change, it is also a manner of accommodating ourselves to changes, an activity imposed upon all men. ● For, change is a threat to identity, and every change is an emblem of extinction. ● A man’s identity is nothing more than an unbroken rehearsal of contingencies, each at the mercy of circumstance and each significant in proportion to its familiarity. ● Changes, them, have to be suffered; and a man of conservative temperament cannot be indifferent to them. ● Innovating is always an equivocal enterprise, in which gain and loss are so closely interwoven that it is exceedingly difficult to forecast the final up-shot: there is no such thing as an unqualified improvement. ● For, innovating is an activity which generates not only the ‘improvement’ sought, but new and complex situations of which these are only the components.

● Innovation entails certain loss and possible gain, therefore, the onus of proof, to show that the proposed change may be expected to be on the whole beneficial, rests with the would-be innovator. 1. Believes that the more closely an innovation resembles growth the less likely it is to result in a preponderance loss. 2. Thinks that an innovation which is a response to some specific defect, one designed to redress some specific disequilibrium, is more desirable than one which springs from a notion of a generally improved condition of human circumstances, and is far more desirable than one generated by a vision of perfection. - Prefers small and limited innovations to large and definite. 3. Favors a slow rather than a rapid pace, and pauses to observe current consequences and make appropriate adjustments. 4. Believes the occasion to be important; and, other things being equal, considers the most favorable occasion for innovation to be when the projected change is most likely to be limited to what is intended and least likely to be corrupted by undesired and unmanageable consequences. ● The disposition is to be conservative, then, warm and positive in respect of enjoyment, and correspondingly cool and critical in respect of change and innovation; these two inclinations support and elucidate one another. Chapter 2: ● It is commonly believed that this conservative disposition is pretty deeply rooted in what is called ‘human nature’. ● Change is tiring, innovation calls for effort, and human beings are more apt to be lazy than energetic. ● Primitive people are said to cling to what is familiar and to be averse from change; ancient myth is full of warnings against innovation; our folklore and proverbial wisdom about the conduct of like abounds in conservative percepts; and how many tears are shed by children in their unwilling accommodation to change. ● Wherever a firm identity has been achieved, and wherever identity is felt to be precariously balanced, a conservative disposition is likely to prevail. ● On the other hand, the disposition of adolescence is often predominantly adventurous and experimental; when we are young, nothing seems more desirable than to take a chance; pas de risque, pas de plaisir. ● There is a positive prejudice in favor of the yet untried. ● While the conservative, if he were forced to gamble, would bet on the field, we are disposed to back our individual fancies with little calculation and no apprehension of loss. Oct 16; tutorial questions: 1. How does conservatism differ from liberalism? In what areas do they most strongly disagree? In what areas are they more similar? Is Oakeshott's conservatism as opposed to Berlinian liberalism as it would be to Rawlsian liberalism? What about its relation with Hayek's liberalism? Both Hayek