POLB 71 final exam review 3.docx

7 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
Political Science
Margaret Kohn

POLB 71 final exam review 3 Secularism Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. What is the difference between the old and the new political economy? The differences between the new political economy and the old are of fundamental importance; some of them may be stated as follows:— First. The old economy lived by itself and did business on the individualistic plan. It formed no intimate associations with other sociologic sciences and did not recognize them when it met them on the street. The new economy recognizes its relatives, lives in the family group, and BSac 56:221 (Jan 1899) p. 121 works in close association with all the other members of it. This is a matter of the utmost moment. It will not do to deal with material wealth as a thing by itself; it must be studied as part of a great whole. The science of wealth must be coördinated with ethics, psychology, government, art, evolution, and every other body of thought that affects human life. If your economy is not in harmony with your morals and your government, if the science of wealth does not conform to the principles of ethics and development, your social science is not an organic whole but a heap of broken fragments. The arch will not stand unless each stone is chiseled with reference to the rest Political economy must be formed so that it will not refuse to fit its fellow sciences, but will take its place as a perfect stone in the arch of sociology. If your government says, ―Democracy, power in the people,‖ and your economy says, ―Aristocracy, plutocracy, power in the few‖; if your jurisprudence says, ―Justice,‖ and your economy says, ―Get rich‖; if your ethics and your religion say, ―Love, service, devotion,‖ and your economy says, ―Self-interest, conquest, mastery,‖—there is civil war in your social science. Four stages theory Smith‘s terminology and definitions can be confusing. In the first stage, Smith‘s ‗age of hunters‘, subsistence depended on the ‗wild fruits and wild animals which the country afforded‘ (LJ(A) i.27). People in this stage would now be called hunter-gatherers. The second stage, the ‗age of shepherds‘ or of ‗pasturage‘ (LJ(B) 149), is characterised by the herding of animals, but not the tilling of the soil. The animals herded by ‗shepherds‘ need not be sheep. What is critical in Smith‘s account is that the domestication of animals came before the domestication of plant s, to make a distinct stage in development. ‗We find accordingly that in almost all countries the age of shepherds preceded that of agriculture‘ (LJ(A) i.29). This 3There is nothing directly relevant to the four stages theory in the Theory of Moral Sentiments.3 stage, Smith thought, was typically nomadic – when the pasture in one area was exhausted, shepherd and flock moved on. In Smith‘s story the ‗age of agriculture‘ or the ‗age of farming‘ (LJ(B) 149) added (arable) farming (tillage, the cultivation of the soil), though the keeping of animals and the eating of meat certainly continued. Agriculture in this sense required investment in clearing and cultivating the land, and allowed food supply and population to increase. I shall use the word ‗agriculture‘, as Smith did, to mean settled agriculture with a large arable component, and ‗pasturage‘ to mean animal husbandry without tillage. The commercial stage is different in that it is not defined by the main source of food. Commerce (trade) plays some role in all stages of society, while the commercial stage, as Smith defined it, is a development of the agricultural stage. A simple agricultural system might have ‗little foreign commerce‘ and only ‗coarse‘ manufactures produced in the household (WN V.i.a.6). A division of labour and corresponding pattern of trade develops bit by bit (LJ(A) i.31), with no clear dividing line at which society becomes ‗commercial‘. What is the main difference between Locke’s state of nature and Hobbes’s state of nature? Despite these similarities between the two ideas, Locke and Hobbes’ state of nature do differ from one another. First, for Hobbes, the nature of nature is perpetually in a state of war. According to Hobbes, the chief reason why men given up their authority to the sovereign is to seek peace, and avoid the “fear of death” (Wootton 160). By contrast, while Locke does speak of states of war as well, for him they are a subset of the state of nature, and not the entire equation. Locke specifically states that “men living together according to reason…is properly the state of nature. But force, upon the person of another…is the state of war” (Wootton,291). Thus, by this reasoning, Locke’s state of nature is a much kinder place than Hobbes’, where man’s life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Wootton 159). In addition, another difference between the theories of the two men is that Hobbes speaks hypothetically of states of nature, whereas Locke points out times when state of nature actually exists. Locke believes that all rulers are in a state of nature, and governors as well (Wootton, 290). The key difference between Locke and Hobbes in this area is the specifying of the existence of a state of nature, the greater negativity of Hobbes, and Locke’s use of examples in contrast to Hobbes’ hypotheticals. In conclusion, while the states of nature of Hobbes and Locke have their similarities, they also have key difference. They are similar in that both men recognize the dangers within a state of nature, and they also both acknowledge the perfect equality of man in this state. Their theories differ, however, when it comes to the extent of the state of war, the more negative perspective of Hobbes on man’s natural state, and in their use of examples (or lack thereof). There are also differences between Locke and Hobbes and, unsurprisingly, of Locke and Filmer on the subject of rebelling against a sovereign who violated the law of nature and created a state of war between him and his subjects. Hobbes and Filmer did not believe that subjects of an absolute monarch had any right to rebel whatsoever, while Locke believed that a sovereign who violated the law of nature was susceptible to being overthrown and indeed deserved it. Filmer, naturally, also believed that men could not rebel against their sovereign who was divinely appointed to rule by God. Locke has to deal with this problem, otherwise we will not get the aspired state. His solution is that when we sign the contract we are establishing that the state that will pass laws based on the majority of the people. The contract means that we consent to the laws made by the government. The difference between Hobbes and
More Less

Related notes for POLC71H3

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.