Gabriella's Philosophy Page

The criticisms I find the strongest are those against the idea of current public services such as the police and the legal system become privately funded.

These are:

The Argument that the state is necessary as a neutral umpire as any privatised system may be biased and corrupt. If people were to fund a legal system this would lead to laws and regulations in favour of those who fund them. For instance, if only to rich funded the judges, magistrates etc then all laws and verdicts would fall in favour of the rich- so perhaps, there would be no benefit system.

Of course, communsits may reply to this by saying that everyone would work for the good of the community as a whole, and in a moneyless society there would be no segregation. Yet, instead, it may be that particular friendship groups or careers agree to fund it. So if it were mainly doctors, for example, supplying the legal system then it may be that it becomes in favour of minimising their work or allowing them the most freedom in their practice.

People could also reply that the current system, with a state, remains corrupt. The conservatives in power at the moment could be said to favour the middle class as they themselves are, in the majority, middle class- and therefore are cutting benefits etc. However, there still remains a certain amount of control by higher governing bodies which would stop this from getting out of hand.

The other argument is similar by stating that we need certainpublic goodsand theavoidance of public bads in areas where it perhaps isn’t clear who the resposibility shoudl lie with. So with the issues of global warming, who would be the one to determine what action to take and who would be the ones who funded such action without a state involved to administer taxes or make decisions?

Anarcho-capitalists may reply that such duty would become almost like charity in that the people within a society may feel an obligation to contribute to a certain cause despite it not being their responsibility yet this donation would remain voluntary; contrary to a tax system. Though this may still lead to corruption as those able to contribute more to certain funds may then believe that they have certain rights or priviledges above others, thus recreating a strict class divide and hierachial system.

Freedom

In contrast to the other viewpoints, Rothbard believes that man should be free to ‘think, feel, evaluate and act only as individuals’ rather than as a community. He claims that the value of humans is in their individuality and therefore all personalities should be free in order for ‘full development’. However, they do agree that everyone must be free from interference as this is the only way in which a person can prosper in life. 

However, it remains unclear how these personalities could have complete ‘freedom’ in everyday society and the way in which this isn’t reached in the current capitalist system. He also doesn’t make it clear at what point a government’s involvement becomes ‘interference’ which restricts freedom. Which laws are interfering too much?

Rights

Anarcho-capitalists belileve in ‘natural law’ which dictates that certain rights are universal and can be found by man using his own reasoning. Therefore, they claim that, in order to avoid government interference, everyone must ‘choose his own ends and employ his own means in order to attain them’. 

However, of course, it is questionable that any ‘natural rights’ exist at all or whether what we believe to be almost innate rights are simply the manifestation of upbringing in a certain society. 

Human Nature

Contrary to marxism and anarcho-communism, anarcho capitalists believe that human nature ‘is a mixture of good and evil’. However, it is the existence of a state that has ‘legalised and social legitimised’ crime such as theft and murder through its hierarchy and oppression which leads to desperation and rebellion. Therefore, if this element is taken out, the good in people will remain prominent and the bad will be discouraged.   

Though, without having ever lived in an anarchist society, it is impossible to know for certain if such a theory is correct. Surely motives for stealing such as a lack of money or psychological disorders would still remain regardless of the political structure.

Freedom

Emma Goldman believes that freedom is the opposite to the current capitalist system as she states that it is ‘where man is free to choose the mode of work, the conditions of work and the freedom to work’. I.E. a person sould be free to do the job in which he finds most ‘joy’ as then everyone will be fully commited to the work they are undertaking and so the system will be as efficient as possible. It will also allow man to ‘grow to his full stature’ as it will lead to liberation of the human mind from the constraints set by the capitalist society in things such as religion and property.

Although I agree that it may be most efficient if everyone finds joy in the work they do (if you enjoy a subject at college, for instance, this is likely to be the one you revise most for). However, much like the issues with the marxist viewpoint, there may be some jobs that none or at least very few people find joy in doing- such as repetitive or straining factory work. Therefore the most simple of every-day of products wouldn’t be created to the extent to which they are required. Equally, some people may desire jobs that are opposed to the communist regime- such as a powerful, leadership position. Or, some may find the most joy in jobs with no productivity at all. If you look at the number of people applying for shows such as Xfactor, it seems that most people desire a job of fame and wealth- therefore not involved in the most essential works of the community. An anarcho communist may respond to these objections by claiming that people would come to have a community interest and would therefore find most joy in the jobs most necessary or essential to the work of the community- and certainly not those opposed to it. But how are people suppossed to realise the job that would bring them most joy without trying numerous ones and switching betweeen them- which for a society reliant on specialist skills could be catastrophic for production.  

Rights

The anarcho-communist view of rights is very similar to that of Marx in that rights will be unnecessary as people’s interests will no longer be opposing and people won’t require protection from one another- as this only leads to alienation (See Marx post)

Human Nature

Emma Goldman believes similarly to Marx that people are creative beings and therefore shouldn’t be alienated from those around them e.g. their boss or their collegues but instead allowed to freely develop in order to reach the greatest version of themselves and society. But beyond Marx, she claims that it is almost impossible to know what human nature is in this society as we remain so restricted by everyday life- ‘caged in a narrow space, whipped into submission’ and thus any who claim this nature to be evil or predicting this too prematurely and in the wrong circumstances.

Beyond the Marx objections that it is unclear how ‘creative beings’ would be manifested in everyday life, if they exist at all in some people, I don’t believe that the current capitalist system is so restrictive that we can’t be sure of human nature itself. Surely we can see that at least some elements of human nature are bad or good as they have clearly manifested themselves, despite however restricted we may be in our actions. If a criminal were given more freedom, wouldn’t they just commit further criminal acts?

Goldman may reply to this firstly by saying that of course we can’t be sure of human nature but perhaps also that it is the restrictions of the current regime that has caused this criminal behaviour and not something apparent in the person themselves. Therefore if they were ‘freed’ into an anarcho-communist system, they would be able to show their full potential as a human being.

Freedom

Marx claims that current freedom is beased purely upon free trade, which is used by the bourgeosie to exploit the proletariat by presenting it as ‘religious’ or ‘political’. As an alternative, he believes that people noone should work as an individual without the considerations of society but should be able to focus his life in any area he desires ‘nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes’. This therefore suggests that, counter to much of society at this time, people shouldn’t be forced into factory work or repetitive labour but free to chose what they focus their life one, while still considering the needs and values of society as a whole.

Although this works on paper, it isn’t clear how this would successfully function in everyday society. Say, for example, that no one wanted to work in the production of paper, or pens or some other basic necessity. Is there a point where society can legitimately force a person into a certain area of work?

However, Marx may reply to this by suggesting firstly that in a society large enough, there is bound to be someone wishing to be in every job available and secondly that because people would come to have an interest for society as a whole, if noone were creating paper or pens for example, they would become actively interested in supplying this need for the sake of the community as a whole.

Rights

Simiarly , Marx suggests that the human rights in place in society are from ’the specific expression of a bourgeois society’ and cause a clash of people’s interests. Ultimately, rights are simply protecting the individual from those around them and allowing them the greatest freedom they can have in a cpitalist system. However, this protection causes people to become isolated from one another and thus leads to alienation. Instead, Marx claims that a marist society woudl require no rights at all as interests are not opposing one another but in fact working together for the same cause. Therefore, people don’t require protection and there is no government that they are at risk from being oppressed by.

Though I find this a particularly positive view of human nature as it suggests that those who, in a capitalist society, would steal, murder and oppress, wouldn’t do so when such an environment changes to that of a marxist. But surely the physiology or psychology of a murderer would remain the same? Could it really be said that everyone would work to the same goal?

Though Marx may reply that it is the oppression or restrictions of a government that have lead people to such extreme acts. Without the pressures of unrewarding, repetitive work or the oppression of a bourgeoisie society, people wouldn’t become criminals or murderers yet truly work for the greater good of the community.

Human Nature

There are two viewpoints that can be taken in Marx’s view of human nature:

1.Unlike the other political viewpoints, Marx believes that we have no fixed human nature yet instead it is dependent of the structure of society- i.e. the mode of production, political processes etc. and from this a certain consciousness is formed.

2.However, he also suggests that capitalism restricts an important part of this human nature; our ability to work with others in a creative way. As we are often forced away from workingwithother people- by them being our boss or our competition etc. we are unable to fulfill this creative feature in our nature- and thus this causes alientation. Whereas, a marxist society would allow us to freely relate and work creatively with others.

I do agree that a large part of our nature is determined by the society we are born into. For example, not only our government, but our schools are work places have a clear hierachy of position and we adhere to these positions and our role within these as we must to adhere to our position within society as a whole. We are also far more independent and perhaps selfish in out actions and with out posessions than we perhaps would be in the community setting of a marxist idelogy. However, Marx doesn’t clearly outline what ‘creative’ restrictions we may be subject to. Certainly, we are unable to freely discuss ideas etc. with a person of higher power than ourselves and much work doesn’t appeal to a creative side in people- but I don’t believe that everyone would call themselves ‘creative’ or that everyone would express a wish for more ‘creativity’ or interactions in their career.- Though Marx may say that this is simply because I have become accustomed to and disillusioned by the capitalist system so that I am unaware of any mode of life that one alienated from others.

The Argument.

Behaviourists (like Watson and Skinner) would disagree with the idea of the existence of a mind or even mental states- claiming that these are simply the behaviours we emit at a given time. For example, when people would say ‘Bob is happy’ behaviourists would claim that this is not in reference to any mental or internal states of Bob, but instead the behaviours Bob is displaying that we have been conditioned to group into the term ‘happy’. Therefore, from this, ‘Bob is happy’ becomes ‘Bob is smiling, talkative, is discussing positively, is laughing alot etc.’. This is a materialist point of view as it reduces what we would call the mind to physical patterns.

In response to Descartes, behaviousists claim that he made a ‘category mistake’ i.e. he has separated two things which are in fact one. So he believes that the body is one thing, the mind another when in fact, the attributes he would give to the mind are actually those of the body.

The Responses.

1. Vagueness

The first response against behaviourism is that they are wrong in claiming that the words used for mental states such as ‘happy’ or ‘confused’ can really be reduced to one set of behaviour, applicable to everyone in all situations.

For example, in one situation ‘Fred is sad’ would refer to the fact that Fred is crying and complaining about something.

However, when we say ‘Jonny is sad’, this may instead mean that Jonny isn’t talking much or socialising at all.

So for beaviourists to say that the language of mental states can be, as it were, converted into a list of behaviours, doesn’t completely work when applying it to real life situations.

Equally, what behaviour are we referring to with more generic terms such as ‘Richard is clever’?

2. False

The idea that behaviourism is false can be broken into two main arguments:

1. Behaviour is not a necessary condition of having mental states

This argument suggests that behaviour can be hidden but the mental state still takes place- for instance, when not wanting to show your reaction to a situation.

Putnam takes this to the extreme by describing two races which refuse to show their mental states of pain. Firstly, the super spartans are a race which, when feeling pain from anything, have become able to suppress any outward signs of this in order to preserve the dignity that would be lost from showing this (however, in secret, would admit that an earlier instance of pain did in fact hurt).

The super-super spartans are near equal to this yet would never even admit in private to have ever felt any pain in any situation.

This demonstrates to the behaviourist that there must be mental states separate to behaviour as these states can be felt without any outward sign of this.

2. Behaviour is not a sufficient condition of having mental states

In opposition to the first part of the false argument, this puts forward the idea that behaviour of a mental state could be shown without having felt any kind of emotions or idea of pain etc.

For instance, zombies, or something equally similar to humans such as robots, would show the signs of a mental state such as smiling the show the idea of ‘happy’ or crying to show the idea of ‘sadness’ yet don’t have in the inner thoughts or feelings that humans would instinctively associate with these behaviours.

This would mean that the behaviourists would have to see humans and these zombies as essentially the same thing, as they must purely judge on behaviour, which seems ridiculous.

The Conclusion

Personally, I would agree with behaviourists to the extent that we do seem to judge others mental states based on their actions and so when we say that another person is happy we are simply referring to what we have seen of them and what we know of how they act when thinking a certain way etc. However, a problem arises when having to accept that we can only judge our own emotions in the same way. I know that I don’t have to observe or even be conscious of my own behaviour in order to understand that I am happy or sad, and I can certainly feel one way yet act another. This would therefore suggest that there must be some separation between the physical behaviour of a person and their emotions or ‘mental state’. Although I can’t be certain that others equally have an inward feeling before showing an outward response, surely this is a logical assumption to make. Though, it is doubtful of whether these mental states exist within a mind or whether they are simply just a result of purely phsycial cerebral processes.

What is it??

In Descartes Principles of Philosophy, he argues that some things have substance as they are ‘self-subsisting’, and so depend only on themselves or a God to exist. These substances are only the mind (whose principle attribute of thought) and body (whose principle attribute of body).

Therefore, there are two types of substances, physical and mental (substance dualism). This in turn leads Descartes to accepting that the mind (A mental thing) and the body (a physical thing) must be seperate.

What are Descartes arguments?

1. The Knowledge/indubitability argument

This argument consists of two main premises:

1. I can conceive of my mind existing without a body

2. I cannot conceive of my body existing without a mind

This therefore leads Descartes to conclude that the mind and the body, as one can be conceived and the other can’t, must be different things.

2. The Indivisibility Argument

Another way in which Descartes attempts to demonstrate that the mind and the body must be different things is by showing that they have properties.

He does this by explaining that it is perfectly possible to divide a body as it is physical- into an arm, leg, head etc.

However, it is not possible to do so with a mind- suggesting that this is simply a mental, non physical thing.

Thus making the two different and so separate.

Objections

Objection to the indubitability argument

This is put forward by Cottingham in response to Descartes first reasoning, he claims that just because Descartes can doubt the existence of a body, it doesn’t mean that this is in fact true. It may just mean that he lacks understanding of physiological and mental things.

Similarly, a person could doubt that A squared + B squared = C squared- yet this clearly wouldn’t be correct. All it would show is that this person doesn’t have geometric knowledge.

To further this, Leibniz’s Law could be considered. This claims that identical things must have the same property. And although this is true, this isn’t the case ifi you just conceive of two things having the same properties.

Descartes claims that because he can conceive the mind and body having different properties, they must not. But this isn’t necessarily correct.

For example, if you were to witness a masked man robbing a bank:

You cannot conceive of the masked man not robbing the bank

and equally, You can conceive your father not being the one who robbed the bank

From this, it could be said that Descartes would conclude that your father and the masked man must be different people (if you were to follow the indubitability argument)

However, it could be true that the masked man and your father is in fact the same person. And so in the same way, it could still be the fact that your body and your mind is the same thing, even if you can conceive differently.

Objection to indivisability argument

Cottingham also puts forward numerous arguments opposing Descartes indivisability argument.

Firstly that it is possible to divide up the mind into separate states. Perhaps not parts like the body, but the fact that you can have conflicting desires and differing levels of consciousness suggests an ability to distinguish between different bits in some way.

Secondly, it could also be true that there in fact is no mind to split up, or at least we can have no understanding of what Descartes would call the mind.

Finally, he says that it isn’t a problem if your mind can not be split up as the mind could be just processes of the brain :)

I think that many of these issues are still relevant today- especially in the stricter regimes of the middle east and asia. As well as this, people are still very certain on their viewpoints and their religions in this society, perhaps not in the same way as in Mill’s time, but many remain arrogant in their views and hold them without any rational behind them- often as they are opinions passed down by parents. So, if people were to discuss their views and accept others more openly, I believe that there would be a lot less predjudice in society and therefore this would help us progress.

In theory, I agree with most of Mill’s views for freedom of thought and action. It is certainly true that we should not always pressume that our views are correct and it can certianly be stilting to society if we were to remain ignorant to other religions and viewpoints- for example if the BNP were to gain power, all view points and actions would be extremely limiting and would lead to more difficulties than solutions. Equally, I feel it is important to constantly discuss your viewpoints. It becomes so easy to say you hold a view or a faith yet either not understand what doing so means or to simply forget. Thus, to argue and debate these things won’t only develop your rational and thinking but also allow you to constantly question yourself and your beliefs.

However, there are flaws in his argument. For instance, I don’t believe that it is true that every argument has an element of truth in it. Obviously, the majority of viewpoints do have sense and elements of truth in them but firstly, some views just are clearly ridiculous and even if some contain elements of truth how are we meant to recognise what these are if we are ‘infallible’?

Also, listening to all the different view points and ways of acting is impractical in itself. If you spend all your time llistening to other people’s views and considering them and admitting your own infallibillity, there is no chance to form your own opinions and to enter the debates yourself.

Mill primarily believed that both freedom of expression and freedom of action is important as it encourages eccentricity and individuality which will cause people to have greater rational thought and so in turn improve society. To explain this importance of being open to others views and other actions he outlined four arguments:

1. Infallibility argument- this argues that it is important to listen to others opinions as we cannot assume that our views or actions are always correct. To do so is to suppose ourselves infallible which would be wrong. 
2. The Partly True Argument- Mill believes that in every opinion there is a portion of truth and therefore we should consider all view points and take the truth we find in each to gain the most truth we can
3. The Dead Dogma Argument- This explains that it is important for us all to argue and discuss our viewpoints otherwise we will hold beliefs without any rational reasoning behind them- making them dead dogmas
4. The link with action-  This is an extension of the dead dogma argument in that it also argues that we must argue and discuss our views or actions otherwise we won’t act in accordance with them. So, for example, Christians believe it is important to help others less fortunate than themselves yet, if they don’t discuss this view often, they will forget this and never act on it.

Through doing these and discussing and debating all opinions, we will not allow ourselves to conform to certain views but improve our own rational thinking and therefore further society as a whole.  

1. I decided to continue with A2 Philosophy after it quickly became my favourite subject at AS. I really enjoy the way that you can explore and express your views on deep questions.

2. I’m enjoying the course so far this year- Mill’s theory is really interesting and links well to matters today. The only thing that still seems daunting is the longer, more in depth exam essays.

3. So far, I’ve found myself agreeing with most of Mill’s views, particularly the harm to others principle. But it does seem slightly idealistic to imagine that this principle can be applyed to all situations, especially when people have individual explanations of harm.  :)