Skip to content

Bi-Weekly Discussion - Locke & Mill Revisited

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Bi-Weekly Discussion - Locke & Mill Revisited

Details

I wasn't able to book the side room at the Good Karma Café, so I've switched our meeting place to an outdoor venue -- the Washington Square Park, between 6th & 7th Streets on Walnut in Olde City. Luckily, I checked the weather report and it should be nice & sunny, and although it'll be in the low 80s there's plenty of shaded areas in the park. If you don't want to sit on the grass, just bring a folding chair or picnic blanket to sit on. You can also bring any type of food or drink you want, although I don't think alcohol is allowed in the park.

The park is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 1 block west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------------------

LOCKE & MILL REVISITED: HOW DOES CLASSICAL LIBERALISM APPLY TO THE 21ST CENTURY?

This meetup and the next will look at some of the Enlightenment ideals that coalesced into "classical liberalism", briefly tracing their development from John Locke's work in the late 1600s to John Stuart Mill's work in the mid-to-late 1800s and their evolution since, looking at how classical liberalism split into the different political ideologies we have in America today. While many liberals & conservatives have strayed away from using concepts from classical liberalism to justify their arguments, we'll focus on thinkers & pundits on the left & right who still engage heavily with ideas from Enlightenment-era political philosophers.

This meetup will address two fundamental questions in politics with some concepts from the "classical liberal" political philosophy:

(1) When can the government legitimately use force against its citizens, and when can citizens legitimately use force against each other or against the government?

(2) What type of cultural values & social norms (if any) are a necessary precondition for a free society, and to what extent should government protect or promote them with formal laws?

As you can see below, I've split each of those questions into 2 sub-questions to address different aspects of them...

The first section on self-preservation and the transition from the "state of nature" to civilized society's "social contract" draws heavily on John Locke's Second Treatise on Government and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Locke had an optimistic view of human nature & favored a limited form of government that would preserve the people's natural rights, whereas Hobbes had a pessimistic view of human nature and favored an absolute monarchy that could maintain law & order. We'll consider how this relates to the current the perennial debates over gun rights & gun control, as well as the more recent conflict between Black Lives Matter's demands for police accountability for incidents of brutality & unjust shootings and the "Blue Lives Matter" folks who argue that BLM's criticisms are unjust and have precipitated both a "War on Cops" and a rise in crime in America's inner cities (a.k.a. the "Ferguson Effect").

The second section on the harm principle draws on John Stuart Mill's famous essay, On Liberty, where he argues that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Mill was also a utilitarian who believed that we have a moral duty to pursue the "greatest happiness of the greatest number". Some critics have argued that utilitarianism favors a paternalistic government that could violate the harm principle in order to "save people from themselves", but Mill responded to these criticisms in the 5th chapter of his book Utilitarianism and argued that justice & utility are compatible. This debate has been recently reignited in policy circles with the publication of Cass Sunstein & Richard Thaler's book Nudge, which argued that government policy makers should use principles from behavioral economics to engineer society in such a way that consumers would be more likely to make better choices, although they'd still be technically free to make the "wrong" choice -- they called this political philosophy "libertarian paternalism".

The third section on religious tolerance draws on John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration". Locke was ahead of his time in arguing that the state should not concern itself with matters of theology, and that diversity of religious belief would not create civil unrest. However, he did say toleration should not be extended to religions that require adherents to obey a certain religious leader with more authority than their own government, and he thought that both Catholicism & Islam fit that description (i.e. Catholics must obey the Pope, Muslims must obey the Grand Mufti & the caliph - i.e. the Ottoman Emperor). He also argued that atheists should not be tolerated because "promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist", although in a later edition of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding Locke questioned "whether 'atheism' was necessarily inimical to political obedience." Locke's letter was part of the changing view of religion among intellectuals during the Enlightenment, and it helped inspire the text of our First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Jurists & Supreme Court decisions have broken this down into the (Anti-)Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and many of our current disputes over religion ultimately stem from a clash between the meanings of these 2 clauses, as well as the extent to which we think religious belief has a positive or negative effect on civil society.

The fourth section draws on J.S. Mill's arguments for freedom of speech from On Liberty. Mill argues that we should not prohibit unpopular opinions for 3 reasons: (1) they may be true and we can benefit by adopting them, (2) though false, they may compel those who hold the true belief to refute it and thereby gain a better understanding of the truth (rather than holding it as an unquestioned dogma), (3) they may contain a mixture of error & truth, and the portion of truth they have found may be a necessary supplement to the portion which we already have. However, Mill drew a line at direct incitement of violence, arguing that "even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation of some mischievous act." The heading for the 4th section also mentions the "open society" and the "paradox of tolerance" which are concepts from the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper. Like Mill, he believed that most opinions contain a mixture of truth & error and that only an "open society" - i.e. a liberal democracy where tolerance for dissent makes free inquiry possible - can succesfully sort truth from error over time. However, Popper also warned about the "paradox of tolerance" - i.e. tolerance of the intolerant could lead to the destruction of the tolerance society if the intolerant gain political power.

In terms of how to approach the discussion outline below, the first video in each section is intended to give you a basic overview of the way each issue is grounded in the classical liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment, and the second video suggests a current debate over how to apply these principles today. To prepare for our discussion, please watch the videos linked first under each topic, which come to about 35 minutes total.

I dug up a TON of interesting articles on these topics, only a few of which we'll be able to discuss at our meetup. I've linked 2 under each section, and I've done my best to summarize their major points in some notes under the videos in each section. If you wants to check out the articles I found, look at the bibliography I created in the meetup's Discussion section: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/messages/boards/thread/50900132

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the 4 topics in the order presented here and we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

LOCKE, HOBBES, GUNS & COPS: HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF SELF-PRESERVATION & INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY AGAINST THE DEMAND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY & THE NEED FOR THE STATE TO MAINTAIN A "MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE"?

1a) James McManus, "The Enlightenment: Social Contract [Hobbes vs Locke]" (video - 3:20 min, start at 0:50)

https://youtu.be/Av6R8QfgZ48?t=50

1b) Jarrod Dennis, "Will a private police force work better? Detroit says yes." (video - 8:39 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqlVL26jrCA

SELF-OWNERSHIP & THE HARM PRINCIPLE: CAN WE JUSTIFIABLY USE FORCE ON SOMEONE FOR REASONS UNRELATED TO STOPPING THAT PERSON FROM HARMING OTHERS OR THEIR PROPERTY, SUCH AS SAVING THEM FROM THEIR OWN BAD DECISIONS? ARE SOFTER FORMS OF COERCION ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS THEY LEAD TO BETTER SOCIETAL OUTCOMES?

2a) James Stacey Taylor, "The Harm Principle" (video - 3:00 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z03OXBbLr40

2b) Anthony & Erika Davies, "Should Someone Nudge You Into Making A Decision?" (video - 3:44 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATmoKKPraK4

RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN THE 21st CENTURY: HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE THE RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AGAINST THE NEED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE?

3a) Aidan Turner, "John Locke on Toleration" (video - 1:40 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xILFxFkF3E

3b) Maajid Nawaz, "Religious Tolerance Shouldn't Mean Accepting Lower Moral Standards" (video - 5:38 min.)

https://youtu.be/q2s_n6St1OI

THE "MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS" FROM J.S. MILL TO KARL POPPER: HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE FREEDOM OF SPEECH & OUR DESIRE TO LIVE IN AN "OPEN SOCIETY" AGAINST THE DANGERS OF HATE SPEECH, RADICALISM & THE "PARADOX OF TOLERANCE"?

4a) Macat, "An Introduction to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty- A Macat Politics Analysis" (video - 3:06 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlLh17YTr8c

4b) Steve Shives, "[Response to Ulrich Baer's Article on] 'Snowflakes' and Free Speech" (video - 7:38 min.)

https://youtu.be/_-njspI987Q

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
See more events
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Washington Square
210 West Washington Square · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
public group