248: Montesquieu (1689 - 1755)

The Age of the Enlightenment is a turning point in the development of European civilization. Some people complain about the individualism and the empty churches of today.

However, this is not a modern phenomenon at all. It all began with the Enlightenment, when knowledge became scientific knowledge and christianity had ceased to be one religion, but a multitude of different interpretations.

These are the roots of our contemporary world and in Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) we again meet a political philosopher who set the beacons for the centuries to come.

He was famous in his own century both in France and in foreign lands, from Russia to the American colonies. He was a follower of John Locke and the outstanding champion in France of the supposedly “English” notions of freedom, toleration, moderation, and constitutional government.


The dominant role of religion in political philosophy had come to a definite end. Locke already proposed to separate state and religion.

God is described by Montesquieu in Book 1 of his "De l'esprit des lois"as creating nature and its laws; having done so, He vanishes, and plays no further explanatory role.

In particular, Montesquieu does not explain the laws of any country by appeal to divine enlightenment, providence, or guidance. On his view it is generally a mistake to base civil laws on religious principles. Religion aims at the perfection of the individual; civil laws aim at the welfare of society.

The civil laws are not an appropriate tool for enforcing religious norms of conduct: God has His own laws, and He is quite capable of enforcing them without our assistance.

When we attempt to enforce God's laws for Him, or to cast ourselves as His protectors, we make our religion an instrument of fanaticism and oppression; this is a service neither to God nor to our country. How modern these ideas sound, if we look at islamic fanaticism and its cry of the Sharia.

Montesquieu's masterpiece is definitely his "De l’esprit des lois". It was first published in Geneva in 1748 against the advice of all the friends to whom Montesquieu had shown the manuscript. It was promptly placed on the Index by the Pope, but it sold twenty-two editions in less than two years.

Montesquieu's aim in "The Spirit of the Laws" is to explain human laws and social institutions. And thus he became the fist scientist formulating sociological research on a strict empiricist basis.

According to him the laws we have are man made and adapted "to the people for whom they are framed..., to the nature and principle of each government, ...

to the climate of each country, to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal occupation of the natives, whether husbandmen, huntsmen or shepherds:…"

In all the diversity however , Montesquieu, saw a general law. At the highest level of abstraction, he saw a uniform law—“Men have always been subject to the same passions”—but in various societies this higher natural law is expressed in differing systems of positive law. The systems differ because the external conditions differ.

To make things work you need the right government. Montesquieu holds that there are three types of governments: republican governments, which can take either democratic or aristocratic forms; monarchies; and despotisms.

If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have certain features. First, since "constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it ... it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power".

This is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government. If different persons or bodies exercise these powers, then each can check the others if they try to abuse their powers.

And here we see the legacy of a man, who lived a three hundred years ago: the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government, still a cornerstone of our democracy and thus our liberty.


The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: This on Montesquieu...
[13:18] herman Bergson: Time for questions and remarks ㋡
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: Montesquieu got it right, I think ㋡
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: this looks so simple~!!!!!!!! On his view it is generally a mistake to base civil laws on religious principles. Religion aims at the perfection of the individual; civil laws aim at the welfare of society.
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: i love that
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:19] herman Bergson: I agree Repose....and we are still on the liberal train....
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: why cannot our citizens get that throught their heads
[13:19] oola Neruda: yay Gemma.. ye
[13:19] oola Neruda: yes
[13:20] herman Bergson: Good question Gemma ^_^
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: this is at the root of so many of our conflicts here in government today
[13:20] herman Bergson: It is amazing that a man 300 years ago already thought of these things
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: well not necessarly
[13:20] herman Bergson: what exactly Gemma?
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: no wonder the church did not like him
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes ㋡
[13:21] herman Bergson: Oh no....immediately put on the INdex
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: well 300 years ago that was the root of the puritans formulation
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: Is our country's refusal to see churches as corporations a sign of continuing M's liberalism - or a step backward from it?
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: the idea of separation of church and state
[13:22] Abraxas Nagy: our country?
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: our country
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: usa
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: I'm sorry!
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: I really am sorry.
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: The Unitged States.
[13:22] Abraxas Nagy: ah ok
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:22] herman Bergson: It is ok Bruce
[13:23] oola Neruda: a lot of what the church wants and the state wants...overlap... like consequences for murder, stealing etc. the church could make an issue of how they serve all of society as well as the individual
[13:23] herman Bergson: I dont know Bruce... churches dont pay taxes....
[13:23] herman Bergson: that I know
[13:24] Bruce Mowbray: That's part of it, yes.
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: maybe a step back ㋡
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: religion does get special treatment
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well first of all aIlready in those days the political philosophy was that the church has no relation with the affairs of state.
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: but they all get it
[13:25] herman Bergson: Locke already suggested a clear separation…
[13:25] herman Bergson: Religion is something of the individual
[13:25] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:25] Zinzi's translator: i agree
[13:25] herman Bergson: And he only should be protected by law to be free in his choices of religion
[13:25] Bruce Mowbray: Would Mont. and Locke agree that churches should not be treated as corportations, though -- I mean, that they should be granted special status apart from civil laws?
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...we now witness what the consequences can be of that special status....
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: interesting question
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: i see that today , we have rather the problem of power abuse checking to organise better also
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: but what is the difference between the religions executive and the parliament executive?
[13:27] herman Bergson: All those priests that broke civil law regarding sexual abuse...should have been put to trail
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: of course
[13:27] Zinzi Serevi: sure
[13:27] Zinzi's translator: sure
[13:28] Alaya Kumaki: dowe have a some slack, in our executive according to the civil laws?
[13:28] herman Bergson: In fact religions have no executive power in the state
[13:28] Bruce Mowbray: If church and state are REALLY separate -- then the churches have their laws/punishments and the states have theirs.
[13:28] herman Bergson: Nor has the Elvis Presley fan club
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: but the person broke the law of the state
[13:28] herman Bergson: No....I wouldnt agree to that Bruce...
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: what about religions in public school and the military... does accomodating their need of religion conflict with the strict separation
[13:29] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:29] herman Bergson: When church and state are separated the church is to obey the civil laws
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: but they were those who abuses of their power over the civil, and we have the law executive, what are we waiting
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: someone once said to me it was none of my business... the priest problem.... because i was not a catholic
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: that is the way they believe
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: believe*
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: that the church should punish the sinner
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Gemma..that person was wrong...the priest broke the civil laws YOU obey to as well
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: and it is not our business
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly!!!!!!!!!!
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: everybody's business when someone breaks a law we all make...a civil law ㋡
[13:31] oola Neruda: if the priest confesses and says he will not do it again... the church believes in redemption... which is a touchy subject
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:31] Bruce Mowbray: Seems to come down to who has the most power -- In Islamic countries, it's the "church," and in secular countries it's the state.
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes oola
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: the church is not a civil law unto itself anymore
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: though it once was
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well when the murderer confesses and promise not to kill anymore he may walk?
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: old habits die hard, maybe
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: "secular" countries?
[13:32] oola Neruda: exactly ... prof..
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: state and church separated
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes, Bruce
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: agree
[13:32] Bruce Mowbray: Good point - mmmm. . . OK, countries in which there is a "separation between church and state" - which does not exist in Islamic countries.
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce..
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: nods...ty
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: exact;y
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: there in is a great example of the problem
[13:33] herman Bergson: and the funny thing is that Montesquieu thought that despositm was 'best' for islamic countries
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: but for the natures laws, what dies montesquieu says, like if we put that in the context of the protection of the environment? are they god s law, so link to religions?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Monarchy for catholic countries and protestantism for Republican countries
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmmm
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: there are places with no religions too
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: not working lolol
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: minorities were freer under the Shah than they are under the Islamic Republic
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: so he had his list lol
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: his directives
[13:34] herman Bergson: Montesquieu is quite clear about that Ayala...
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: This reminds me of Ghandi's separation of Hinduism and Islam by sending all the Hindus to India and all the Muslims to Pakistan.
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: And NOW look at the mess!
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: God created the earth and natural law and then vanished :-)
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: Ghandi resisted that.....
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: that was the idea of the politicians
[13:35] Alaya Kumaki: aaah so,its up to us, than?^^
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: of couirse
[13:36] herman Bergson: yes Ayala....
[13:36] herman Bergson: This whole idea of natural law, the idea that all mankind is driven by the same passions...
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: in whichever way things were created.... we are here at this stage...which is the only truth we can feel
[13:36] herman Bergson: there ideas are now alive even stronger...
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:37] Bruce Mowbray: Mont. said that differing circumstances in different countries would determine how church and state were in relationship with each other. . . What would such circumstance be?
[13:37] herman Bergson: evolutionary theory..... neurobiology....themes like that
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: did mont say they should be or that they would be
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: ahhhh...that's where you're going when you go beyond liberalism?
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: That they would be... ?
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well.. like catholics like a head of their church a pope, thay are also more inclined to accept a king as hea dof state...in contrats with protestants
[13:38] oola Neruda: think tribe... and isolation... do they have those circumstances bruce
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: that seems to be a good explanation as to why they are
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: not how they should be
[13:39] herman Bergson: Mont. was the first who compared legal systems of countries
[13:39] oola Neruda: because we come from the isolated tribe... so how did it all eveove... back to basics
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: Could the circumstances change?
[13:39] herman Bergson: a brilliant step
[13:39] oola Neruda: evolve
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Like, if an evangelican Christian had sufficient backing to take over the government of an otherwise "secular" nation. . . ?
[13:40] herman Bergson: The circumstances changed in Europe Bruce...
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Yes.
[13:40] herman Bergson: with the advent of protestantism we also got republics...kings were decapitated even
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Puritans were exiled. . .
[13:40] herman Bergson: The Netherlands became a republic...
[13:40] herman Bergson: now we are stuck with expensive royalty again
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: but still have a king and queen
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: ahhha
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: money
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: Yayyyy. . . . Spinoza, my hero!
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: darn yes
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: kick em out I say
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: I agree Abraxas...such outdated folklore
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: whay was he the first to compare, ? were they not near one another in europe?
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: BUT . . . the US is still living the legacy of the Puritans...
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: the best part of their legacy
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Spinoza was a sort of Pantheist, I believe.
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: fortunately we do not burn witches anymore
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: He was also Jewish, of course.
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Ayala...MOnt. was in fact the first sociologist
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: Are you SURE "we" don't?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: i cannot remember him from the first project
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: will have to back and look again
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: Yes, I love Mont's ideas concerning climate and the state, culture.
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: depends on the part of the country bruce lol
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes..he had very specific ideas about that....also remarkable
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Those 'hot' Italians - lazy? -- and those brilliantly crisp Scottish.
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hehehehe
[13:44] herman Bergson: well...I think ..let's stick to colorful avatars here Bruce
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: ok.
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: so he has brought moderation, by doing this, unless our law executive is weakened,, but by what? alack of civil voice?
[13:45] herman Bergson: what do you mean Ayala?
[13:45] oola Neruda: propaganda
[13:45] oola Neruda: techniques
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: spindoctors
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: and wow do we have them
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: sadly
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: very sad indeed
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: if the church is no longer the state, how did they went over the law, and nobody did nor do nothing about it,, who has more voice, to make the law in executions, who inforce the executive power of the law than?
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: When Mont. wrote of the influence of 'circumstances,' one of the things he took into consideration was climate. That's why, he said, there were political/cultural difference between Spain or Italy and England or Scotland.
[13:47] oola Neruda: render unto ceasar what is his... and unto god what is his
[13:47] herman Bergson: All these priests should have been arrested in my opinion Alaya...simple as that
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: the church used to be the law, and acted like it was still
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: no question
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: it was wrong ㋡
[13:48] oola Neruda: i would go so far as to cut of body parts
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: thanks to Montesquieu in part
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm its tempting oola
[13:48] herman Bergson: One Dutch Bishop has transferred a priest to police custody because of sexual abuse and fraud lat seek
[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: we are the civil opinion os we have some representative in the chambre of parliament, what is preventing the law to be apply than?
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: But if the church and state are truly SEPARATE, shouldn't the church take care of its own, and the state punish its own...?
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: In other words, these are two separate entities under separate jurisdiction.
[13:49] oola Neruda: right bruce... it is a quandry..isnt it
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: no one can be above the civil law in a culture in which there is the rule of law
[13:49] herman Bergson: No Bruce...
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: i think any ideology could be bad if u impose it on ppl, atheism could be the same as religions...in this way
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: no one, no institution
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: I'm trying to see it from Mont's pont of view, not ours.
[13:49] herman Bergson: Like every one the church is under civic law too
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: i see
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: Would Mont. say that everyone is under the state's laws?
[13:50] herman Bergson: well in my opinion
[13:50] oola Neruda: but they seem to be keeping ceasar and god separate and rendering only to their own
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: so...i guess the separation entails compromise
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to leave now
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: see you all tuesday
[13:50] herman Bergson: AS he said... the law is to protect social welfare....has nothing to do withthe church, which only aims at individual improvement
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: Bye, Gemma.
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: very interesting class
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: bye Gemma i have to leave as well
[13:51] Zinzi's translator: Gemma bye i have to leave as well
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye
[13:51] Zinzi's translator: bye bye
[13:51] herman Bergson: Our time is up....power to the class here !
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: bye Gemma
[13:51] Alaya Kumaki: yeah
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: POWER to the CLASSES!
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: YEAH!!!
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor, it was great
[13:51] herman Bergson: So I rest my case for today and dismiss class ^_^
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: see you all later
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation...
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: see ya Kiki
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: Thank you for putting up with me, Herman.
[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: byby thank yu prof herman
[13:52] herman Bergson: You did a find job Bruce, thnx
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: well it wasnt to bad Bruce
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: o A o!
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: poof
[13:52] herman Bergson: Gone he is ㋡

247: John Locke (1632 - 1704)

I don't know how you feel about is, but after Hobbes and our analysis of the concept of Liberty, it almost looks as if liberalism is inevitable.

In the past decades we have seen systems collapse. Communism is no longer a viable way of organizing a society, it seems.

What is left are more or less democratically organized countries and a bunch of totalitarian regimes and on or two communist fossils.

And here we have John Locke(1632 -1704), called the "father of Liberalism". So again a liberal political philosopher.

I must admit that the theory is attractive in an intuitive way, as if it is so obvious indeed. And yet I have the feeling that I am missing something. I can not yet put my finger on it, but I miss something.

But don't worry, eventually we'll get to that point where we say….yes that is what we miss in the theory of liberalism.

John Locke is a man with a long career and he has written a lot,while in his writings there is a constant development. We'll focus on the mature ideas.

Like Hobbes he begins his theory with the natural state of man. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

Though selfishness plays a part in this natural state, Locke believed it was guided and controlled by reason and tolerance, while Hobbes concluded that it leads to a war of all against all.

However, like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a society based on consent to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from government in a state of society.

Community begins with consent, Locke argues, and this consent can only be majority consent, as universal consent is impossible to gain. Consent of the governed is the only justifiable form of government,

He makes a clear distinction between the legislative and the executive power. This executive power is restricted by the laws. If it goes beyond that the people is justified to revolt.

A central issue in Locke's theory is property. In the state of nature, everything is commonly owned; but as God gave man senses and reason to use for his preservation

and reproduction, that which he removes out of the state of nature with his own hands becomes his property – and this is natural and just.

To quote Locke: “The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my Property in them.”

And can we pick all apples from a tree, so that they become our property? No says Locke. Christian morality demands that a man take from nature that which is for his enjoyment,

“as much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils … whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy.”

And here Locke gets very interesting in developing maybe the first well formulated principles of capitalism. By making durable goods you can exchange them for to redundant apples you picked.

Next step is the use of money and the accumulation of money. While it is immoral to accumulate all apples, it is not immoral to accumulate a lot of money. We'll get back to that some other time.



The Discussion

[13:15] herman Bergson: So much on John Locke
[13:16] herman Bergson: maybe even the father of capitalism ^_^
[13:16] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmm
[13:16] Abraxas Nagy: pffft
[13:16] herman Bergson: This development fascinates me more and more...
[13:17] herman Bergson: kind of how to escape from liberalism ^_^
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: having a hard time with the taking from nature etc
[13:17] herman Bergson: It brought us th e financial crisis, didnt it
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: if it belons to someone else
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: or does it
[13:18] Kiki Walpanheim: majority consent--wouldn't it mean that the minority are ruled without consent
[13:18] herman Bergson: no Gemma...in the natural state of man everything belongs to everyone...there is no private property
[13:18] Zinzi Serevi: je kunt je af vragen of het niet immoreel is zonder grens geld te vergaren
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: well now
[13:18] Repose Lionheart: they consent to participate in the system and abide by it's rules ㋡
[13:19] Kiki Walpanheim: but what about some who does not consent to it....it is their country, they can't just have other choices
[13:19] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki....Locke talks about minorities as inconveniences
[13:20] herman Bergson: in Hobbes terms it is a war of all against all
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: can't have two forms of government in one place...they go elsewhere, maybe
[13:20] herman Bergson: In Locke's terms it is a majority against a minority in which reasonprevails..also for the minority
[13:20] Kiki Walpanheim: :/
[13:20] Kiki Walpanheim: nods at herman...
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: wow inconveniences .... well
[13:21] herman Bergson: on important issue for Locke was also Tolerance...
[13:21] herman Bergson: he assumed that the reasonable person also is a tolerant person
[13:22] Kiki Walpanheim: and when legal equality is emphasized, inequality of classes becomes inevitable, it seems
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: assumption should be correct but often is not
[13:22] herman Bergson: yes Gemma ㋡
[13:23] herman Bergson: I am anxious to learn how things will continue with men like Rousseau and Montesqieu
[13:24] herman Bergson: and then it might be interesting to focus on the concept of property...
[13:24] herman Bergson: And yes Zinzi...is it immoral to accumulate unlimited amounts of money?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Locke accepts this
[13:25] herman Bergson: tho on the other hand it is the task of the government to watch over the distribution of wealth
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: yea right
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: is it???
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: that is a big question is it the task of govt
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: Locke is British...perhaps class is his Achille's heel, as Kiki suggests ㋡
[13:26] herman Bergson: and when you project this on a global scale you may notice ow primitive we still are in this distribution of weath over the planet
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes, very true
[13:26] Abraxas Nagy: yep.. but its deliberate
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Abraxas..that is the worst of all
[13:27] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:27] Zinzi's translator: i agree
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: "economic democracy" is still a very new concept, I think
[13:27] herman Bergson: Ah..Repose..yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: While selfishness is so old already
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: o
[13:28] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:28] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: tho laws and legislations are good , better than let the gov abuse power, in my opinion-----still, i think there are flaws with laws...because
[13:29] herman Bergson: In fact I get the feeling now...how primitive we are in respect to economic democracy
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, much room left for the growth of the human heart in the centuries ahead ㋡
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: because the laws just make the same rules for every individual... while each individual case is unique... sometimes... what is legal is not moral, what is illegal is indeed moral....because
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Repose I agree...we already achieved a little, didnt we...so there is hope
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Yes ㋡
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Yes, too
[13:31] herman Bergson: I am not that pessimistic about mankind at all....
[13:31] Zinzi Serevi: its a long way to go
[13:31] Zinzi's translator: its a long way to go
[13:31] herman Bergson: Like 7of9 always says: You will adapt
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: lol!
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: the ever wise 7of9 ㋡
[13:31] herman Bergson: she is a beauty...but this aside...
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:32] herman Bergson: Anyway….
[13:32] herman Bergson: I think we should keep a sharp eye on the development of liberalism...
[13:32] herman Bergson: and question it eventually
[13:33] Abraxas Nagy: i agree
[13:33] herman Bergson: I have a feeling there is something wrong with this theory....
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: Hmmm...last time you kept a close eye on something, you turned me into a virtue ethicist. lol!
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: lololol
[13:33] herman Bergson smiles
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: and is this theory about the idea of americanism
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well..most interesting is that Locke was at the cradle of the Declaration of INdependence of the US
[13:35] herman Bergson: and thi scountry is all liberal in all kinds of shapes
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: wich has been degraded by the patriot act
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: patriot act?
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: after 9/11
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: i'll look it up...
[13:35] herman Bergson: I still find the Health Care Act debate and what I heard people say in the US as a perfect example of conflicts in liberalism
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: yes u should
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: a law that had the effect of limiting personal freedoms in the US
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: amazing stuff
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: both
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Repose.....a restricted government or a more active government?
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: no, i mean the patriot act
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: the*
[13:37] herman Bergson: With Locke we are at the cradle of liberalism...
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: the opposition to the Heath reforms was, in my opinion, insane
[13:37] herman Bergson: from here it will develop further
[13:38] herman Bergson: allow me to agree with you `repose
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: any reasonable person would, and Locke would approve. Prof ㋡
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: heheheh
[13:38] herman Bergson: ok...steady we go....next one will be Montesquieu!
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: elaborate some?
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:39] Zinzi Serevi: ok
[13:39] Zinzi's translator: ok
[13:39] herman Bergson: Let's take it easy for today...Locke wasnt that controversial.. wasnt he
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol well we are making him so
[13:39] herman Bergson: Unless there is still left an unanswered question.....
[13:40] herman Bergson: You think he was Gemma?
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: locke said property hoarding was legitimate till it was spoiled....where is the point of "spoiled"
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: well we all seem to be
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: pulling his short words apart
[13:41] herman Bergson: when you have more than you can consume Kiki
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: also it seems majority rule becomes inevitable, which was what Mill didnt like
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:41] herman Bergson: no.. I dont agree Kiki
[13:42] herman Bergson: Mill indeed spoke of the tyrany of the majority, but he meant something very specific...
[13:42] herman Bergson: He meant the dominating moral of the victorian age....which had more political influence than the chosen majority
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: there should be at least some ppl who do not consent to the system, and who do not agree to the taxation, yet the majority vote determines that
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: the "majority" is complex...we all hold hundreds of opinions and policy positions...on some we are in the majority...on others we are in the minority
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: there is fairness in this
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: nods....
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes...that too Repose
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: and i dont think it is easy , that if some ppl dont agree to the system they could easily find another land and live together in their way..
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: well, some compromise is necessary any way
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: well, that's fine, because i don't want to be governed by fascists, or theocrats, or....
[13:45] herman Bergson: the problem with a disagreeing minority is that it claims to posses the REAL THRUTH
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: i would love to take a look at that land after they all get there
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim nods...
[13:45] Zinzi Serevi: yes like in many religions over here
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: take a look at North Korea ㋡
[13:45] herman Bergson: this implies a humiliation and disrespect of the majority which believes at least to have a truth too
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: or Iran ㋡
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: nods....
[13:46] herman Bergson: yes..this zealous selfrightiousness has always lead to disaster
[13:47] herman Bergson: sectarism
[13:47] herman Bergson: and what Aristotle already feared...factions and civil war
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: hmmm....yes
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: factions... i tend to link that with NGO's
[13:48] herman Bergson: what is that..NGO?
[13:48] Zinzi Serevi: whats NGO?
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: non-governmental organization ㋡
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: yes , Repose
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: typically charities
[13:48] herman Bergson: ok
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: not always though
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: is Guild NGO too?
[13:49] herman Bergson: no...in the democratic party in the US you can have factions too I think...
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes, Prof
[13:49] herman Bergson: just small groups with shared (self)interest
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: oh gosh well yes
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: and also in the republican party
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: sharp divisions on some issues
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:50] herman Bergson: oh yes Gemma....they arent any better ^_^
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe one way to tackle that problem of majority/minority is to allow some laws made at , say, state level rather than national level...but
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: but however specific to a region, some ppl still need to compromise
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well Kiki....you sound like European politics....
[13:51] herman Bergson: And the magic words from Bruxelles
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: I don't know....
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: compromise is inevitable and not a bad thing, i think
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well...important is that the minority has to give in...
[13:52] herman Bergson: eventually...
[13:52] Zinzi Serevi: yep
[13:52] Zinzi's translator: yep
[13:52] herman Bergson: if not, you have a civil war at hand
[13:52] herman Bergson: Look at Birma...
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: well we did that too
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: yes, we did
[13:53] herman Bergson: And there the government isnt representing the majority...it is totalitarian
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim nods....
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:53] herman Bergson: and Locke supports revolution agains and executive power that ignores the laws
[13:54] herman Bergson: in fact there is happening what almost logically follows form his ideas
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: yes,
[13:55] herman Bergson: Well...let me thank you for your participation again...
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: have to reread about locke
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: is more complicated than he seems
[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:55] herman Bergson: Oh yes gemma..
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: back to fishing lol
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: thanks proff
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: thanks Proff
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: while the good ones are left
[13:56] herman Bergson: He was against slavery and secretary of a slaves owning company
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks for the lecture, herman! bye bye class, see to you Thursday
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is good and bad
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim is going to read him to understand americanism
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: see you all Thursday
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: see you
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye all
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: bye bye all
[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok Abraxas...
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: it was interesting again ty

246: On Liberty again

A legal system performs many social functions. Prominent among such functions is the promotion of the welfare and security of citizens and their property.

We can distinguished between laws that impose duties by which citizens must abide, and laws that provide facilities that citizens can make use of if they wish . The promotion of welfare and security involves both kinds of law.

This function at the highest level of generality may be characterized as the use of law to prevent, or to provide compensation for, harm. `Harm’ may be characterized at this level of generality as `the thwarting, setting back, or defeating of an interest’

When I run over your dog, you certainly are harmed emotionally, but should this loss as such be subject to coercive penalty?

The possession of small amounts of marijuana is a criminal offense, but in what sense does that harm others? So what justifies restriction of my freedom by law here?

Kiki referred already to it in our latest discussion, I can harm others economically pretty much. I even can put them out of business by taking over their market.

Their factories may have to close. People may loose their jobs and so on. Yet there are no laws who forbid competition in business, to do so much harm.

We may conclude that the Harm Principle as formulated by Mill is not a universally applicable rule. We are still left with the observation that not all harms are wrong. What is it that turns a harm into a wrong?

I won't pursue this issue here any further. Yet you are still stuck with this question and we'll get back to it when we will have our lecture on John Stuart Mill.

Henri-Benjamin Constant de Rebecque (1767 – 1830), a Swiss-born nobleman, thinker, writer and French politician, distinguishes between the liberty of the ancients (Greece and Rome) and the liberty of the moderns.

While the ancients called liberty the collective exercise of political sovereignty, the liberty of the moderns consists in privacy and independence.

An interesting shift in the perception of liberty. Isaiah Berlin formulated in his famous essay "Two Concepts of Liberty" (1958) a more extensive description of this modern liberty.

He differentiates negative liberty and positive liberty: negative freedom has to do with the question “What is the area within which the subject …is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons”.

On the contrary, positive liberty is related 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?”.

Berlin equates negative liberty with absence of interference (or coercion), and positive liberty with individual or collective self-direction.

Typically, self-direction accords with reasons and laws. Berlin associates negative liberty with “liberty from” and positive liberty with “liberty to”.

You'll understand.that the liberal democracy / social democracy debate could be analyzed with respect to the respective weights in the balance between negative and positive freedom.

The liberty of the moderns consists in privacy and independence, Constant said. Privacy and liberty, a really hot issue these days. Let's have a short look at it as conclusion of this lecture.

In a recent newspaper article on this subject I found an interesting description of privacy, by Boudewijn de Bruin, a Dutch university teacher of philosophy.

He says: "If anyone observes my actions, I experience these actions differently, as if I am no longer the only actor of these actions,as if a change of perspective occurs, and I myself am a spectator too."


When we feel observed by cameras in stores, by your peeping neighbor, by your credit card company, by the government, the invasion on your privacy is an invasion on your liberty.

Not only laws can invade our privacy, but also (false) rumors spread through the internet, for instance that I am actually the brother of the present Pope.

This is a lot of information on the concept of liberty. Don't feel overwhelmed. First there is our blog, where you can reread this text and a lot will reappear in our lectures on other political philosophers.


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: So take the liberty to make some remarks or ask some questions ^_^
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:22] herman Bergson: You are also free not to do so of course ㋡
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: in some cases we allow this invasion of privacy for protection
[13:22] Lena Sigall: how would you handle a situation where, no matter what choice was made, someone would be harmed in a wrong way?
[13:22] Kiki Walpanheim: "collective exercise of political sovereignty"--is that tyranny of the majority/democracy , phrased differently?
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: sothat is my liberty to sacrifice the privacy
[13:23] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say so Kiki...
[13:23] herman Bergson: the expression was coined by Mill to express his disgust of the moral oppression by Victorian culture in UK
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:24] herman Bergson: What is interesting is Mills ideas on economics...
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:24] herman Bergson: We'll get to that , but what we may conclude is that there is harm and harm that is wrong
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: defamation/incitement of violence can cause har
[13:25] Lena Sigall: how do you define wrong harm? some call masturbation "self abuse" lol
[13:25] herman Bergson: so the discussion will be to find out when and why some harm is wrong
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: *harm
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well LEna in MIll's opinion you may masturbate as much as you like....
[13:26] herman Bergson: It wont harm anyone...
[13:26] herman Bergson: but we are inclined to say..but it is immoral...!
[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: lena, i think that is something about ...right to privacy
[13:26] herman Bergson: However...moral paternalism is unacceptable in Mills opinioon
[13:27] herman Bergson: He approaches harm in a strict utilitarian way
[13:27] Kiki Walpanheim nods.... in which, moral becomes relative… ach inividual could have his/her morals
[13:28] herman Bergson: But in economics I may do harm as much as I like, it seems
[13:28] herman Bergson: And this because this harm is outweighted by the Comon Good
[13:28] Lena Sigall: say for example, war. what would you do if starting the war would result in "collateral damage" to civilians, but not waging the war would allow the government or whatever force you're fighting to kill innocent people
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: masterbation along with other taboos of sexuality, reveal a lot about autonomy, morals, liberty...these issues
[13:29] herman Bergson: a difficult contraposition Lena...?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Kiki...it is also related to psychological harm....
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: yes....
[13:30] herman Bergson: For instance... doing it in public would shock / so harm people....
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: mill's harm principle seems to leave out economic harm,psychological harm.... tho they can be just as harmful or more harmful than physical one
[13:31] herman Bergson: but knowing that my neighbor does it...might be shocking too for me...but is that also called harm?
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:31] herman Bergson: anyway...as you see....a lot to study on... ^_^
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:32] herman Bergson: Just a seach on HARM PRICIPLE brings you a lot of documentation on the subject
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: hmm.... what the neighbor does, that is about privacy again..it is tricky
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, harm principle is *complicated*
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: i will look at that
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:33] herman Bergson: I think the most important debate these days is about our liberty from and our liberty to....
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: negative/positive liberties
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: negative is not meant to mean negative in the traditional sense
[13:34] herman Bergson: it means ..the absence of restrictions
[13:34] herman Bergson: where positive means the presence or restrictions (laws)
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:35] Lena Sigall: some say spanking is bad for kids, that it's abuse. some say *not* spanking them is bad for them because it's the only thing that teaches them discipline
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: btw, i was in debate on abortion the other day
[13:35] herman Bergson: How far may a state go to restrict its citizens by laws...that is the debate
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: that defense on abortion was based on --negative liberty
[13:35] herman Bergson: Good point Kiki...
[13:36] herman Bergson: is the state allowed to restrict the woman in her choice?
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: NO
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: that the mother 's autonomy and liberty triumphs the fetus' even if the fetus is a life, according to how that defense was made..
[13:36] herman Bergson: I answered the question by pointing at the HArm Principle...
[13:37] herman Bergson: Does an abortion harm others?
[13:37] Zinzi Serevi: maybe the father
[13:37] Zinzi's translator: Maybe The father
[13:37] herman Bergson: That is the essence... how to interpret these 'others'
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: the defense was about....does the fetus have a right to the mother's body and liberty
[13:38] herman Bergson: Ok Zinzi....
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: in comparison, do the poor have the right to the rich's money and liberty?
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: the poor who are starving to death
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki…but here we come to the point: how and when are rights established?
[13:38] Lena Sigall: do the rich have the right to feed off the poor and middle class to create their wealth?
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: when a life begins?
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: there lies the problem
[13:39] herman Bergson: And here Lena we come to the balance between negative and positive liberty
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: if abortion is keen to murderer, then perhaps we are committing murderer every single day, because
[13:39] herman Bergson: Has the state the right/authority to redistribute wealth in society by law?
[13:39] Lena Sigall: well, even if you say for arguments sake, that a fetus is a person equal to the mother,... if it lives in her body, is she forced to sustain the fetus?
[13:40] herman Bergson: That is no good argument Lena, leads to a meaningless discussion
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: because, ppl are starving to death every day, tho they can survive with the rich's money
[13:40] Lena Sigall: how so, herman?
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: that again, is about positive/negative lliberty
[13:41] herman Bergson: because the foetus is not a person
[13:41] Lena Sigall: some would argue that it is
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...so...pure politics
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, it is controversial regarding when life begins
[13:41] Lena Sigall: some say a fertilized egg is a person
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: some argue that a fetus is a life when it has conception, tho some other would argue against it
[13:42] herman Bergson: That is a play with words...
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: no a person is a human
[13:42] herman Bergson: a Person is by definition a sentient, rational individual with an identity...an egg isnt
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: Mill emphasizes only on negative liberty throughout his book, but
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: exact;y
[13:42] herman Bergson: foetus
[13:43] Lena Sigall: so that means we can kill a person in a vegetative state?
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: AH HAHAHAHA
[13:43] herman Bergson: That is a contradiction Lena...we dont kill persons
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: but , the ground of his argument is that, ppl are educated enough to be competent for liberty---in which education becomes compulsory
[13:43] Lena Sigall: does that mean we can kill a human body that is in a vegetative state, with no sentience anymore?
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: thus it has to involve positive liberty
[13:44] herman Bergson: the vegetative patient is still a person, not just a body
[13:44] Lena Sigall: how so?
[13:44] Lena Sigall: if they have no sentience anymore
[13:44] Lena Sigall: like a fetus doesn't
[13:44] herman Bergson: It has been an individuality with a personal history and identity....
[13:45] herman Bergson: by getting into a vegetative state, that hasnt changed
[13:45] Lena Sigall: so has a dead human body... so what's the difference?
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: and they are constantly finding those people seem to have some consciousness
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: they can now see it in the brain
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: and i think the assumption is that ppl are not starving to receive education...
[13:45] herman Bergson: The person is not dead Lena....we even dont know in what state he is often..
[13:46] herman Bergson: some vegetative patients still have sensory experiences
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: vegetative patient is a person
[13:46] Lena Sigall: so the question of personal identity and sentience is important if it's present or past, but not future, like with a fetus?
[13:46] herman Bergson: You could say that, yes
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: take sl for example, there are some very offensive sims in sl
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: obscenity/indecency
[13:47] Lena Sigall: well, you say that we don't know what state a vegetative person is in often, but do we really know the fetus's state either?
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: yay!!
[13:47] Lena Sigall: maybe it has more thoughts and perceptions than we know
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: is it justified when they are private?
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: as righ to privacy
[13:48] herman Bergson: we do know the development of the foetus, Lena...
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: *as right to privacy
[13:48] herman Bergson: Before week 22 there is no nervous system, so no sensory experience
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: if a dying man can be saved if we sacrfice one of our organs
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: is it murderer if we dont help him? by our sacrifice
[13:49] herman Bergson: That is a very difficult moral question Kiki...
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: oh goodness
[13:50] herman Bergson: Is there a moral duty to do so....?
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: it is similar with abortion
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: because the fetus asks the woman's sacrifice to survive
[13:50] herman Bergson: Like the government wants everyone to be organ donor by law...negative liberty extended
[13:50] Zinzi Serevi: pffff
[13:50] Zinzi's translator: pffff
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: sometimes the sacrifice can destroy the womans life forever, somtimes
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: wants or forces
[13:51] herman Bergson: That is the debate Gemma...between positive and negative libery here indeed
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: lol yes
[13:52] herman Bergson: SHould some one report that he wants to be a donor, or is every one donor by definition and does he have to report he does NOT want to be a donor
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: so far i only read mill's defense on liberty, which caused more confusion to me.... wish sometimes some other ways to defend could solve my confusion...
[13:52] Lena Sigall: some would say that the woman chose to have sex, assuming it was consensual, therefore she chose the possibility of pregnancy and so it's not fair to destroy the fetus
[13:52] herman Bergson: that is a discussion in Dutch politics for instance...
[13:52] Zinzi Serevi: omg Lena
[13:52] Zinzi's translator: omg Lena
[13:53] Lena Sigall: i'm not saying that
[13:53] Lena Sigall: in case it seems i'm against abortion rights, i'm not. i'm very much in favor of the right
[13:53] herman Bergson: You should have read my note Lena ^_^
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: how about rape? how about failures in contraception
[13:53] herman Bergson: It is an absurd argument...
[13:53] Personal Core: hello ladies, hello gents
[13:53] Lena Sigall: i did herman, i just wanted the others' opinions too
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: hi personal :)
[13:53] herman Bergson: it means that when you choose for something then you have no right to interfere with the consequences…
[13:54] Lena Sigall: you gave the example of choosing to climb a tree, and then falling out of it
[13:54] Personal Core: sorry that i enter , but i saw this place, and i said , why not
[13:54] Lena Sigall: out*
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: even in a contract, ppl have the right to terminate it at proper times
[13:54] herman Bergson: Come in Personal..
[13:54] herman Bergson: you are welcome
[13:54] Personal Core: and also i saw the title philosopher ,
[13:54] Personal Core: thanky u
[13:54] Lena Sigall: but getting treatment for a broken leg is harmless. however some would argue killing the fetus does cause harm to it, which isn't fair if the woman knowingly engaged in what she knew could cause the pregnancy
[13:55] herman Bergson: We have been through that...
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: does the woman have the right to withdraw using her body?
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: even if she started it consensually
[13:55] Lena Sigall: yes
[13:56] herman Bergson: Let's return to the donor issue...
[13:56] Lena Sigall: ok
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: almost time to go :-)
[13:56] herman Bergson: it is a perfect example of the balance between negative and positive liberty...
[13:56] herman Bergson: Indeed Gemma..
[13:57] Personal Core: not always, depends if u know how to define the balance
[13:57] Personal Core: ,,, a small idea, sorry for interrupting
[13:57] herman Bergson: The question is...has the state the right to claim your bodyparts by law
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:57] Personal Core: nope
[13:57] Personal Core: after all the state didnt rise u
[13:57] Zinzi Serevi: yes when you have an escape
[13:57] Zinzi's translator: yes When You Have an escape
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: is it about donor after death?
[13:58] Zinzi Serevi: yes
[13:58] Zinzi's translator: yes
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: well the state is supposed to represent us so i say unless we give them the right they do not have it
[13:58] Personal Core: or help u to grow ,or participate in any way at your growing
[13:58] herman Bergson: so you can not accept a law that regards every citizen a donor by definition UNLESSS the citizen has explicitely stated that he does NOT want to be a donor
[13:58] Personal Core: or the family,
[13:58] Kiki Walpanheim: it is difficult.. i think each one owns herself/himself
[13:58] Kiki Walpanheim: but
[13:59] Kiki Walpanheim: hmm....
[13:59] Personal Core: can i put a hypottetical question ?
[13:59] herman Bergson: This is what we not yet touched on Kiki....natural laws...
[13:59] herman Bergson: the right to the integrity of your boy
[13:59] herman Bergson: the right to live..
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday everyone ...
[13:59] herman Bergson: etc
[13:59] Lena Sigall: bye Gemma
[13:59] CONNIE Eichel: bye gemma :)
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Gemma ㋡
[14:00] Lena Sigall: but if one doesn't donate their organ, some will not live. is that a violation of their right to live?
[14:00] Kiki Walpanheim: bye gemma
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: bye Gemma
[14:00] Personal Core: image that u are sick , the state dont garantate the healing or help without the money , and how come the state use the organs, ? this is an real case that is happened everywhere
[14:00] Sartre Placebo: night
[14:00] Personal Core: good night
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: night
[14:00] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say so...
[14:00] Personal Core: but is happened,
[14:01] herman Bergson: does falling ill give you the right to claim other man's body parts?
[14:01] herman Bergson: because you have a right to live too
[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: bye Gemma
[14:01] Zinzi's translator: bye Gemma
[14:01] Kiki Walpanheim: which means, the state does not give u much yet asks you for too much
[14:01] Personal Core: the hypothetical question is , ...is right to use the organs and to private the sick ppl to heal or not
[14:01] herman Bergson: I think...we are exhausting people here.....
[14:01] herman Bergson: Time to terminate the discussion ㋡
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: I have to go.. see you all nexttime :D
[14:02] Lena Sigall: LOL
[14:02] Lena Sigall: bye Abraxas
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: and ty herman
[14:02] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^

245: On Liberty

One of the central concerns of social and political philosophy has been the issue of what limits, if any, there are to the right of the state to restrict the “liberty” of its citizens.

Unless one is convinced of the truth of anarchism, there are some actions with which the state may legitimately interfere, and unless one accords no value to personal liberty, there are some actions the state must leave to the discretion
of the individual.

One of the best defenders of liberty was John Stuart Mill with his book "On Liberty" (1859), written during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837 - 1901), a period of moral paternalism.

A period of what he called "tyranny of the majority", wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things.

Mill's On Liberty addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm principle.

The only reason that could justify the use of coercion against a person is to prevent harm to other people. And for preventing this we call 911, in other words such actions come within the scope of legitimate state power.

Other reasons, according to Mill, do not justify legal coercion. One cannot restrict someone’s actions because they are harmful to that person; paternalism is not legitimate.

One cannot restrict someone’s actions because they are wrong or immoral (but not harmful to others); legal moralism is not legitimate.

One cannot restrict someone’s actions because his or her character would be improved by doing so; moral paternalism is not legitimate.

This all might be true, but it shifts the discussion from liberty to the concept of harm. When do we harm others? Is it only about physical harm or also psychological harm?

Joel Feinberg (October 19, 1926 - March 29, 2004) , an American political and social philosopher, known for his work in the fields of individual rights and the authority of the state, argues that any notion of harm that is going to play a role in answering normative questions will itself be normative in character.

The normative issue raised by paternalism is when, if ever, the state or an individual is entitled to interfere with a person for that person’s good. Motorcyclists are obliged by law to wear helmets. We have to comply to all traffic signs and obey their 'orders'.

How far may the state go? Again the fierce debates in the US about National Health Care are a textbook example. It is for your own good and for the good of the nation, that you don't perish because you are killed by doctor bills.

But there is more. The state can do more and that next step is often the cause of nationwide debates, demonstrations and so on. The issue is whether the state may enforce morality?

It is present in discussions of the legalization of homosexuality, pornography, surrogate motherhood, and active euthanasia. The focus of such discussion is not the harm of such activities but their immorality and whether if they are immoral that is sufficient reason for the state to proscribe them.

According to Thomas Hobbes "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do." And Mills added "as long as he doesn't harm others". His motivations were pure utilitarian.

There are other approaches possible of the problem of Liberty. For that we still have a number of political philosophers in store .



The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: Somuch on Liberty today
[13:25] herman Bergson: Feel free to ask questions and make remarks
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: A virtue ethicist would say that liberty is the freedom to be good, true to our deep nature?
[13:27] herman Bergson: you are free not to make remarks too of course…it is your liberty ㋡
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Repose, what I just told is the true liberal point of view, developed by Mill
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] herman Bergson: there are other views of course...
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: What the F*CK?~!
[13:28] Zinzi's translator: The discussion in the Netherlands on TBS there who wants to watch porn is a good example of a moral government, I think
[13:28] herman Bergson: for instance when you value society more than the individual, you get another story...look at socialism for instance
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: is Mill a socialist as well as a libertarian?
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: we have these discussions in the WSA constantly about freedoms and law
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes....to explain TBS....
[13:29] herman Bergson: Convicts are convicts to psychological treatment in the netherlands, when they are diagnosed are mentally ill
[13:30] herman Bergson: and sexual offenders among them are allowed to watch porn movies in their cells
[13:30] herman Bergson: there is an upheaval about that now...
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: i bet!!!!
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: no porn for the scorn.. so to speak
[13:31] herman Bergson: is it their liberty to do so, or has the state the right to restrict their liberty?
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: hard for a society to decide these issues just on the merits...
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: well they are already restricted to the prison lol
[13:31] Zinzi's translator: well child porn is illegal
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: quote from wikipedia -- Later he(Mill) altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defense of a socialist outlook,
[13:31] Zinzi's translator: but not grown up porn
[13:32] herman Bergson: Very good Kiki....
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: interesting, Kiki
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm
[13:32] herman Bergson: John Stuart Mill is on our list of course....we keep this remark of yours in mind
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe individuality/freedom of speech, faith etc.. are different from the economic aspect?
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: i think many people bounce between the socialist and then to teh very consevative views and back again
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes...that may be true Gemma
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes, Hippies for Reagan ㋡
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:34] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:34] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:34] herman Bergson: But it is interesting to ask if both sides agree on freedom of speech for instance and freedom of faith
[13:35] herman Bergson: If you would agree on that and say that for instance in the economic aspect they dont agree, you see real politics come to life
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe individualism needs some ground...like basic resource for survival, a shelter, basic education before each individual could embrace that liberty?
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: Education...another good example....
[13:36] herman Bergson: we force our children by law to attend school
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: so Mill's socialist preference might just goes naturally with liberty...
[13:36] Qwark Allen: better then force them to work
[13:37] herman Bergson: indeed Qwark...
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: lol u r when u get 18
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: first force is to learn second to work
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: we all born as number not our choice but we r
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: Mill also wrote things like..... barbarians are not fit for liberty and only the civilized are eligible for it
[13:38] herman Bergson: In the Social Contract view, we stay free when we agree on restrictions on our freedom
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: wonders if this is correct....
[13:38] herman Bergson: so, for instance ..compulsory education is a generally agreed on issue...
[13:38] herman Bergson: and as such not an restriction of our liberty
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: yes, even in the USA it is not controversial
[13:39] herman Bergson: So the real politics is where are the limits of the state in creating these restrictions...how far can it go
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: necessary for society
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: of course it is the restriction of the liberty of children
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: nods at herman. Hobbes' social contract covered last week, the social contract seems to help ensuring liberty. So he contributes to liberty tho he has a predilection for authoritarianism
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...the social contract creates sovereignty and authority
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: i think education is compulsory because it is the ground for liberty--only those educated are more competent to be responsible for themselves
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: interesting
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: well children need to be restricted repose lol
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: Mill defended liberty by emphasizing on the importance of education
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: but would it be right then to restrict the liberty of the ignorant adult?
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: and adults not?
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes, children are a special case
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: darn chatlag
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: not restrict but offer a way out of the ignorance
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: but, sometimes health care, resource for survival, and a shelter are more fundemental for ppl to embrace education....
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: or a different matter anyway than adults
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: My remark was lost...
[13:44] herman Bergson: in chatlag...
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: it happens
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: it sure does today
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: for me personally that is why the issue of libery if very much confusing, and i am very interested
[13:44] herman Bergson: very annoying
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: very
[13:45] herman Bergson: It is one of the fundamental aspects of political philosophy Kiki
[13:45] herman Bergson: How far may a state go in restriction the liberty of the individual
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: i see.... i have a ton of confusion apart from that...on liberty alone
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: no farther than necessary for the common good ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: well..it is a scale from extreme liberalism to absolute egalitarianisn or socialism
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: like, the floor and ceilings of free speech....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Repose...the common good...but what is that
[13:47] herman Bergson: A government can hide behind the Common Good argument
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes, i see it ㋡
[13:47] Qwark Allen: lots did it
[13:47] herman Bergson: then you get the tyranny of the common good
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: fraud and lies are not tolerated, but when they are in the most vicious forms they are tolerated
[13:48] herman Bergson: that was what Mill was so against in that Victorian era
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: which are---ethics, religions, political ideologies
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: what do you mean Kiki?
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: defining the common good is always a fight
[13:49] herman Bergson: yes Repose
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: a fight to expand our hearts
[13:49] herman Bergson: again...the liberals against the moralists in this case
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: or constrict them
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: e.g. lie to make money is not allowed.....but performing sorcery only to make money even if the performer does not believe in the religion, is ok
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well I think we made a good start with the historical moment of the Social Contract theory...
[13:51] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:51] Qwark Allen: thank you herrman
[13:51] herman Bergson: Hobbes made us free humans
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: hope i remember it all till April 13
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: and the boundary between sedition, incitement to violence, and ideas that motivate crimes ..is obscure
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Hard as that is to beleive...
[13:51] Qwark Allen: or at least the thought that we could not be
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: ideas that motivate crimes is no crime
[13:52] herman Bergson: And regarding your remark Kiki...that is an issue in itself ㋡
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: not yet anyway
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:53] herman Bergson: You dont need to Gemma
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:54] herman Bergson: http://thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: yes i know that
[13:54] herman Bergson: theblog gemma ㋡
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: yes i think Hobbes idea free us from constant fear-defense-fear, which is a vicous circle, so it frees us humans
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: bye bye all i need to go for minute
[13:54] Qwark Allen: see you soon
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: TC
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: c u next time:p
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ty herrmman, interesting as usual
[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok...thank you all for participating today
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: bye Guz
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: bye Guz
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: have a nice break
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: and all
[13:55] herman Bergson: See you all in a week
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye qwaek&gemmaaa :-))
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: bye
[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: have a good time Herman
[13:55] Zinzi's translator: Have A Good Time Herman
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: c ya herman and thanks
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: Mhh *Kiss* Bye bye!
[13:55] herman Bergson: thnx all ㋡
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: What the F*CK?~!
[13:56] Sartre Placebo: good night, thx herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: what got into you Abraxas?
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: what is it Abrax?
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: what is it Abrax?
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: oww he left already..lol
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: OWW Already he left .. lol
[13:57] herman Bergson: something is wrong in SL
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: have a nice break. see you
[13:57] herman Bergson: ok...thnx Kiki
[13:57] Zinzi Serevi: yes it is
[13:57] herman Bergson: very annoying
[13:57] Zinzi's translator: yes it is
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: bye ㋡
[13:58] herman Bergson: Nice outfit Repose
[[13:58] Repose Lionheart: thanks, Prof ㋡
[13:58] Zinzi Serevi: bye
[13:58] herman Bergson: Bye Zinzi