Immanuel Kant

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, Pierre Hassner, focuses on Immanuel Kant. As Kant is one of the most important philosophers of the modern age, this essay is one of the longer parts of Strauss and Cropsey’s book. One of the first things to remember about Kant’s political philosophy is that he rarely commented on politics directly, instead he indirectly dealt with it through another medium. Still, there are some common themes in Kant’s work, the two most important of these are republican government and international organization, or to put these terms into more Kantian language, a doctrine based on the rule of law and of eternal peace.

Much of Kant’s work is dealing with addressing several tensions. In particular Kant is focused on three of these tensions. These tensions are as follows: 1) between science and morality, 2) modern physics and its moral consequences, and 3) universal determinism and universal will. In order to deal with these tensions Kant radicalizes them by dividing the world up into two parts. The first part is the world of phenomena, which are things in their appearance. The second part is the world of noumena, which are things as they are in themselves. The world of phenomena is what science can know while the world of noumena is opened up to morality. As a result of this move, morality is thus known without any experience and happiness and virtue become separated. Though these two worlds are separate, they are not absolutely separate as there are ways in which they meet, namely in law, history, and politics.

Another important aspect of Kant’s political philosophy is his ideas on the rights of man, which he draws from both Rousseau and Hume. From Rousseau, Kant drew his ideas on giving morality precedent over philosophy, of action over contemplation, and of practical reason over pure reason, which ultimately means that all people are of equal worth. From Hume on the other hand, Kant drew his ideas on the critique of dogmatism. Another important part of Kant’s theory here is his distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. According to Kant, analytic judgments are known by the proposition in and of itself while synthetic judgments are not. What this does is allow Kant to push the is/ought distinction even further than Hume did. What this means is that because for Kant, human rights are known analytically, from this we know that all humans have equal dignity. Thus, all humans have a duty to treat all other humans in a certain respect. The fact that this equal dignity isn’t always manifested in reality is for Kant irrelevant.

This brings us to the first of what Kant calls the categorical imperative, which Kant uses to make moral judgments. In essence, the inherent equality of humans requires that an act be universalized, in other words only morally acceptable if all were doing it. This leads to the second categorical imperative, the idea that all people must be treated as an end rather than as a mean. Relating to this is what Kant calls the kingdom of ends, which all people, by virtue of them being rational creatures are a part. Kant’s theory on morality causes him to elevate good will, seeing that the classical virtues of courage, moderation, and intelligence can be dangerous when not accompanied by good will. In this scheme, good will and justice essentially become equated. It also should be noted that for Kant, there are three commends of justice. Those commands are as follows: 1) treat others and demand to be treated as an end, 2) harm no one, and 3) enter into a society in which the property of each one can be guaranteed against the others.

One important thing to remember when working with Kant is the tension that develops between the freedom Kant allows in his political doctrine and in the strictness of his moral doctrine. This creates another tension as many existing laws go against both Kant’s moral as well as his political doctrine and there appears to be no way to solve this tension without violating either Kant’s moral or Kant’s political doctrine. In order to solve this problem Kant ultimately subjugates his politics to his morality. Furthermore, Kant also pushes for a general condition in which these two concepts can come together. In order to do this, Kant turns to the philosophy of history, as it is in this which Kant roots people’s growing knowledge of the moral law. The philosophy of history is to both interpret the past as well as give us hope for the future. Kant tends to view this in mechanical terms, rather than as the result of human action. Through the philosophy of history, the moral ideal and reality will eventually be united. Thus, the philosophy of history is a way in which our moral ideals can be reconciled with the reality with which we are currently dealing. One thing that is interesting about Kant is that he does have an understanding of the possibility of the progress of civilization without moral progress, thus creating another source of tension. Still, is often forced to make two separate judgments, a judgment by history and a judgment by morality. It should be noted that this tension is eased somewhat by the fact that history has a tendency to do away with moral imperfections.

Kant’s ideal state is to be rooted in the law, and that law is to be both universal and abstract. This is where another source of tension between Kant’s moral theory and Kant’s political theory can be found as in order for a state to exist in freedom, the state must be divorced from both happiness and morality (hence the law being universal and abstract). Once however freedom has been established, that state would eventually produce the happiest and most moral results. Consent is also a major focus for Kant in establishing freedom. On Kant’s theory of the state, it is important to remember that he forgoes the traditional distinction of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, instead focusing on judicial, executive and legislative powers. For Kant, despotism occurred when these powers are brought to close together.

We will now turn our attention to the most famous of Kant’s political ideas, his ideas on the perpetual peace. In sort, the doctrine holds that republican forms of government are less likely to go to war, so as the number of republican governments grow, a more stable and lasting peace will be created on the earth. Still Kant’s writings on this subject do warrant more attention as on one level, Kant recognizes that his perpetual peace may only be seen as an ideal, not as something actually attainable. Yet, Kant is also practical enough not to suggest creating a universal state in order to attain this peace, or at least not until there has been enough moral progress to make such an ideal workable. Thus, Kant is never able to make it exactly clear if he means for his to be taken only as an ideal or as something to be implemented. Though Kant does separate the two concepts, his idea here does appear to require concurrent civilizational and moral progress. Regardless, Kant does see several elements of society as pointing to this direction. One of the most important of these is commerce which Kant sees as a tool which can bring about needed unity. Thus, Enlightenment and the increased cost of war unites to bring about peace.

Kant’s notion of progress though history means that the foundation of the state need not be tied up in the goodness of the people as institutions and individuals can progress separately. Still, these separate notions of progress are not completely isolated from each other as the progress of arts and sciences help people become more refined and accustomed to power, thus preparing them for other kinds of progress. One last thing that needs to be noted on Kant is that though he has a very mechanical understanding of progress in history, freedom is taken out of the mechanical realm.       

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

For his contribution to Strauss and Cropsey’s History of Political Philosophy, Allan Bloom turns his attention to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the most influential and misunderstood philosophers of the Enlightenment. The most important thing to understand about Rousseau is to understand the central question with which he is dealing. This question is why is it, if people are born free why are they in chains everywhere?

For Rousseau the answer to this question is civil society and government. According to Rousseau, the modern state is in error because it focuses on only one part of human nature- the desire to have self-protection. This is a clear break with most of what has made up the Enlightenment assumptions on the nature of government, particularly that which is found in the thought of Hobbes and Locke. Another break Rousseau makes with the Enlightenment is that contra many of their assumptions, Rousseau does not think civil society leads to greater happiness, rather it leads to the enslavement of the many by the few. Rousseau, despite his reputation has a far dimmer conception of progress than he is typically seen as having as even scientific and artistic progress are seen as a sign of inequality as so few can properly do those things well. From this comes an idealization of the part, particularly as it relates to the Classical republican idea and perhaps not surprising wished to revive the political practice of the ancients and bring back the city-state.

It should however be noted that while Rousseau wants to bring back the political practice associated with the ancient city-state, it does not follow fro, this that he also wants to bring back the theory attached to it. Rather, on this point Rousseau makes a very radical break with the ancients. According to Rousseau, the chief problems with the Classical theory were twofold. Those reasons are as follows: 1) the ancients failed to properly understand what is natural and 2) their theory of justice ended up simply providing a justification of inequality. For Rousseau, earlier philosophers misunderstood “natural man” because they placed their own biases in their thought on this subject. Rousseau holds that in the state of nature people have no firm social bonds and are thus free and independent.

Without a natural conception of civil society to separate people from other animals, Rousseau looks to two other elements to do this. These are as follows: 1) people’s will and 2) people’s perfectibility; that is the ability to make gradual improvements. In these two concepts lies both the origin of civil society as well as its solution. As people begin to develop and perfect speech and permanent establishments, family bonds are formed, but there are still no laws, state, nor inequality. Competition with others eventually brings about the concept of private property, and from this comes inequality. Inequality produces a state of war between the haves and the have-nots. Faced with the state of war between them and the poor, the rich seek a way to protect both their lives and property and from this arises both the state and civil society. Civil society is thus defined by the conflict between people’s natural freedom and the chains in which they are placed.  

For Rousseau, the solution to this is for people to totally submit their rights and property to the community, a move that will produce quality and the general will, what Rousseau calls the united will of the entire population. People’s wills are to be united to that no one can for their will on another or have another force their will on that person. Will is central to Rousseau’s thought, radicalizing its importance to the point where even morality becomes grounded in the will. Furthermore, people may though the general will, will any government they like into existence, but it can only justly last as long as it suits them.

Through community, private wills are to be merged into the general will. Unsurprisingly, this creates a more robust need for unity, so robust in fact that according to Rousseau serration of powers is to be abolished in the general will. It should be point out that the general will presupposes no specific law will be made, that is not Rousseau’s concern here. Rather than seeing certain laws passed that he finds to be just, Rousseau is more concerned with the establishment of a framework in which just laws can be made. The general will in Rousseau’s mind is to be a place of universal representation and total equality, thus even the worst aspects of society are to be included in the general will. Government is to be used to guide people towards the general will and maintain equality. For Rousseau, this is the chief function of a government operating under the general will. Generally speaking, the smaller this government is the better, but this government still must be large enough to dominate private wills while at the same time not being so large that it dominates the general will. For Rousseau, if this balance is not held, two conditions can arise that should be avoided. These conditions are as follows: 1) anarchy and 2) tyranny. Rousseau holds that anarchy is what occurs when each person follows his/her own private will with no regard to the general will. By contrast, tyranny occurs when people submit their own private wills to the private will of a single person. In this respect, tyranny can be seen as arising from the confusion of the general and private will. One last thing that needs to be mentioned is that the general will must abolish private property and will have to go through constant revolutions in order to maintain its equality as even when the general will is in effect, there is still a tendency for provided classes to develop.      

David Hume

The next entry in History of Political Philosophy is Robert S. Hill’s take on David Hume. Hill begins his essay by noting a central paradox in Hume’s thought. The paradox Hill has in mind here is the idea that Hume’s skepticism challenges the very idea of political philosophy, while at the same time he is the author of his own comprehensive political doctrine. At the base of Hume’s thought is the idea that there are a collection and succession things in our minds which he calls perceptions. According to Hume, there are two types of perceptions. These kinds are as follows: 1) impressions, which are what we hear, see, feel, love, hate, desire, or will and 2) ideas which occur when we reflect on a passion or object not present. It is important to note that for Hume, all ideas must fist come from impressions.

This introduces a good deal of uncertainty as our senses are fallible, thus we cannot have knowledge in the fullest sense nor can we have absolute certainty. For Hume, true knowledge is only that which cannot be thought of otherwise, as in the case of a triangle with anything other than three sides or a married bachelor. In doing this though, Hume turns the philosophical quest to use skepticism to establish an absolute foundation of knowledge against itself. This has several radical implications. Among one of the most important of these implications is the idea that cause and effect only appear to be absolute because we have seen it so many times. But in reality this cannot confirm any idea we may have as it may simply be the case that we have not experienced an exception to this rule.

Our knowledge is dependent upon how we conceive things, and as this can always be wrong, the ideas we gain from this perception may also be wrong. What this means is that the knowledge we have essentially comes from habits, though habits may be overcome by a stronger habit as would be the case with the proposition: “All Irishmen are drunks.” Such a proposition may arise from the habit of seeing many drunk Irishmen, but it could be overcome by the stronger habit of being able to conceive of exceptions when we experience an Irishman that is not drunk. One thing that this does mean is that we can arrange our perceptions in such a way that the appearance of some kind of order is created.

Hume also sees virtue and vice in this way as for Hume, virtue and vice are not relations because they are always connected to some external object. However, they are also not matters of fact because they cannot really be discovered and are for Hume based in passion rather than in reason. Hume’s divorce of morality from both nature and reason is highly important and causes him to create a strong distinction between the “is” and the “ought.” One of the implications Hume’s theory what morality is passion based has is that virtue and vice are now constituted by sentiment. Thus, it is not the case that virtue is approved of because it is virtue, but rather it is the case that virtue is virtue because it is approved. Morality is thus founded on its ability to produce good results.

Though Hume is working in the light of Hobbes and Locke, he dismisses the idea that rule and power are based solely on self-interests for four reasons. These reasons are as follows: 1) it exaggerates the power of reason, 2) not all desire under the desire for one’s own good, 3) self-interest presupposes the existence of other passions, and 4) self-interest is not necessarily the strongest or dominate passion. For Hume, passion exists in multitude, not in a singularity. For Hume, morals may be a matter of taste, but Hume avoids relativism by noting that there are such things as right and wrong taste. Thus, Hume attempts place morality along with causal and solid reasoning on a strong ground so that they can be distinct from things like mere prejudice and fantasy. Hume partially does this by making great use of common interests in an attempt to restrict individual interests.     

For Hume, this means the desire to have stability becomes highly important as stability makes it easier for use to know what common interest entails. Thus, justice is seen as ultimately coming from mutual helpfulness, so the question of justice is not what benefits individuals, but rather what benefits society. This means a strong conception of community is created, and with that comes the idea that government may both protect people as they pursue their interests and may also require them to pursue it. By doing this, the government may create what Hume calls “artificial virtue.” Artificial virtue is be understood by contrasting it to what Hume calls natural virtue as in natural virtue, virtues are rooted in people’s instincts while in the case of artificial virtue, they are not.

On matters of governance, Hume employs monarchial, aristocratic, and democratic elements in order to keep the other elements in check. By doing this, Hume wishes to avoid arbitrary government, which he sees as a threat to liberty. In many ways, Hume ends up combining a Whig/ radical political philosophy with a skeptical/ Tory temperament. It should be noted that Hume rejects the contract theory of government for several reasons. One of these reasons is that for Hume, the contract theory of government contradicted people’s natural sentiment to have order. Hume also fears that contract theory may open up the door for a new form of tyranny and was also guilty of overstating the power of reason. Finally, he also sees contract theory as weakening the foundations of society. Considering these things, it is not surprising that instead of reason, Hume wants custom to guide human life. This focus on custom as well as Hume’s desire to restrain reason has led many to read Hume as a pre-Burkean conservative.         

Montesquieu

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, David Lowenthal summarizes Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, who is often simply called Montesquieu. To begin his essay, Lowenthal notes that while Montesquieu produced many works, he is chiefly remembered for The Spirit of the Laws, a massive 31-book work from which Lowenthal draws on for his discussion of Montesquieu. Lowenthal notes that while many critics of Montesquieu view his work as lacking any sort of overall plan or cohesion, such critics are shortsighted as there is in fact a god deal of cohesion under the surface of The Spirit of the Laws.

Lowenthal begins is essay by discussing book 1, which according to him has two basic goals. These goals are as follows: 1) Comprehend the diversity of human laws and mores and 2) to assist wise governments everywhere. Montesquieu also wants to understand human laws as existing objectively and by necessity, but also wants to break with the Thomist tradition. There are two ways in which Montesquieu attempts to accomplish this. These ways are as follows: 1) By appearing to leave no room for the miraculous, and 2) Depicting a universal based more on sheer, blind necessity than on a governing rationality aimed at good. For Montesquieu, doing this is highly important as there is a need for a new science of human affairs consistent with Cartesian and Newtonian physics. Ultimately this leads Montesquieu to focus on history and elevate its importance as history established the link between theory and practice. This link can be seen in Montesquieu’s conception of political practice, as political practice requires each society to be understood in its particularity in light of its history.  

On the matter of laws, Montesquieu sees laws as arising by people seeking both protection and advantage, which Montesquieu also views in the light of particularity. What the importance of particularity of Montesquieu’s view of laws means is that both Aquinas’ natural law and Locke’s natural right are to be rejected, the quest for the best state is thus relative. From the discussion of laws arise ideas on government. According to Montesquieu, there are three basic forms of government. These forms of government are as follows: 1) the republic, 2) monarchy, and 3) despotism. It should be noted that for Montesquieu, a republic can be either democratic or aristocratic.

In a democratic republic, the people will delegate authority to others to do what they themselves cannot do. It should be noted that by “democracy”, Montesquieu does not merely mean voting as representatives are to be chosen both by lot and by popular vote. Furthermore, democracy is to be grounded in virtue and this virtue is seen as requiring equality. By contrast, an aristocratic republic is defined by the contrast between the governing nobles and the non-governing people. Montesquieu further thinks that the larger the number of nobles, the smaller and poorer will be the non-noble class. This is highly interesting as in a sense this makes democracy the perfection of aristocracy. Monarchy on the other hand is defined by one person governing by fixed laws, a move which requires intermediaries between the king and the people as well as an independent depository or guardian of the laws. Without this, a monarchy cannot be stable. Furthermore, much as democracy is seen as being grounded in virtue, Montesquieu sees monarchy as being grounded in honor. The last form of government to be discussed here is despotism, which Montesquieu seen as one man ruling as he wishes. It is seen as the worst form of government and should only be used if despotism is the only way to avoid what Montesquieu sees as an even greater evil than despotism. That greater evil is anarchy.

Next, Montesquieu turns to a more specific theory of governance. Unlike Locke, Montesquieu combines domestic and foreign policy while also creating an independent judiciary. Furthermore, though the base of legislative power is to be rooted in the duly elected, it is permissible for the nobility to form their own body to protect themselves while the monarch is to have a check on legislative power through the veto. Considering Montesquieu’s views here, it is perhaps not surprising that he greatly admires the English system of governance, and indeed, Montesquieu notes that the English have liberty by law, if not necessarily in practice. Montesquieu further admires England from being able to draw benefit from the vices it allows.

For Montesquieu climate matters greatly in political practice as warmer climates as warmer climates are more likely to encourage sloth and despotism while colder climates are more likely to encourage hard work and democracy, thus demonstrating a further illustration of Montesquieu’s focus on particularity. His unique focus on nature is also displayed in his ideas on natural law as natural law is to be respected because of the good results it produces. Because of this, it should be respected by all, not because it was originally known to people or because it was originally intended on moral grounds. Natural law is based in self-preservation and obligations to the family. The importance of nature in Montesquieu’s thought also leads him to seek to establish liberty in France in accordance with its own particularity, not by overthrowing the monarchy in an attempt to establish liberty.

One of the more interesting aspects of Montesquieu’s theory, particularly as it relates to the development if political philosophy is his ideas on commerce for Montesquieu sees commerce as the driving force in history and praises it for its ability to establish liberty. Commerce brings different types of lives together, thus increasing tolerance, refinement, and new technologies. Though Montesquieu does admit that commerce brings with it vices, he maintains that the best political regimes will be built on these vices, an idea that connects back to his praising of England for its ability to draw benefit from the vices it allows. And indeed, according to Montesquieu, England is the most free because it most honors commerce. On the subject of vices, Montesquieu goes on further to note that as political virtues and political vices are both passions, politics cannot be guided by morality.

On the subject of religion, Montesquieu does note that the Christian conception of perfection is incompatible with the political life. Despite this, he also maintains that Christianity is both true and a great ally in establishing liberty. Following this discussion, Lowenthal hits back on a point his made at the beginning of his essay, that though The Spirit of the Laws may appear at first to be disorientated, at its core it is indeed coherent.      

John Locke

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, Robert A. Goldwin focuses on the political thought of John Locke, one of the most influential figures in the development of liberalism who has had a particularly big impact on the development of the political thought in the United States. One of the most important things to remember about Locke is that for him, government is to be limited, an idea that is grounded in the notion that people are born free. Freedom is of great concern for Locke and it is for this reason that he dedicated three separate works to three separate conceptions of freedom: religious freedom in A Letter Concerning Toleration, political freedom in Two Treaties of Government, and economic freedom in Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interests and Raising the Value of Money. Due to the nature of the book Goldwin’s essay is found in, the bulk of his essay focuses on the ideas discussed in Two Treaties of Government. One of the first things that needs to be understood about Locke’s conception of political freedom is that for him freedom is natural and is rooted in the idea that humans are naturally equal. This relates closely to his idea on the state of nature which predates the state and is characterized by its freedom and peace.

Locke’s ideas on the state of nature are badly misunderstood as many take it to be a literal event with Locke having pre-historical people in mind as living in the state of nature. This is not true as the actual people Locke has in mind as living under the state of nature are princes as their sense of reason is well developed and no one rules over them. From here Locke laws out four basic concepts that need to be understood in order to understand the rest of his political thought. These concepts are as follows: 1) The state of nature, 2) the state of war, 3) civil society, and 4) the state of peace. The opposite of the state of nature is civil society as civil society is defined by having a common judge to enforce civil law. Likewise, the opposite of the state of war is the state of peace as the state of war is defined by the use of force without right. While this does mean that the state of nature and the state of war are not equivalent as Hobbes thought they were, it must be remembered that the state of nature cannot last long as eventually a state of war will arise out of it. The state of war and the state of nature may not be the same thing, but it is only from the state of nature that a state of war can arise. It should also be noted that in the state of nature, people have an obligation to protect themselves and it is from this obligation that another obligation to protect others and thus punish those that do harm against innocents develops. Locke sees this desire of self-protection as ultimately coming from God and is through this desire that the idea of natural law arises, which Locke sees as being common to all men. 

There is a tendency to understand Locke by contrasting his thought with another English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. And while differences between the two men certainly do exist, it is worth pointing out that there are many issues on which they agree. These issues are as follows: 1) the state of war can only happen in the state of nature, 2) humans are generally concerned with self-preservation, and 3) civil government is needed in order to deal with the problems of the state of nature. Despite these similarities, Locke still does have a more positive outlook on people which leads to him adopting less authoritarian solutions.

The idea of ownership is one of Locke’s most important contribution to political philosophy an idea which he roots in the concept that people own both their body and their labor. From this arises other forms of property, which are themselves rooted in scarcity and surplus. The idea that Locke presents is that originally, all property was held in common, which was not an issue as due to the small human population, there was a superabundance of resources. As populations grew however, abundance decreased so therefore the concept of property was needed to sort out the distribution of scarce resources. This shifted ownership from being commonly held to being privately held.

For Locke, under natural conditions property is limited to what a person can himself work, but as accumulation develops there becomes more and more of a conception of property. As Locke notes, in earlier societies, the amount that people could accumulate was limited by both spoilage and the lack of cultivation of land. As people began to be able to develop better storage systems and cultivate land better, accumulation became more and more of a reality. Money is another factor that spurred on the development of accumulation which Locke sees a predating civil society. Locke does admit that accumulation does eventually lead to inequality in wealth, but for Locke this is not a problem for as accumulation increases, the amount of good available increases, which will eventually be for the benefit of all. This is important as accumulation relates closely to the ability for people to overcome natural limits of their environment and produce more. This matters because under natural conditions it is impossible for a person to benefit except at the expense of another.

As property developed, there also developed a need for protection of that property also developed, so thus a common judge was eventually brought in in order to give protection for property. Out of this move towards having a judge arises civil society. According to Locke, civil society is set up in order to read with four major problems. These problems are as follows: 1) the protection of property, 2) making the law known to all, 3) a judge to determine the law, and 4) a method to punish those who break the law. While they are in the state of nature, each person holds these powers themselves, but by entering civil society, they give up these powers. It is worth noting that while Hobbes has a somewhat similar view to Locke; Locke still thinks that people retain some power to control their government. What is perhaps most interesting about Locke’s position is that without these controls, a civil government cannot really exist so therefore an absolute monarchy is not really a government formed out of civil society, but rather a return to the state of nature.

It’s important to remember that Locke’s intention here is to find some way to balance the rights of individuals with the needs of the community. The tension between these two elements of Locke’s thought can be clearly demonstrated in his ideas on how civil society is formed versus how it later governs for while civil society can only be formed by unanimous decision, once it is formed, it governs by majority rule. This concept is rooted in Locke’s ideas on the relationship between power and force because as the majority is more numerous, it will have more force and thus more power. It should also be noted that civil society is not exactly the same thing as government for it is after civil society is formed that governments are formed. Still, the relationship between them is very close as no civil society by itself can last very long. Locke does not go into great detail on exactly what sort of government civil society should form, but he does give some general guidelines, one of the most important of these being the separation of powers. An example of this can be seen in his ideas on the relationship between the legislative body, legislative power, and the executive for while legislative power is to be supreme; the legislative body should not be and should instead be kept in check by the executive. Though the executive is to obey the legislative law, he is to do so using wisdom rather than just following the law blindly. What this means is that a good executive may at times act outside the law but when s/he does this, s/he does it in service to the people. What’s interesting is that Locke thinks that a tyrant also acts outside the law, but for Locke the difference between the two is that while the good executive does so in service, the tyrant does so to make war on the people.

Locke does think that people have a right to resist unjust authority, but is careful to point out that this is only to be used as a last resort. Locke is also careful not to promote revolution because he sees revolution as having disastrous consequences, among these being that revolution stops civil society from functioning. Still, Locke sees people’s resistance against unjust government as being ultimately rooted in self-preservation, just as was their move towards forming civil society. Locke’s focus on self-protection yields some surprising results on the relationship between passion and reason for while the ancients saw reason as being the key to resisting tyranny, by rooting resistance to tyranny in self-protection, Locke turns passion into the key. As a result of this, Locke ends up elevating passion over reason.                

Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza

For his entry to History of Political Philosophy, Stanley Rosen focuses on Baruch Spinoza, although he is known as Benedict Spinoza in this essay. Regardless, Rosen sees Spinoza as playing an important part in the development of political philosophy as he was the first to lay out a philosophical and systematic defense of democracy, a defense that was rooted in Spinoza’s mechanical outlook and in his rejection of traditional philosophy. Though Spinoza did reject traditional philosophy, and can thus be seen as one of the earliest purely modern thinkers, it is important to remember that Spinoza did have some conception of an eternal order that regulated the merely human order. Even then, though this idea certainly harkens back to the traditional philosophers, Spinoza shifts his conception of the eternal order to make it quite different than the traditional philosopher’s conception of that order as he roots the order in a more scientific view than had been done before.

            Spinoza’s view of the order causes him to have a Stoic conception of freedom as Spinoza sees freedom as being the passive acceptance of the consequences of the eternal order. Again, though this may appear to be a traditional idea, Spinoza shifts this to a highly modern conception as he thinks that the people who have done this the best were the scientists and the politicians who had a scientific understanding of politics. What this means is that for Spinoza there is a deep connection between science and the practice of politics. This connection also means there can be a new way to understand the connection between the human and the non-human, a move that would attempt to move philosophy away from anthropocentricism. By moving away from anthropocentricism, Spinoza thought that reason was to be placed above the passions as for Spinoza; the passions were seen as more human than reason.

In Spinoza’s views toward order, we can see one of the clearest differences between him and Hobbes because while Hobbes thought society created order, for Spinoza all society does is recognize it. One of the implications of this element of Spinoza’s thought is that he is significantly less authoritarian than Hobbes as because order is prior to human society, Spinoza can allow for a greater recognition of human differences than Hobbes could. Such a view allows Spinoza to have a more robust conception of human freedom and democracy, provided of course that neither attempt to undermine the social order.

Despite his views on the possibility of freedom and democracy, order is still central to Spinoza’s thought as he wanted to direct all sciences to a single end, a goal which includes the mathematization of all sciences. Despite his interest in seeing all of science directed toward a single end, it is important to remember that Spinoza ultimately rejects teleology as he sees it as an example of the passions taking precedent over reason. Ultimately Spinoza wishes to see teleology eliminated as he thinks philosophers should focus on things as they are and not as they appear to be.

Spinoza also does not want to stop at merely subjugating politics to reason, but also wants to do the same to religion. One of the applications of his attempt to subjugate politics to reason is Spinoza’s idea that what the best state looks like as well what changes are needed to get at that state are seen as scientific questions. For Spinoza, the best state will be rooted in reason as people are only free when they obey by reason. This of course stands in stark contrast to Hobbes who sees the state as ultimately being rooted in fear and it is by fear that people obey it. This does give Spinoza a far more robust conception of the possibilities of society as society is now seen as not merely for protection, but also a method in which people’s capacity to reason can be enhanced. This leads Spinoza to seeing democracy as the best form of government because it was the best reflection of the state of nature due to its being rooted in reason and limits to power. Also important to Spinoza’s understanding of democracy is his contention that democracy best understood the limits to brute force. It is important to remember that despite Spinoza’s enthusiasm for democracy, and while he does allow all to vote, he thinking that the holding of office should be restricted.  In addition to democracy, Spinoza also has a great admiration of freedom, though the freedom he is most concerned with is the freedom of philosophers and philosophizing. And though Spinoza is well aware that his move towards democracy and freedom will require a revolution, for Spinoza if this revolution is properly backed by reason, it will be bloodless. As mentioned before, in addition to politics, Spinoza also wishes to subjugate religion to reason. Though Spinoza does not completely reject scripture, he does feel that philosophers have let their own biases color their interpretation of it. Thus Spinoza wishes to move towards a more scientific understanding of scripture as he feels that this will help philosophers avoid biases. By freeing reason in matters of religion, Spinoza ultimately wishes to create a more robust understanding of God.    

Though Spinoza is willing to grant a large degree of freedom, there are still definite limits on this as once a person consents to a sovereign, that person has both a desire and obligation to obey that sovereign. Still, Spinoza’s focus on both freedom and unity eventually leads to great tensions between those two concepts and one area this can be seen in is Spinoza’s view of the relationship between the sovereign and religion as Spinoza sees religious force as being solely rooted in the sovereign and not in divine law. For Spinoza this means that religious freedom is necessary for the well-being of the sovereign’s power as it allows the state to maintain unity in the face of religious diversity.            

John Milton

For his entry to History of Political Philosophy, Walter Berns focuses on the political thought of John Milton, a man better known for his poetry, yet also made many important contributions to the development of political philosophy. According to Berns, Milton saw education as being highly important to his project. Milton wanted to reform the English education system to the model of the Classical formula. While this move may appear to be radical, it is important to remember that much like the changes the Puritans made in the governance of the Church, Milton did not see himself as leading a revolution, but rather a restoration. For Milton, education was essential in helping reestablish the mixed regimes of the ancients and was particularly drawn to the work of Polybius, particularly in Polybius’ call for a regime where the elements of monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy each have their own role in government.

Though Milton was initially was willing to give power to a monarch, as his thought developed he became increasingly anti-monarchial while also developing a stronger faith in the common people. This is not to say the Milton was a democrat however as by “common people” Milton meant “not part of the nobility”, not “the masses.” Knowing this, it is unsurprising that Milton divided the common people up between the virtuous few and the vulgar multitudes. As he thought developed further, Milton did begin to feel that more people could be free, but he still kept this same basic distinction. He also went from being a monarchist; abet a reluctant one, to being a fully committed republican. This shift was caused by Milton’s belief that of all the forms of government, monarchy was most likely to devolve into tyranny. So serious was this threat, for Milton not even a constitutional monarchy could be supported as it would likely soon become tyrannical.

Rejecting both monarchy and democracy, Milton essentially became an aristocrat as he wanted to root power in the “noblest, worthiest, and most prudent men.” It is important to remember though that unlike many other advocates of aristocracy that came before him, Milton’s aristocracy is to be rooted in the merit of its aristocratic class, not by their birth. What this means, and why it is so important for political philosophy is that under Milton’s ideal system, power is rooted in the middle class. There are some democratic elements in Milton’s system as the masses are still allowed to vote, but they are not allowed to actually participate in the government. For Milton, the fact the masses had the right to vote was sufficient enough reason to forgo the need for a popular assembly. Even then, Milton shows a deep distrust of the masses as checks are still to be placed on their power.

Though many modern democrats would say Milton’s system leaves no real protection for the masses, for Milton, the masses are sufficiently protected by the fact that the best and most able men rule. Such men are highly important to the survival of Milton’s commonwealth, and thus it is absolutely paramount that more of these men are produced. Under this system, education then becomes seen as a public duty as only in a generally educated public can these men often arise to govern the commonwealth. Despite this, Milton is at his core trying to create a balance between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, even though the aristocratic elements are by far the strongest. The monarchial elements are made even weaker by the fact that the executive is to be picked by the legislative body while the democratic elements are made weaker by the presence of some moderate property requirements for voting.

But perhaps the most radical changes Milton proposes has to do with the relationship between the Church and the state as Milton calls for the abolishing of episcopal power as for him it was unnecessary in his commonwealth. Added to this is the fact that for Milton, bishops merely got in the way of each man’s understanding of the power. Thus, under Milton’s system, ecclesiastical and state power becomes absolutely distinct. None of this though should suggest that Milton is some sort of modern advocate of state/ Church separation as he still thinks it is up to civil powers to protect the Christian religion and even goes as far as to think that a zealous and distinct people are needed to establish liberty. Because of the special class of people that is needed in order to establish liberty, liberty is a highly important concept in Milton’s thought. For Milton, there are essentially three types of liberty. Those types of liberty are as follows: spiritual liberty, civil liberty, and private liberty. Furthermore, Milton also gives liberty two distinct meaning. One meaning of liberty is virtue while the other meaning is freedom from government. Under Milton’s scheme, liberty and Christianity become deeply connected, which is very important as by doing this, Milton creates an exalted conception of liberty. It should be noted though that “liberty” for Milton clearly does not mean license as “liberty” is to lead to people fully becoming men in Christ. What’s more, this conception of liberty through Christianity is not negotiable as for Milton Original Sin prevents people from coming to know liberty in any way except through Christ.                  

Rene Descartes

Richard Kennington begins his entry in History of Political Philosophy by noting a problem with how modern philosophy is often presented, particularly in its origins. While Rene Descartes is often described as the father of modern philosophy, he is not considered the father of modern political philosophy, with that honor going to Machiavelli. This appears to give modern philosophy and modern political philosophy a separate origin, and perhaps one that cannot be reconciled. But, for Kennington, such a view is overly simplistic as there is a common thread between the ideas of Descartes and Machiavelli. That thread, according to Kennington is Francis Bacon as Bacon was a Machiavellian in politics who attempted to give science a brand new grounding. As Kennington notes, this new grounding is very similar to the new grounding Descartes attempted to establish in philosophy. Though this link, Kennington then goes on to argue for Rene Descartes’ place in the history of political philosophy.

One of the first things that needs to be understood for Descartes’ political philosophy is that he tends to be very cautious in his political writings in an attempt to avoid getting into trouble with the actually existing political authorities, but still, several important ideas can be drawn from them. At the basis of Descartes’ thought is the idea that all of philosophy is a tree. The roots of this tree are metaphysics while the trunk is physics. The branches of the tree however were all the other sciences, which would of course also include political science. In Descartes’ system, man is seen as both the second metaphysical root as well as the highest branch.

Using this analogy, Descartes seeks to radically change the understanding of knowledge as for him, the Classical tradition of speculation must be overthrown in favor of what Descartes calls “useful knowledge.” For Descartes, the overreliance on speculation is why the Classicalists were never able to properly formulate the distinction between passion and virtue, thus allowing the distinction between the two to become blurred. But, it is not enough for Descartes to throw out speculation as he also thinks that the passion/ virtue distinction should also be thrown out in favor of a new distinction between good passion and bad passion. Descartes finds this distinction far more useful.

For the average person, Descartes is primarily identified with his elevation of human reason, and this has political implications. According to Descartes, there are seven examples of the mastery of reason. Those examples are as follows: 1) the single architect of a building, 2) the single engineer of the buildings of a city, 3) the general case of a single prudent legislator who gives laws to the city, 4) the special case of a single divine legislator, 5) the special case of the single human legislator of pagan Sparta, 6) the simple relationship made naturally by a single man of good sense, and 7) the final, hypothetical case of a single man who had perfect use of his unaided reason infancy, unaffected by appetite or preceptors. Part of the political applications of Descartes’ writing here is easy to see as three of the items listed here (3, 4, and 5) deal explicitly with matters of legislation while another one (2) while not dealing explicitly with legislation does deal with the functioning of a city, which is certainly a political matter. There is however another aspect to Descartes’ list that needs to be noted as under this system, the use of reason becomes tied up in work, and thus philosophy becomes a technique. What this means that is it though technique that the ability arises to make proper legislation.

The use of reason is where one of Descartes’ biggest impacts on political philosophy can be seen as Descartes untimely hopes that reason can be used to establish a completely neutral framework in which knowledge can be produced free from prejudice. In order to do this though, Descartes readily admits that a man must reform his views. There are two realms in which to do this, the private realm and the public realm. In order to reform his views in the public realm from prejudice, first his views in the private realm must be reformed. After this happens, Descartes feels that unity in knowledge will be attained. He applies this thought to the political realm as well as while Descartes does say that humans have a moral obligation to obey the laws of their particular area, he still thinks that the fact that laws vary wildly from country to country was a sign of imperfection. Descartes’ elevation of reason also has implications in his conception of the common good, as he does not seen the common good as being rooted in the relationship of citizens to each other or in the relationship of citizens to the sovereign, but rather in the mutual relationship between philosophy/ science and society.

The elevation of reason also touches Descartes’ conception of God, as absolutes are so important to Descartes as less that perfectly omnipotent or as a deceiver that could make 2+2=5 is he wanted to do so. What this means is that God’s goodness becomes equal to the existence of absolutes. Thus, under this system, God becomes the first principle for man’s knowledge. The second principle for man’s knowledge is seen as physics, two ideas that when taken together means that there is both a non-psychical and physical basis for man’s knowledge. But of course Descartes’ focus on the importance of absolutes also greatly raises the specter of doubt and indeed Descartes sees generosity as the highest virtue as it does not presuppose any other virtue, giving doubt when an absolute cannot be produced. With this in mind, it is no surprise that Descartes feels that political society should be from the perspective of the most generous and even thinks that it is though generosity that true glory can be attained.

It should also be noted that Descartes rejects the notion of the “best regime,” an idea which took up much of the time of Classical political philosophers. Instead, Descartes is more concerned with the establishment of a neutral framework as he feels this is the best system in which science can be allowed to flourish. What this means is that Descartes can be seen as an early advocate of the “open society,” which will be accepting to all who wish forgo their own prejudices. Despite this influence, Descartes’ ideas here show some very obvious limitations as he untimely fails to fully understand his own prejudices and thus becomes overly simplistic.                      

Thomas Hobbes

For his contribution to History of Political Philosophy, Laurence Berns looks at the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, one of the men most responsible for the shift of the Classical/ Medieval paradigm to the modern one. One of the things that is most important to remember about Hobbes is that he has two major intentions. These intentions are as follows: 1) put moral and political philosophy on a scientific basis and 2) contribute to the establishment of civic peace and amity and to the disposing of mankind towards fulfilling civic duties. It also should be remembered that Hobbes represents a radical break in Classical thinking, particularly in regards to the place of natural law as Hobbes keeps natural law, but drastically reformulates it. For Hobbes, natural does exist but is rooted in passion, rather than in reason as the Classical natural law theorists thought it was. Hobbes made this move as he thought the most powerful men of his time had done this.

Hobbes focus on the importance of absolute knowledge that could not be seriously questioned is also a very important element of his thought, It is for this reason that Hobbes considers scientific knowledge to mean mathematical, and particularly geometrical knowledge. For Hobbes, these things are to be admired for their ability to establish absolutes.[1]  According to Hobbes, the philosophy of science proceeds in one of two ways. Those ways are as follows: 1) through the compositive method, which is reasoning from the first and generating causes of all things to their apparent effects and 2) through the resolutive method, which is reasoning from apparent effects, or facts, to the possible causes of their generation. This leads Hobbes to a highly mechanistic theory of understanding people, as people can now be seen as being ruled by their passions.

This mechanical understanding of humanity caused several other significant developments in Hobbes thought as while he does ground his conception of the goals and character of moral and political life in human nature, human nature becomes radically changed so that people are no longer seen as a political or social animal. Rather, human nature is seen as being rooted in pre-social and pre-political conditions. As to what these conditions were, Hobbes sees the pre-social world as a place of fundamental equality. And while this may seem like a good idea to people living in the early 21^st century, for Hobbes such a such a concept of horrifying as this equality was mostly manifested in people having an equal ability to kill each other. These conditions understandably create a good deal of fear as self-preservation is the most powerful passion. Fear plays such an important part of Hobbes’ conception of the world, he even sees ideas such as competition, distrust, and glory   as being rooted in fear. So prevalent is this fear, for Hobbes the state of nature is a state of war as mean war with one another out of fear of being killed. What this means is that people do not come to society because they are naturally inclined to do so, but rather because society is seen as the best way to avoid death, get comfort and attain glory. It also should be noted that Hobbes uses a mechanistic understanding of human nature as he feels that this is the easiest to understand, and thus hopes that his new understanding of human nature can help it be eventually conquered.

Though he is often misunderstood as a sort of proto-fascist, in reality Hobbes can be seen as a liberal, abet a highly authoritarian one, as he sees the obligations of human society as being rooted in individual rights. Individual rights are actually very important to Hobbes, and it is though one of his most influential ideas, the social contract, that people can come to this understanding. His ideas on the social contract also caused Hobbes to reject the notion of Aristotelian distributive justice as Hobbes thought that it overlooked the fact that people come into the social contract under equal conditions which leads to more of an expectation of equality. Furthermore, though Hobbes thinks there is a law of reason, he rejects the notion that reason alone can make people obey it as only fear can do this. Thus, the government is needed to enforce that fear. It should also be noted that ultimately Hobbes sees the commonwealth as a person.

The Hobbesian social contract also has two parts that need to be understood. These two parts are as follows: 1) a covenant of each member of the future civil body with each of the others to acknowledge as sovereign whatever men of assembly of mean a majority of their members decide one and 2) the vote to determine who or what is the sovereign. Once this has been completed, all people are obligated to obey the sovereign due to their signing of the social contract. This obligation extends to future generations as they have tacitly signed the social contract due to their acceptance of protection. Through the notion of the sovereign, Hobbes hopes that a mathematical exactness in political philosophy can be established. According to Hobbes, the first right of the sovereign is the right to punish. This is seen as an exclusive right. Furthermore, according to Hobbes, the will of each individual is in the will of the sovereign and thus accusing the sovereign of injury is tantamount to accusing oneself. Hobbes does however have a conception of the sovereign being divided into executive, judicial, and legislative branches. The concept of fear underlines each one. Despite this division, according to Hobbes the sovereign must be absolute in order for him to properly work and must eve be above the law.

Hobbes’ focus on the importance of fear can be further seen when he does into greater detail on how the sovereign should function. According to Hobbes, though running way from battle may be cowardly, it is not unjust. Thus, it is the job of the sovereign to make sure that the fear of punishment from running away from battle exceeds the fear of being killed in that battle. This does not mean that Hobbes necessarily gives the sovereign a black check to behave in whatever way he wants as the unjust sovereign is acting against the laws of nature. And while it is true Hobbes sees rebellion as something that is never justified, he is still well aware that unjust sovereigns often incite rebellions, and thus the unjust sovereign may face a rebellion as punishment for his crimes.

Much like the Classical thinkers, Hobbes does admit that there are several different kinds of commonwealths depending upon where the sovereign is located. Hobbes particularly notes three of them and they are as follows: 1) the power by one man, monarchy, 2) a situation in where every citizen has the right to vote, democracy and 3) a situation in where only part of the citizens have the right to vote, aristocracy. Unlike the Classical thinkers though, Hobbes makes no moral distinctions between the various types of government (i.e. monarchy/ tyranny). Though all three are examples of the sovereign, Hobbes does not see them as being created equally as he clearly favors monarchy over the others. This is because Hobbes wishes to closely align public and private interests and feels that monarchy is the best way of accomplishing this goal. Another reason for his preference of monarchy, particularly over democracy is that in monarch, bad people have a lower chance of having power. Hobbes also rejects the notion of mixed government as he feels will lead to civil war.

Talk of social contract often leads to talk over how the social contract can be abolished. For Hobbes, there is only one way to dissolve the social contract, and that is through unanimous consent. It should be noted that Hobbes does draw a distinction between law and council as while the law is rooted in will, council is rooted in reason as it can be voluntarily obeyed or disobeyed, thus, Hobbes’ world view is not one of complete force. Still, despite the focus on stability Hobbes uses, Hobbes is well aware that no commonwealth can last forever as it is made by morals and thus cannot be immortal itself. However, though proper structure and management, it can last a long time. Despite this realization, Hobbes still greatly fears revolution, even to the point to where he thinks that it is wrong for commonwealths to ask for less power than they need in peacetime and then as for more when it is necessary, such as in times of war as Hobbes feels that this may incite rebellion. Hobbes also places on the sovereign the crimes it commits. For example, if the sovereign tells a citizen to commit an unjust act and the citizen does so, it is the sovereign who is to be punished by God rather than the citizen who actually committed the act. Protection of the sovereign though is still paramount and thus Hobbes suggests that the censorship of potentially dangerous ideas is acceptable in order to defend the commonwealth.

Religion plays a major role in Hobbes’ thought as being fully aware of the problems the Puritans caused in England, Hobbes thinks religion must be kept in check as religion that is not kept in check has the potentially to be able to make men imagine rewards and punishments far greater than any sovereign could possibly give, thus causing people to disobey the sovereign. This is not to say that religion is completely or at least potentially negative for Hobbes, apart from the times when it is well managed by the sovereign as Hobbes draws his ideas on the social contract from the Old Testament idea of the covenant. What this does however mean is that Hobbes produces a much more robust conception of Caesaropapism than was seen in the Medieval period.    

---

[1] It is for this reason that Hobbes rejected the experimentalist science of Robert Boyle and his air-pump. For more information see Leviathan and the Air-Pump (Shapin and Schaffer 1985). 

Hugo Grotius

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, Richard A. Cox discusses the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius, one of the more obscure people discussed in Strauss and Cropsey’s book. One of the first things that needs to be understood about Grotius is that even though he is featured prominently in History of Political Philosophy, he did not see himself as a philosopher or political theorist, but rather as a legal theorist. This is particularly true of Grotius’ most famous work, The Law of War and Peace. The work is a general treatise on “the law of nature and nations and also on the main points of public law.” As the work is narrowly, rather than widely focused, it is an important work in understanding legal theory.

Grotius’ book is rooted in the Classical idea that people are by nature a rational and social animal. Considering this point of agreement with Aristotle, it is perhaps not surprising that for Grotius, laws are made by natural right and not by convention. For Grotius, people’s social and rational nature are deeply linked as people’s rational nature gives them a tendency towards self-preservation which in turn leads to people seeking society. What this means for Grotius is that the concepts of right and wrong are rooted in the nature of society, thus that which is wrong is in conflict with the nature of society. This causes Grotius to have several conceptions of “right.” The first kind of right can be easily inferred from his conception of wrong; that with is not in conflict with the nature of society. There are however other conceptions of right in Grotius’ theory. Another one of these conceptions of right is a quality of belonging to persons and usually refers to the rightful power to have or to do something. The third conception of right Grotius introduces is law, which refers to a rule of action which obliges to what is correct and also carries with it some sanction.

Just as there are several conceptions of right, there are also several kinds of right. The first kind of right can be divided into two other kinds. Those kinds are as follows: 1) natural law and 2) volitional law. One of the things to keep in mind about Grotius is that he heavily raises the importance of natural law, to the point that for Grotius, natural law would exist even if there was no God. Because of its importance in his theory, Grotius is careful to lay out two proofs for natural law. The proofs are as follows: 1) an a priori argument focusing on the necessary agreement of an act or thing with the rational and social nature of man and 2) a postpriori focusing on those things believed by all nations. On volitional law, Grotius divides that into two kinds. Those divisions are as follows: 1) human law and 2) divine law. From this, human volitional law is further divided into three kinds. Those kinds are as follows: 1) the law that is not dependent upon civil power (example: the law of fathers, masters, etc.), 2) the municipal or civil law, and 3) the law of nations whose force comes from the will of all or many nations. Though the law of nations is highly elevated in Grotius’ theory, it should not be equated with natural law, for unlike natural law, the law of nations can be changed.

Grotius’ focus on legal theory causes his work of purely political matters to be sketchier and draw heavily from others and simply accept two classical ideas. These ideas are as follows: 1) it is only within civil order that people can fully realize the potential of their rational and social nature and 2) and such, ruling is necessary and natural to the civil body as the rule of reason is necessary and natural to the human body. Grotius also lays out three branches of the civil body. The branches are as follows: 1) the architectonic, which is concerned with the general framing of society, 2) the particular interest in society which are public in nature and 3) the private interest of the citizens and the controversies that may arise from them.

In order to properly understand Grotius, it is important to understand him as a fundamentally classical theorist as power does not reside in the governed nor does it reside in the mutual dependency of the ruled and the rulers. Rather, power for Grotius resides in the natural order. Perhaps not surprisingly then, there is no right to revolution in Grotius’ theory. This is not to say that Grotius supports absolute rule necessarily as he does show some favor to non-absolute forms of rule, but much like Aristotle, for Grotius, the type of government is rooted in who has supreme power. So important is the idea of natural order for Grotius, for him a just war is a war waged to restore the natural order and fall into two categories. The categories are as follows: 1) Those wars waged in the defense of self and property and 2) Those wars waged to correct injustices and give proper punishment.

The last thing that is important to keep in mind with Grotius is that though he came out about the same time as Hobbes, and in fact predated him by a few years and though the two appear to have many superficial agreements, the two cannot be equated. This is because they have two fundamentally different foundations, for while Grotius is a fundamentally Classical thinker, Hobbes is a decidedly modern one. Thus, while Grotius attempted to restore the glory and power of Classical thought, Hobbes sees this attempt as being futile and thus sets out to attempt to make something new. That new path Hobbes sets out on will be explored in the next entry of History of Political Philosophy.  

Francis Bacon

Howard B. White in his contribution to History of Political Philosophy focuses on the political theory of Francis Bacon. Though Bacon is more commonly thought of as a scientist, or perhaps a philosopher of science, he is still included in History of Political Philosophy as not only did his work on science ended up having political ramifications, he also produced political philosophy in its own right, abet in a version that was heavily tied up in his ideas on science. Much like many of the others that came before him, most notably Plato and Aristotle, for Bacon, the central question of political philosophy is “What is the best state?”. In order to answer this question, Bacon both drew from as well as rejected certain elements of his philosophy of science.

First off, though he rejected the idea of a “fifth essence” in space, which Aristotle used to explain the functioning of the stars, he appears to grant one to the state. Furthermore, he also incorporates some idea of a “final cause” in his theory of the state, an idea which he rejects in science. As a result of Bacon’s ideas of the final cause in the state, the highest good for Bacon becomes rooted in human achievement. Another consequence of this idea was that man became much more detached from nature, and thus can attain no natural good from nature. Instead of some sort of natural order, the state for Bacon rooted in the actions of its founder.

Bacon’s rejection of natural order, at least in the Aristotelian sense had several consequences. One of these was that without natural order to guide people, a far greater emphasis was placed on observation as the way in which humans could be guided. This created the conception of the “expert”, a move which would replace the old dichotomy of philosopher and non-philosopher with a new trichotomy of philosopher, expert, and public. The experts and the philosophers were to both have a role in the new technologically driven world as the experts were to understand the physical workings of new technologies while the philosophers were to understand the effects of these new technologies on the general public. As a result of his expert-philosopher distinction, Bacon also creates another distinction, one between experimental and pure knowledge.

Bacon has great hope that technology will eventually be able to being about a better future. First off, for Bacon technology is not for the individual or even nation that invented it, but for all mankind. What’s more, for Bacon only two criteria were needed to bring about progress: technology and peace. Thus, as can be seen, all of mankind holds one of the key elements in bringing about progress. It is here where the political ramifications of Bacon’s theories on science can be most clearly seen. Bacon though has several ideas on how best to bring about the peace that is also needed to bring about progress. For Bacon, a key component of this is tradition as Bacon thought that tradition was key in bringing about the stability needed to bring about peace that would eventually produce progress. According to Bacon, this tradition had three components. These components are as follows: monarchism, Anglicanism, and imperialism. Though he thought all three were important in bringing about peace, he approaches them in different ways. For Bacon, monarchy is to be favored simply because that is what currently actually exists and any attempt to move to a republican form of government would disrupt the stability needed to bring about progress. Though he does have someone similar views on Anglicanism, his defense of it is more robust as he also concedes that it still has value beyond the fact that it currently exists as Bacon noted that to Anglicanism’s favor, it is more tolerant that the Catholic or Calvinist Churches. Despite his qualified support for the first two elements of his three part scheme of bringing about peace, Bacon has a much more robust defense of imperialism as Bacon sees imperialism as a civic duty and is rooted in his belief of man’s triumph over nature.

Bacon’s theories on the state also lead to him writing about his own utopia in the New Atlantis, where he discusses the hypothetical utopia Bensalem. In Bensalem, Bacon describes two major safeguards. These safeguards are as follows: 1) Collegiate power, which decides which inventions may be revealed to the general public and what the limits of knowledge should be and 2) Paternal power, which is concerned with enforcing virtue. Thus, in Bensalem, power is rooted in the unity of the old, paternalistic power and the new, vigorous science. It may appear odd to many that Bacon, a man so connected with the scientific revolution would be willing to limit what sort of technologies the general public is aware of, but there is in Bacon’s view a very simple reason for this. The reason is that if there were no limits to what sort of technologies the general public were aware of, then eventually stability would be under minded which would stop scientific progress. For Bacon then, science must be limited in order for its long term survival to be guaranteed. Bacon’s utopia has several other interesting characteristics, among these is that power is seen as being rooted in the state rather than the king. Furthermore, though it is possible for anyone to become a ruler, the gap between the ruled and the rulers is quite large.

Several other aspects of Bensalem would likely strike the modern reader as highly authoritarian, particularly for a supposed utopia. One of these aspects is the travel is greatly restricted as travel is restricted so that the people may resist corruption. Such an idea is particularly odd in light of Bacon’s previous support of commerce and imperialism, so it appears to be the case that for Bacon, imperialism and commerce are simply means to an end and once his ideas have firmly taken root, they will no longer be needed. Bacon also has a dim view of the masses as he sees the science of politics secret science that is hard to know and not fit to utter and as such is only for the select few. Misused, this science can bring about doom and gloom. Thus, for Bacon, though some people can be truly free, not all of them can, as while it is true people can be freed from their old superstitions; these superstitions would have to be replaced by new institutions in order to maintain stability. Only a very select few can forgo both of these things.     

Richard Hooker

As the Protestant Reformation began to further develop, it became more radicalized, moving from the original intention of Luther to simply reform the existing Roman Catholic Church to movements that wanted nothing to do with the Papacy at all and considered Rome to be a false, counterfeit Church and the Pope to be the antichrist. One of the more radical offshoots of Protestantism was Puritanism, a movement which thought that other Protestant movements had failed to properly de-Romanize themselves and proposed a form of Christianity completely free from Catholic influence. Their attacks on the Roman Catholic Church as well as other already existing forms of Protestantism also lead to attacks on the existing social order. These attacks lead to many responses with Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican writers pointing out the many supposed errors of the Puritan system. Though many attacks were leveled, one of the most famous one belonged to Richard Hooker, who is the subject of Duncan B. Forrester’s second essay in History of Political Philosophy.

In Hooker’s most famous work, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, he argues that the Puritans had distorted the teachings of Calvin, despite their claims to be his faithful followers. Because of this distortion, the Puritans had produced a distinct political theology that had to be dealt with separately, rather than simply as another form of Calvinism. For Hooker, the Puritans had a far more radical conception of the authority of scripture than Calvin did, as now the scriptures were seen as totally infallible and were to offer perfect guidance on moral and political matters. The role of the Church was also changed to become seen as the guardian of God’s word. The shifts the Puritans caused in both how the Bible and the Church were to be seen also caused a great shift in how they saw the state. For the Puritans, as there were two covenants in the Old Testament, one between the king and God and another between the king and the people, the people then had, as John Knox argued a right to revolt against ungodly rule because king had broken one of the covenants. Though Hooker was not himself a Calvinist, Calvin was one of the many sources he would use against Calvin’s more radical interpreters.

Though Hooker’s Laws is divided into eight books, this essay will focus on the first book. In that book, Hooker turns to the use of metaphysics to show that the universe has a certain order to it that demonstrates God’s reason, a move that causes Hooker to reject the voluntarism of both the nominalists as well as the Reformers. What Hooker’s embrace of metaphysics also did was show that the universe has a type of “natural goodness” that can be used as a starting point for other types of goodness. It also showed that there are many types of laws to which man is bound by, which shows that if true, the extreme reading of sola scriptoria the Puritans had would be false. And just as there are many types of law, for Hooker there is also a distinction between changing and unchanging laws, thus meaning that it is possible for some laws to change. The changing of laws though must be guided by the unchanging, eternal law in order to give the changed laws proper justice.

Hooker also shows a high degree of Platonic and Aristotelian influence as he sees that man is able to come to perfection though the social life. Such an idea firmly cements the contention that people are by their nature social animals in that they need some form of social organization to better themselves. Furthermore, for Hooker both political power and political laws are rooted in human action, an idea that appears to require a good deal of participation in the body politic in order to influence how the system is to be run. Hooker furthered his attack on the Puritan conception of the state and the Church by arguing that both were guided by reason. Hooker also rejects the absolute separation of Church and state as Hooker wants the Church to be able to restrain both rulers and citizens from behaving unjustly. In Hooker’s view, the state and the Church are to be complimentary. This is not to suggest that Hooker is simply creating a revival of Thomist/ Catholic thought in England as he still thinks the Church should be firmly in control. It should also be noted that Hooker is willing to give religious groups a good deal of freedom for a man of his time and does not think the state should demand everyone to be a member of the same church as for Hooker, religious groups are allowed to believe as they wish as long as those beliefs do not threaten the established order.  

Martin Luther and John Calvin

While the transition from the Ancient to the Medieval world has been generally agreed upon as far as the symbolic date and event goes, the fall of Rome in 476 AD, there is not a generally agreed upon event or date to symbolize the transition from the Medieval to the Modern world. Three major events have been given which are as follows: Columbus’ landing in the Americas in 1492, the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, and the fall of Constantinople (the Eastern Roman/ Byzantine Empire) in 1453. As all these events happened around 1500, this has been the line of demarcation historians has traditionally used to divide the Medieval and Modern worlds. Though all these events were significant in the development of the Modern world, one event in particular stands out; that event being the Protestant Reformation. As this was a highly significant event, its two chief proponents, Martin Luther and John Calvin, are highly important philosophers, not only of religion and theology, but also of politics. Thus, both men are included in History of Political Thought with Duncan B. Forrester’s essay focusing on how both men changed the way not only the Church was to be governed, but the state as well. Forrester’s essay tends to focus on the areas where both men agreed, but it also does a marvelous job explaining how both men differed, and how those differences manifested themselves in differing methods of governance.

First off, in order to understand the political thought of Luther and Calvin, it must be understood that both men did not see themselves as political philosophers, but rather as theologians. The reforms they made of the Church though necessitated reforms to the state. For both Luther and Calvin, their thought is centered in the Bible and at the center of their theology is the idea that man is justified by faith alone. For both Luther and Calvin, man must be justified by faith alone as man is seen as being totally depraved. What is meant by total depravity here is not that men can do no good at all, but rather it means that what good men can do is meaningless and pathetic when compared to God. Though this certainly came across as a highly radical idea during their time, it is important to remember that neither Luther nor Calvin thought of themselves as leading a revolution. Instead, they were leading a restoration of the original Christianity of St. Paul and St. Augustine, as the Medieval teaching had become Pelagianism, the idea that man could save himself. They also sought to remove the Aristotelian influence on the Church, which meant that they say reason/ revelation and philosophy/ theology as more distinct that was commonly thought of during their time. Thus, they also sought to undo the Thomist synthesis between these concepts.   

Just as the authority of Medieval Church teaching was deemphasized, the authority of the Bible was deemphasized and was removed from the judgment of the Church as it was the Bible that set the limits of reason. Without the Church counsels that had traditionally guided Christian morality,  a new formulation of ethics had to be constructed, particularly in the light of the idea of Sola Fide, the idea that faith alone could save men and works were meaningless. Thus, the idea was presented that while it was faith and not works that saved men, works were the outgrowth of faith, so those who had good faith would also have good works.   

But perhaps the most important idea Luther and Calvin presented was the idea that men belonged to two kingdoms, the spiritual kingdom and the temporal kingdom. Both of these kingdoms were seen as having differing jurisdictions. For example, man is seen as being totally free in the spiritual kingdom but is totally in bondage in the temporal kingdom. It also should be noted that despite the use of the words “temporal” and “spiritual,” these two kingdoms should not be thought of merely as Church and State. Regardless of the differences between the two kingdoms, God is still seen as the creator and sovereign of both and eventually the two kingdoms will be united, but that time as yet to come. For now, government is totally in the realm of the temporal kingdom and it has been established simply to keep the peace. Also, Luther and Calvin both use the word “Church” in two differing ways. One way refers to the visible Church, which refers to those who are formal members of the Church while the invisible Church refers to the communion of all Christians. It is also here where we begin to see how both men differ as Calvin places more emphasis on the visible Church’s ability to guide people than Luther does. Still, they are united in the belief that the state can reform the Church to put it more in line with the word of God. Another thing that should be avoided when thinking about the doctrine of the two kingdoms is to think of it as basically analogous to the Catholic doctrine of the “two swords.” Such a reading would be incorrect because for both men, there is but one sword, and that sword belongs to the government. This idea is rooted in the belief that the state is needed as no theology can perfectly guide people.

The Fall of Man has a great power over both reformers’ thought as they saw the problems as being rooted in the Fall, and of course it is only though the Fall that such an idea as total depravity makes sense. Still, it is also interesting to note that while Calvin does believe in total depravity, it does not appear as if all is lost as he also seems to see man’s social nature as being one of the last bits of God’s image still in him. Despite Calvin’s admittance of man’s social nature, the idea of total depravity still means that for both men, government is highly important in order to keep people in line. Because of their views on the Church and the state, Luther and Calvin end up fighting a battle on three fronts. Theses battles are as follows: 1) against the radical Anabaptists, who denied any civil control over Christians. 2) Against the Papacy, which took the state’s power. And 3) against certain princes, who took the Church’s power.

It is also important to remember, despite the fact that both men were producing radical formulations of state power, they were careful to avoid being utopian on this matter. It is also on this point where we can see one of the clearest distinctions between Luther and Calvin’s thought. For Luther, there is no distinction between democracy and mob rule and as a mob can never be truly Christian, monarchy is seen as the best form of government. Still, Luther does not have complete faith in the power of monarchy as he also sees absolute monarchy as being in error, thus restraints on the monarchy are needed. For Calvin though, man’s depravity means that government must use checks and balances in order to avoid the twin evils of tyranny and mob rule. For this, Calvin sees a republic as the most appropriate form of government.

Despite the fact that both men do admit that government must have some restraints placed on it, they also see all leadership, even bad leadership and being ultimately given by God and thus must be obeyed. While it is true, God is to be obeyed first and foremost, it is not up to the individual to decide when these two ideas conflict. As a generally rule though, Luther and Calvin both think that disobedience when a temporal leader steps out of his proper realm. It also must be kept in mind that while disobedience is at times justified, resistance is not. These ideas raise the question as to what a Christian should do when faced with great tyranny. For Luther and Calvin, such a Christian has three options. They are as follows: 1) move to be under the rule of a less tyrannical regime, 2) suffer, 3) resist in certain clearly defined circumstances.

Tolerance is another major element in both men’s though as while Luther started off as being fairly tolerant for a man of his era, he became less and less tolerant as his thought developed. Likewise, Calvin thought it was perfectly in the state’s jurisdiction to punish people for blasphemy. This is important as while both men were well aware of Christian persecution in the past, as well as the persecution of themselves and their followers, neither saw that as a justification of the toleration of all opinions.

Another important concept in Luther and Calvin’s political thought is the three forms of law. The three forms of law are as follows: 1) the divine law, dealing with direct revelation from God, 2) the natural law, dealing with that from God which is not the result of direct revelation, and 3) the positive law, which deals with the particular laws of the leader in charge. Ultimately, both men see the natural law as being identical with divine law, a move which radically deemphasized the importance of natural law.

Vocation is also a highly important element of both Luther and Calvin’s thought as all people are seen as having two callings in life, one of God and salvation and one of vocation. Vocation is important as it helps place people more firmly in society, thus statesman is seen as a highly honorable vocation. This also means that a statesman abusing his power also abuses the vocation God gave him, and as such will be punished by God for doing so. From the idea of vocation comes Luther’s idea of “the hero”, an idea which Calvin does not share. For Luther, the hero is a special man who can properly lead a rebellion. Such men though, are extremely rare.  

Duncan D. Forrester’s essay on Martin Luther and John Calvin has been so far more favorite entry in History of Political Philosophy. Forrester is able to brilliantly show how both men agreed on many issues, yet also came to several significant disagreements that manifested themselves in different ways.