Download Consolidation

PL 3370 – British Social Philosophy
Lecture 13 – A Consolidation
Let’s work at integrating the social philosophies.
We started out affirming that the basic social problem is order and stability. We saw
how the Roman with their notion of LAW provided this order and stability in English
life.
Romans withdraw gradually from England
Anglo-Saxon invasions (5th cent)
Viking invasions (9th cent)
A new feudal order emerged’
This social philosophy was based on the notion that order exists prior to social
institutions. It is a transcendent reality embedded in creation itself. A ‘true society’ is
one that mirrors or reflects or displays this transcendent order. Transcendent order is
expressed in LAW = Natural Law. A law (on Aquinas’s account) is a rule to induce or
restrain action. The actions of individuals are directed to the common or shared good
of the whole.
We argued that God provided the ultimate & eternal
justification for social institutions and the relations of
individuals in institutions. Everyone was SUBJECT to this
order because one could not transcend GOD who was
the ultimate reality that could not be transcended.
Beginning in the 14th cent. [Great Death, Peasant’s Revolt] the
certainty or these orders started to be questioned. The
Renaissance accelerated this process as it also questioned the
transcendent justification of the order.
As crisis after crisis produced greater and greater disorder, Hobbes suggested that
the transcendent foundation of order was the absolute Sovereign who stood above
the LAW in order to enforce and impose ORDER. This order was an artificial not a
natural order. It required power and authority to enforce the rules that were
themselves merely human creations created to deal with human egoism (which was
on Hobbes account) the only permanent or eternal reality.
The more optimistic voice of the Renaissance argued that human freedom was
transcendent and security the freedom for human development was what was
required of and for order.
The Enlightenment thinkers (Locke, Hume, Burke)
valorize REASON as transcendent and human social
relations are and must be ordered by reason.
Locke reason reveals a natural right to life, liberty and
property. Securing these rights ‘justifies’ social institutions
and order human relations in society.
Hume argues there are no natural rights that reason can discover. One only has
habits or customs that vary in each society according to usefulness or utility.
Burke argues that rights are traditions – the wisdom of long usage – trying to pilot a
position between Locke and Hume whom he say as much to radical and too likely to
lead to disorder and revolution.
We are starting to see some important tensions that lead to unanswered questions.
For example,
Individual vs. the collective (society)
Freedom as constraint vs. Freedom as capacity to act
Natural order vs. convention or artifice
Natural rights vs. conventional or legal rights
Weighing likes and dislikes or authorities is not sufficient. We have to try and figure
how what is true. This leads to the second issue – critical examination of positions.
When we looked at Feudalism we said feudalism as a social philosophy had
strengths and weakness. We might say we tried to discern whether it is ‘true’ or
‘false’.
Go to sheets. . . . .
The human order reflects the divine transcendent order
The divine order (based on revelation) is hierarchical.
Therefore, the human order is (ought to be) hierarchical.
Discuss.
OK what I want you to do is working in groups of 4 (make up groups). Hobbes,
Locke, Hume, Burke.
Identify the argument
What are strengths and weakness? Assumptions? Should be accept the view? This
does not mean that the view does not have an insight about our relationship to
society. The question is should we accept it?
Be prepared to present in the next class.