Monthly Archives: September 2012

Comparing Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

The idea of natural rights, or the universal unalienable privileges given to any citizen, gained popularity after the Enlightenment era. John Locke argued that it is the government’s role to help protect its peoples’ rights to life, liberty, and property. The French and American governments both chose to include their own versions of Locke’s ideas in their declarations; France with The Declaration of the Rights of Man, and America in The Declaration of Independence. Although both countries included similar natural rights, the specific dictation is very important in learning what ideals each country held above all else.

The writers of The Declaration of the Rights of Man stated, “The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptable rights of man; and these rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.” Both countries neglect to include one of Locke’s original natural rights. It seems neglecting life as one of the universal rights foreshadows the Reign of Terror which began as an extension of the French Revolution after all the Third Estate’s requests were not met. The French included security and resistance to oppression in their natural rights. After such a large percentage of the population was abused, and subjected to poverty for such a lengthy period-of-time it seems obvious that they would be more focused on these ideas than the American people. Furthermore in The Declaration of the Rights of Man they describe natural rights as being imprescriptable, meaning immune from the prescription of law or rule. This coincides their proposal that the government and law should only hinder actions that are harmful to society.

Thomas Jefferson is most famous for writing the section of The Declaration of Independence which said, “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” In the American version property is not included. It could be argued, that the meaning is the same if you view wealth as the highest happiness, because at the time property equalled wealth. Instead of arguing that these values should not be interfered with by law Jefferson chooses to connect natural rights with religion, and chooses the word, self-evident, or without requiring proof. Of course as a country formed on the ideals of religious freedom, with most of it’s citizens practicing Christianity it is logical that they believed this would be the most inspirational wording.

Since the French were subjected to oppression from their own people they were even more weary of government than Americans who no longer considered themselves part of the English people. Both countries viewed natural rights differently based on the specific circumstances of their abuse. This lead them to modify Locke’s ideas in ways that better suited the goals of their revolution. Both countries were seeking equality, but the French’s attempt was more of a revision, whereas the American’s were striving to create a whole new nation.

 

Compare and Contrast French and American Revolution Documents

Posted on by

Instigating Change

While reflecting on the revolutions of the past it has been seen that they have brought upon suffering and at times more chaos. Even after there has been a reform, the public’s misery has not been eased. However, at times the natural rights of the people become violated enough and the desire for happiness necessitates retribution which is similarly displayed by the French and American revolutionary documents. They also put doubt on the “perfect State” (The Republic) proposed by Plato.

Although the two documents draw many parallelisms; they occur in different social contexts. While Americans were being oppressed by a King on the other side of the shore, French were being oppressed in their homeland. This probably led to the French having a more aggressive approach in their declaration as the control by the monarchy was a much stronger one. Whereas the Americans living on another land probably had much more freedom than their French did counterparts did.

Both the French and American societies bring to light the tyranny of their respective rulers: one by the dictatorship of the British King; the other, the hierarchal social structure. Being on a common stage brought upon by violation of rights, they plead for equal standing regardless of place of birth in society. Born under the same sun, they believe every man deserves, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”(Blaisedell 64). They reveal that the majority is ruled by a minor group in society and their desires fulfilled at the cost of the majority. In America’s case a British monarch far overseas enforces dictatorship and the French, by the First and Second estate which consists of less than 2% of society but has the most say in the State. They infringe the rights of man which are considered “sacred” and “inviolable”(Paine 94).  The documents also display parallel rhetoric in their arguments. They display a common use of pathos by describing the incompetency of the King and Second estate as the rulers have defiled their right to rule by giving in to personal desires of power, ignoring the public good. Such use of pathos was important, as it would rally up the people to rise for a change in governance. The use of emotion was needed to unite them under one banner.

These two documents signify how intellectuals brought up an issue to the people and allowed them to strive for what was rightfully theirs. While proving that the desire for freedom can instigate change, they also display the long term results of ‘perfect’ compulsive societies put forward by Plato and that perhaps a utopia is one with everyone’s happiness considered.

 

 

Revolutionary Documents Comparison

Posted on by

Sam Wittmer

The French and American revolutions developed from each other’s ideas and actions concerning oppressors.  The American Revolution took inspiration from ideas that were circulating around France, inspiring the Declaration of Independence. Six years after the States became officially independent from Britain, the National Assembly of France released The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which shows influence from the Declaration of Independence.  These documents aim to highlight the natural rights of man, all stemming from the right of men to opportunity—authorized by the nation’s people and God.

There are different forms of the right to opportunity.  Prominent is the complaint against economic hindrance, both personal and in terms of the group for which the document speaks.  For the Declaration of Independence, two of the grievances are Britain’s “cutting off Trade with all parts of the world,” and “imposing Taxes without our consent.”[1]  The National assembly of France, creating the Declaration of the rights of man, twice highlights Man’s right to property. In the second Right, it is part of the “imprescriptible” rights of man; “Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.”[2] Then, in the seventeenth Right, as property being “inviolable and sacred” and that “no one ought to be deprived of it.”[3] The natural economic rights are featured in both documents because the livelihood of the people depended on their physical property. Most opportunity relied on what a person could do with their assets—and therefore have a right to prosper in this respect.

The documents also demand rights to making their own decisions.  In the colonies, independent assemblies were restricted, soldiers were quartered in civilians’ houses, and migration to the colonies was restricted.  The grievance is that external forces were regulating the opportunity for the colonies to better themselves.  In France, the nobility and clergy consumed the products of the bourgeoisie, while they produced nothing themselves.  While doing this, they also had a bar that the “lower” class could reach but never pass.  Sieyes says that the words of the nobility are, “ ‘No matter how useful you are…you can go so far and no further.”[4]  With this system there is no opportunity to advance, therefore, the Assembly requires that honors be available to all people.

The documents derive the support for these natural rights from different sources, though they share similar elements.  The natural rights of the Declaration of Independence come from divine power: God being mentioned three times.  But there are tones that it is the voice of the people who accredit these rights as well.  In the French documents, the people of the third estate are responsible for these rights.  They are the majority who produce and could function as a separate state, and therefore accredit the natural rights.  But God is mentioned as the Assembly asks for the Supreme Being’s blessing before stating the rights of man.

 

[1] Representatives of the United States, “The Declaration of Independence,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003), 65.

[2] National Assembly of France, “Declaration of the Rights of Man,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003), 80.

 

[3] National Assembly of France, “Declaration of the Rights of Man,” 81.

[4] Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes, “What is the Third Estate?,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003), 72.

 

The United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen

Posted on by

The United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen

 

The United States Declaration, written in 1776, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, written in 1789, are similar documents stressing freedom and equality; however are different, not because of the content, but because why they were composed. The United States Declaration of Independence was composed in order to outline how the States had been wronged and oppressed long enough by the British. The French Declaration was written to outline and put into writing the natural rights that each citizen had.

The Declaration of Independence refers to the people of the United States as being free, and outlines how the British royalty stands in the way of free people living freely. This is similar to the first clause of the French Declaration, where it states that all people are free and are to live in equality. This point is relevant and present in all declarations of this nature. When leaders come together to compose documents such as these, they rarely neglect to remind that everyone is born equal. The difference between these two declarations outlining the point of natural freedom and equality is the circumstance in which both were written. The United States, being oppressed by the British, were writing the Declaration of Independence to prove a point to the oppressors. The United States Declaration of Independence was written to achieve freedom and independence from tyranny. The French declaration was composed for the French, as a reminder and official document outlining what the French valued. The two civilizations were in very different social situations, so with that in mind, it is difficult to compare the two documents because they were written for completely different reasons.

The timing of the composition of the two documents is also important when comparing the texts and their content. The American Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, and the French Declaration 13 years later. Other declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, also have the same root as the Declaration of Independence as far as content is considered. These declarations all have in common that they outline and stress free and equality of the individual. The United States declaration of independence started the trend of composing official documents stating natural human rights that all individuals possess.

The United States Declaration of Independence and French declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen were both documents standing for freedom and equality. The documents were written at different times, with different priorities; however, both stood for same cause. The United States declaration was fighting for freedom and equality, while the French declaration was simply enforcing it.

Robert Ekblom

Professor Karl Qualls

Utopias/Dystopias

Comparison: Republic and Utopia

Posted on by

Sam Wittmer

One of the interesting characteristics of two fictional Utopian societies, Thomas More’s Utopia and Plato’s Republic, is that in these model societies there is a recognized inequality among the people.  In the setting we live in, one infatuated with the idea of equality, it may seem surprising to know that these philosophers believed that a perfect society would have people that were better than others.  The relationships of ruler to subject, in The Republic and Utopia, are based upon a group of the elite presiding, not forcefully, over another group that the society has been determined to be in a different position, with each party doing their duty for the gain of the State.

Although the statuses of the citizens of each state are not equal, there is not unrest among the classes.  Plato speaks of a metaphor that the people should be told to explain these different classes; humans are each comprised of a type of metal from birth that determines status; gold, silver, and iron or bronze.  Those of gold, the guardians or rulers, would preside over those who were simply not born to rule.[1]  In Utopia, as well, the state is structured with people who are higher, such as the prince and the priests. Its structure allows it to function.  Workers produce goods which are equally distributed to all—including the higher class—and from the rulers they receive protection. Each class relies on the other.

In Utopia, the act of manual labor or labor in general is not looked on with disdain as it often is in societies that esteem nobility, but is respected and even revered.  Some devotees to religion would dedicate themselves to laborious tasks that no others would want to do.  The state’s opinion of them is that “by their stooping to such servile employments, they are so far from being despised, that they are so much the more esteemed by the whole nation.”[2] This respect (from the ruling class) of labor comes from the understanding that labor is not simply the unsightly means to an end, but part of a system of cogs.  In The Republic as well, Plato speaks of the duty of the ruled to be productive in their best strengths for the good and for the rulers to govern justly and that this network is to be respected—that the system is a relationship of mutual understanding of duty.

The rulers of these two societies function as parts of their state and recognize their duty to lead instead of being tyrants.  Therefore, the lower classes work to serve the community to fulfill their duty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Plato, The Republic (Toronto: Dover, 2000), 86-87

[2] Thomas More, Utopia (Toronto: Dover, 1997), 76

 

 

The Relationship Between Ruler and Ruled

Posted on by

Plato’s “The Republic” and More’s “Utopia explore the possibilities of creating an ideal state. In an idea state however, there must be some sort of regulation among the masses, and this comes from a relationship between a ruler and those that are ruled. Although they each concede that it is necessary for their state to have a ruler and those who are ruled, it is Plato’s search for the perfect soul that compels him to create a rigid system of leadership under the philosopher kings and it is More’s desire to create a superior nation that drives him to construct a fluid class system allowing the rise of a ruler. These differences in motivation cause the different relationships between ruler and ruled in “Utopia” and “The Republic”.

Plato’s “perfect” state must also have a ruler that is equally as ideal. The philosopher king he describes through the voice of Socrates comes from a separate category from ordinary citizens. The philosopher king is an elite individual, trained from birth in mathematics, war, and the didactic method. This creates a distinct and rigid separation between the ruling class and the rest of the general population. Plato’s initiative is his search for the perfect soul, and through his belief that humans are inherently flawed, he concludes that it is in the best interest of the masses to be ruled under strict power. In this view the perfect soul is one which is just and happy, so in the analogy of the state, Plato believes that it is the duty of the ruler to rule and the duty of the citizens to carry out the tasks they are most capable of. This strict societal structure between the ruling class and the ruled stems from Plato’s belief that the soul is most happy when it is carrying out the task that supports the greater good.

Similarly, More seeks to create a society at peace with itself, but his ideology rests upon the idea that Utopian citizens will feel a collective sense of cooperation and justice. This more optimistic view of human nature relies on a general good natured attitude of his citizens in creating a less rigid relationship between the ruling class and the ruled. In Utopian society, there is no separation between the general public and future rulers. This allows for greater social mobility and the possibility of a capable ruler rising from the public, though Utopian leaders carry less power than those of “The Republic”. This is derived from More’s desire for equality and to create a superior nation, viewing humans as malleable and interchangeable therefore creating a more fluid relationship between ruler and ruled.

The societies of “Utopia” and “The Republic”  both necessitate the presence of a ruler and those that must be ruled, it is the motivation behind the ideologies however, that shapes the relationships of each society.

Ruler and Subject

Posted on by

Both More and Plato have very specific views about the relationship between a ruler and their subjects. Plato’s philosopher-kings are harder on his subjects, giving them less free will because he feels that they are not well educated enough to know what is in their best interests. More takes a different view of his subjects, allowing them more freedoms because he trusts that people are good at heart and don’t need to be told how to live their lives by a totalitarian ruler. These two rather different styles of ruling are a based on the authors’ levels of trust in their subjects.

Plato’s philosopher kings are educated from birth so that they can be trusted to make decisions for the good of the state. It is through this training that he feels they are qualified to handle their power. Plato does not allow his subjects very many liberties at all. He would even withhold parts of classic stories about their gods and heroes, which portrayed them as having flaws. (Plato, 58) Plato also believes that his subjects should not be allowed to choose their own profession. He expects them to do what they are best at, regardless of if they enjoy it. He even goes so far as to say that they should take pleasure from contributing to the good of the state. This control of his subjects suggests that Plato does not think them worthy of such freedoms.

In More’s Utopia citizens are apprenticed to their fathers unless they are naturally talented in some other field or find enjoyment elsewhere (More, 34). This freedom to choose their profession shows that More feels that people are worthy of at least some semblance of equality. He also gives them some freedom to choose their own religion, a freedom that, in the context of More’s day, was unheard of. Another equality in Utopia was that everyone worked six-hour shifts (More, 34). This made sure that no citizens were overworked and everyone was paid what they were owed. Not even the rulers were paid unevenly.

The main difference between Plato and More is in their trust of their subjects. Thomas More is much more trusting of his subjects, and, as such, gives them much more freedom than Plato. Plato gives the rulers much more power because he does not trust his subjects. This difference of opinion is the cause of the opposing views on the power of rulers over subjects.

Comparing the Genesis and Content of Morality in Plato and More’s Utopias

Posted on by

In forming an ideal society, having common moral values among the population is a necessity.  In order to sustain an idyllic state, each citizen must have a strong moral compass that does not conflict with others. In both Utopia and The Republic, More and Plato emphasize education as an important factor in generating a common moral code. Both emphasize the importance of morality, but then describe deceptive and indecent strategies used by the state to manipulate citizens.

Both More and Plato recognize education and enlightenment as important in teaching their citizens moral values.  In The Republic, the allegory of the cave demonstrates the effect of education on the soul.  In the allegory, the sun represents the form of the good, and in order to reach it citizens must study arithmetic and dialectics (Plato, 196).  If the citizens master these subjects, they will truly understand the “good,” making them the most moral beings.  Like in The Republic, In Utopia, citizens must be trained in different subjects from an early age (More, 77).  Through education, Utopia’s inhabitants will form their own ethical values.  Both More and Plato believe that knowing “truth” is a key component in developing a moral code, and truth is discovered through education.

The irony in More’s and Plato’s emphasis on creating moral citizens is that the state is, in itself, very ethically wrong.  The way Utopians win wars is by going into other countries and issuing propaganda that turns the citizens of that country against one another (More, 66).  In The Republic, the state censors stories that portray gods as anything but perfect (Plato, 58). Although they consider truth to be the origin of morality, Plato and More develop cities in which the governments are actually dishonest and corrupt.  While the citizens are expected to be ethical, the rulers are expected to be dishonest and immoral. More and Plato contradict themselves many times in the course of describing a completely just and ethical state, proving that even the most idyllic society has corruption.

 

The Rulers and the Ruled

Posted on by

Both of the utopian societies that are portrayed in Plato’s The Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia have a hierarchy in which there is a clear difference between the State or island’s ruler, and the ruled. However, the ruler’s powers and responsibilities differ greatly due to the respective utopias’ structure and organization. In The Republic, we can observe a rigid class organization with the philosopher king as the absolute ruler. In Utopia, there exists a ruler, but in a scheme which is much more malleable. These differences in the structure of power in the utopias depicted reveal the respective author’s society and situation in which they live, and consequently reveal their motivations in writing these books.

            These philosophers agree that there needs to be a special class that holds power over the citizens of the utopia. In the Republic that Plato describes, these rulers are the philosopher kings; those that were handpicked from childhood and rigorously educated and molded to be in the elite class throughout their lives. These philosopher kings possess absolute power, and are assumed to know what is best for the State. In Thomas More’s utopia, those that are the most educated and qualified are chosen to lead regardless of upbringing or social status. Because there is less social rigidity in this rendition of utopia, the citizens who chose to have a role in governing the island are able to collaborate with the rulers. This in turn creates a system of checks and balances that is absent in the Republic.

This disparity in ruling structure is inherently a product of the time period in which the author lived and also his experiences. After witnessing the execution of his teacher, Socrates, at the hands of the government of Athens, Plato lost confidence in democracy and human nature. As a result, Plato structures his ideal State in a way that would minimize the power of the uninformed many, and emphasize the rule of the educated elite. Consequently, the stability of the State would be valued over the happiness of individuals. The Utopia in Thomas More’s work is also a product of his experience. The dictator-like operations of the Catholic Church in addition to the actions of the English monarchy caused him to desire a more collaborative and open method of government in his utopian society. As a result, the citizens of Utopia were encouraged to explore various fields of knowledge while contributing to the city.

While both authors strove to create an ideal society, they came to a vastly different conclusion. The term “perfect” is not set in stone; the definition changes with the time period based on what is deemed “imperfect” by the thinker who is affected by his or her influences, experiences and position in society. This is reflected in Plato and Thomas More’s differences in the structure of power in their respective utopian societies.

The Ruler and the Ruled

Posted on by

At the surfaces of Plato’s and More’s two societies, their governments draw their power from very different sources. Plato’s philosopher-kings are given their thrones from other rulers, whereas More’s magistrates are either elected by a group of families, or nominated by those who were elected by those families. And so, there is an apparent division between their two governments; Plato’s philosopher-kings get their power from the ruling class, and More’s rulers are awarded their power directly by the people. At a deeper level, though, the rulers’ power structures and relationships to their people share many of the same patterns throughout the two societies.

Specifically, both Plato and More use education as a means of imparting values unto their youth. These values, in turn, serve to rule the people and control their behavior. More explicitly says that education’s purpose is not to teach information, but rather “to infuse very early into the tender and flexible minds of children such opinions as are both good in themselves and will be useful to heir country” (More, 77), and Plato uses censorship of the arts to control what influences the character of his society’s people, and thus to control their behavior (Plato, 62). Thus, both Plato and More use power and authority to erect structures to condition their people to accept certain values.

These values, in turn, work from within the people—and thus are rooted deep within society—to ensure that their societies function properly. In fact, More mentions at the conclusion of Utopia that his society is stable because the rulers have “rooted out of the minds of their people all the seeds of both ambition and faction” (More, 84).

Superficially, More and Plato appear to construct very different relationships between the rulers and the ruled in their respective societies. Nonetheless, these apparent relationships prove irrelevant; the real power of the rulers over the ruled in both their societies comes in how the rulers teach their people to live. Perhaps, ultimately, this is where the real stability of both their societies comes from; the power of the rulers is so subversive—it is, after all, in the values that take root within each citizen—that no one would be able to target and attack that power if they ever felt the need. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled in both the texts, therefore, is subversive, yes, but stable.