phl265 exam answers essay plan format.docx

437 views4 pages
19 Apr 2012

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

1. Hobbes and Kant agree that private persons have reason to leave the state of nature. They also agree that nations
are also in a state of nature. Do either of their arguments entail that nations should form a world government?
FOCUS: both agree on leaving state of nature, both disapprove of world government, both advocate state alliances
OPPOSING states are always pointing their weapons at one another; world government would solve this
ARGUMENTS a world government would contribute more to man’s misery than individual countries
1. POWER the power of authority over subjects must be strong enough to rule, or state is dissolved
2. EXTENT cannot reach its power with such strength all over; rebellion in remote areas is imminent
3. STRENGTH greater in small numbers, society as more industrious, subjects better represented
4. INNER CONFLICT opinions are too varied among subjects to create one huge general will; will cause argument
5. HUMAN NATURE men are naturally diffident, glory-seeking and power-seeking; will cause internal war
CONCLUSION formation of states in alliance is useful and desirable for peace, and satisfies above issues
OPPOSING states in war with one another is the highest degree of wrong, perpetual peace achieved by alliance
ARGUMENTS it is more prudent to form an alliance of states rather than one world government for peace
1. SCARCITY large nations have less sustenance, too many people together
2. EXTENT power extending too far makes governing it and protecting subjects impossible, leads to dissolution of state
3. POOR RULE government would be all-powerful, yet powerless, loses impact of power as range increases
4. RIGHTS world government protects right of freedom and equality poorly than individual states
CONCLUSION alliance of states would bring perpetual peace; observes cosmopolitan right, doesn’t aim for power
2. Marx characterizes capitalist society as a condition in which impersonal dependence assumes the illusory form of
personal independence, in which all private relations are mediated by contract, but everyone is unfree because
ultimately subject to market forces. Explain his argument.
FOCUS: the social nature of production and dependence on one another causes production to be master over man
TOPIC A Introduction to Commodities and Labour
-commodity makes man’s product of labour a social character
-the relation of producers to one’s own labour is a social relation
-the social relation is not between producers, but between products
-commodities are given value socially, not determined by subjects
CONCLUSION social control over product value and pressure on producers
TOPIC B Market Relations as Product Dependent
-producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange products
-the social character of producer’s labour is shown through exchange
-individual asserts itself as a part of society labour by means of relation formed by exchange
-producers have material relations; only connected by product
-product must be useful to others; not just labouring for oneself this creates dependence
CONCLUSION this situation is created by entering society for dependence on other producers
TOPIC C Contract and Control
-value of product is out of producer’s control; commodities
-personal dependence characterizes social relations
-personal dependence forms groundwork of society by division of labour
-total labour of producers forms a social product
-men are turned into producers of commodities rather than political individuals
-society based on process of material production
CONCLUSION process of production has mastery over man and controls him
Unlock document

This preview shows page 1 of the document.
Unlock all 4 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
40 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class