How Can We Learn From Political Philosophy?
Since voting season is around the corner, why not geek it up with some political philosophy? Some of us might be wondering why do some humans have more power over others. Maybe this piece of writing will shine some light as to why we need some kind of authority over us and how our vote will affect what kind of authority will govern us. Broadly speaking, political philosophy is interested in our relationships with one another mediated through institutions whose very existence depends on us. It is similar to the existence of a king with the presence of a kingdom. There are two main questions we are concerned about. Question (1): Should there be states at all? Question (2): If so, how should states be organised?
Before we dig deep into states, you might be thinking how would one live in an environment where there is no state?
Before we select a political authority, we would live in the State of Nature. The State of Nature is widely identified as a pre-political condition that sees no need for any forms of societal cohesion in building a civil society. In the State of Nature, there is no existence of a government. It is regulated by objective moral laws, also known as the Law of Nature, which refers to the human capacity to reason. It can be argued that in such a state, there is perfect freedom and equality. This indicates that man do not depend on the will of others and no one would have more power or jurisdiction over someone else. Ideally, no one should harm another in terms of life, health, liberty or possession. If someone were to cross the line (which may be blurred at times), he or she will be subjected to be punished by everyone of which the punishment enforced is to be proportional to the violation committed.
We should be able to live peacefully without forming a political society.. right?
No. Ever watched Survivor? It doesn’t show a darker side of humans, it simply shows that some of us tend to lean towards ourselves more than others. There will be moments when we (need to) choose whether we care for ourselves more than others. Everyone is fighting competitively to preserve our own lives in self-defense. There is uncertainty, continual fear, danger of violent death, biasness and lack of binding contracts in the state of nature. In order to circumvent such a situation, we need an enforcer. We need someone to implement laws to serve as the standard of right an wrong. This way, it will allow the common standard to be shared across, causing no sense of disparity among men.
More importantly, there is an independent judge which all men can appeal to whenever necessary. This solves the issue of men’s tendency to be blinded by our personal bias in administering disproportionate punishments to violations.
Imagine we have an Enforcer in the state of nature whereby the weaker men may have the right to carry out the Law of Nature, but the stronger men can simply abuse them. In the case of a political society, the weaker man can appeal and ensure fairness of power throughout. Given that all men have natural equality which pinpoints that all men are equal, the existence of a political society would allow the men in the political government to have a higher standing to rule over the rest of the society. This results in a major conflict as men are no longer equal in a political society.
Thus, this causes a strain between mens’ status being free and equal against the claims of states to political authority.
Technically, we all have our natural freedom, commonly known as liberty. We are morally free. We have autonomy. We have the moral power to live our lives from the inside out. It is our prerogative to determine for ourselves how we choose to live. We have the capacity to devise our own conception of the good life and act in accordance with it. Furthermore, we also live by the rule of natural equality whereby nobody has some natural mark of superiority over another. In order to create a political society, a state must recognise no natural hierarchies among individuals. It must treat each individual as an equal citizen and see each individual life as equally important, equally worthy of protection and deserving of equal respect and concern.
However, states can claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of power within a certain jurisdiction. To put it bluntly, only states can rightfully imprison those who violate its rules.
A common example is violence or coercion. With its agents, the police, law courts together with other social institutions, the state hold various kinds of power that enable the encouragement of compliance with its rules. If you were to beat someone up for no apparent reason, your most basic freedom will be taken away as punishment for breaking the state’s laws. The idea is that law-abiding persons, outraged by offences, will band together with the victim to bring the lawbreaker to justice, and together they will have the necessary power to do this. Yet, we have a natural tendency to over-punish in our own case.
A state would help to avoid this over-punishment.
Not only do a state handle the distribution of political authority by issuing commands and the right to punish those who disobey, a state also manages the distribution of benefits and burdens. Think about the distribution of material goods and liberties on what it takes to acquire, transfer and hold a specific property. A state determines these distribution of material goods, rights and liberties. However, are these claims to political authority justified? At which point do states become like highway robbers: “Do what I say or else”? We want states to be like people with authority: parents to children, doctors to patients, coaches to students and the list goes on. There better be a morally relevant difference between our neighbour building a jail in his garage and holding criminals there, and the state building a prison and holding criminals there. This is the reason why your vote matters.
