jueves, 13 de diciembre de 2012
miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012
The Death of Socrates.
Socrates
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) is one of the great Greek philosophers.He can be considered the father of philosophy. He did not only teach ideas and theories but also something that is much more important: an attitude and a lifestyle. The most noteworthy element of his philosophical approach is that he said that he did not teach anything, rather the only thing he did was help his audience draw out their own ideas from inside themselves, that is to say, he helped them to think for themselves. That is why he said that his job was the same as his mother's, who was a midwife, as it had to do with giving birth, helping one to be born. This process of "giving birth" to one's own ideas is called "maieutics".
The Death of Socrates. A man like Socrates, who helped people to think, was seen as a danger by the Athenian authorities; it was said that he corrupted young people, and he was therefore condemned to death. He did not agree with this, however he accepted the judgement (to drink hemlock, a poison), in spite of the fact that his friends and pupils (among them his greatest disciple, Plato) proposed ways for him to escape from jail. He preferred to comply with the law. In the next box we can understand Socrates’ arguments through a text by Plato.
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) is one of the great Greek philosophers.He can be considered the father of philosophy. He did not only teach ideas and theories but also something that is much more important: an attitude and a lifestyle. The most noteworthy element of his philosophical approach is that he said that he did not teach anything, rather the only thing he did was help his audience draw out their own ideas from inside themselves, that is to say, he helped them to think for themselves. That is why he said that his job was the same as his mother's, who was a midwife, as it had to do with giving birth, helping one to be born. This process of "giving birth" to one's own ideas is called "maieutics".
The Death of Socrates. A man like Socrates, who helped people to think, was seen as a danger by the Athenian authorities; it was said that he corrupted young people, and he was therefore condemned to death. He did not agree with this, however he accepted the judgement (to drink hemlock, a poison), in spite of the fact that his friends and pupils (among them his greatest disciple, Plato) proposed ways for him to escape from jail. He preferred to comply with the law. In the next box we can understand Socrates’ arguments through a text by Plato.
The Organisation of Freedom: Conflict and Cooperation
To talk about citizenship automatically suggests talking about coexistence. We
have already seen the complexity of human life in the previous units; to set out the
citizenship issue cannot be undertaken of the entire person. And a person is basically
communication, society, and being present with and for others. The human being is, as
the ancient Greeks once said, a "social animal".
Referring to society is not making an allusion to something unknown. In the
previous unit we already learnt that the fundamental constitution of society is family,
friends, neighbours, etc. Therefore, society is the group of relationships within which we
move, which allow us to develop and live, even though they may, at times, cause us
difficulties.
We can live in society thanks to the effort of all of its members. Each of us has
a function in society, and we are able to live, and even enjoy, thanks to society and its
social, political and cultural institutions. Society works thanks to rules or laws; they are
not merely tools of oppression, punishment or sanction. Thanks to rules we can do
many things, thanks to rules we can be free as rules give us possibilities. Rules (or
laws) can be compared with paths in the jungle; it could be said that it is annoying that
one should go along these previously drawn paths, that they are inhibiting us, but if it
weren’t for those paths we would not be able to reach the other side or move inside the
jungle. To live our lives immediately suggests that we use the paths and rules that are
given to us and that we give ourselves. Imagine what might happen if every day when
we woke up we had to invent the rules that might be useful for that day (from the most
elementary to the most complex)! Surely we would waste a lot of time (and we wouldn't
get anything done), and even moreso if we imagined that the next day we would have
to invent them all over again. Therefore, it is useful, good and very healthy to use the
rules or paths that are at our disposal. And this does not stop us from questioning some
rules, as nothing guarantees that a path is always valid or that there are no alternative
paths.
On the other hand, human coexistence is not always harmonious or friendly.
There are times when conflict arises. It also happens that there are persons who, by
using the freedom and the possibilities that coexistence offers, act for their own benefit
or interest. They are people who want to impose their point of view and their lifestyle.
Imagine, for example, a thief who steals money from a person, or a terrorist group that
wants to impose its criteria on the majority by using weapons and violence. This is
precisely why the existence of rules and laws is necessary, as they do not only attack
this selfish, unsupportive or violent behaviour, but also, and more importantly, they
guarantee everybody's freedom. This is precisely the function of law: to guarantee
everyone's freedom. The lives of citizens cannot do without rules. We can call this "the
normative dimension of civic responsibility".
Social State and Welfare State
The Liberal Rule of Law
After the liberal revolutions of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the rule of law was called "liberal rule of law". This form of political organisation made individual freedoms the centre of democratic citizenship. These are the true freedoms, because public powers have the obligation to guarantee, consolidate and strengthen these individual freedoms as the basis of democratic citizenship.
Social State and Welfare State
After the socialist revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, the rule of law was called "social rule of law". This form of political organisation makes social conditions, material
necessities and economic resources the centre of democratic citizenship. So that fundamental rights were not just formal rights or rights only recognized on a paper, the defenders of the social state proposed equality as the centre of democratic citizenship. The social state did not promote equality of results but it did present equality of opportunities, so that the less capable citizens could participate as equals in public life. This concern for equality produced some new rights called "social rights". Among these we can find the right to education, healthcare and cultural training. The social state not only protected citizens, it also trained them and promoted them in order to encourage their welfare. This is why we can say that we have passed from a social state to a welfare state.
Social and Democratic Rule of Law
The Spanish Constitution was one of the last European constitutions of the 20th century. When it was written it adopted aspects of the liberal and social state. This summary of political traditions is one of the biggest efforts of the constitution because liberal- and socialistinspired traditions can rule from it. A summary that does not refer to the existence of rights and laws but to the recognition of values that are not the property of any political or ideological tradition therefore receive the name of higher values.
After the liberal revolutions of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the rule of law was called "liberal rule of law". This form of political organisation made individual freedoms the centre of democratic citizenship. These are the true freedoms, because public powers have the obligation to guarantee, consolidate and strengthen these individual freedoms as the basis of democratic citizenship.
Social State and Welfare State
After the socialist revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, the rule of law was called "social rule of law". This form of political organisation makes social conditions, material
necessities and economic resources the centre of democratic citizenship. So that fundamental rights were not just formal rights or rights only recognized on a paper, the defenders of the social state proposed equality as the centre of democratic citizenship. The social state did not promote equality of results but it did present equality of opportunities, so that the less capable citizens could participate as equals in public life. This concern for equality produced some new rights called "social rights". Among these we can find the right to education, healthcare and cultural training. The social state not only protected citizens, it also trained them and promoted them in order to encourage their welfare. This is why we can say that we have passed from a social state to a welfare state.
Social and Democratic Rule of Law
The Spanish Constitution was one of the last European constitutions of the 20th century. When it was written it adopted aspects of the liberal and social state. This summary of political traditions is one of the biggest efforts of the constitution because liberal- and socialistinspired traditions can rule from it. A summary that does not refer to the existence of rights and laws but to the recognition of values that are not the property of any political or ideological tradition therefore receive the name of higher values.
From the State of Nature to the Rule of Law
Citizenship and the Rule of Law
From the State of Nature to the Rule of Law
From the 17th century onwards a concept of citizenship was consolidated that has
lasted until today. It is a citizenship we can call "legal" because it is related to the capacity to
submit to laws or the Law and transform both laws and the Law. This double movement of
observance and transformation of laws defines the concept of modern citizenship.
To describe this double movement political philosophers thought it was important to
differentiate between two ways of understanding the organisation of social and political life. On one hand, there is the primitive and gregarious form in which individuals are all in conflict
because they consider each other as wolves (homo homini lupus). This form is called the state of nature and is not the state of civilised and intelligent people. On the other hand, there is an evolved and educated form in which individuals cooperate and are capable of giving way in their ambitions so that everyone can be a part of the project of the city. This form receives the name of rule of law, because the relation between laws and the Law is a criterion to measure the level of civilisation. The state of nature (barbarity) is in complete opposition to the rule of law (civilisation).
The Rule of Law and the Social Contract
This leap from barbarity to civilisation happens when individuals are capable of submitting to the rules of a contract. The citizen is the person who is ready to make this leap and assume the consequences. The rules, norms, laws and values that are treated in this contract form a rule of law.
Citizenship according to Two Modern Philosophers: Locke and Rousseau
J. Locke
Essay on Civil Government
Being men free, equal and independent by nature, none of them can be withdrawn from
this situation and submitted to political power with his consent. This is given by an agreement celebrated with others to meet and integrate in a community destined to offer
them a good, safe and peaceful life together.
Two Treaties of Government
J. J. Rousseau
The Social Contract
This act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic;it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and several are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.
The Social Contract. Or Principles of Political Right
1. Define the following expressions: "State of nature", "rule of law", "social contract".
2. Read Locke and Rosseau's texts carefully. What stands out in each of them? How do they understand political association (contract)?
From the State of Nature to the Rule of Law
From the 17th century onwards a concept of citizenship was consolidated that has
lasted until today. It is a citizenship we can call "legal" because it is related to the capacity to
submit to laws or the Law and transform both laws and the Law. This double movement of
observance and transformation of laws defines the concept of modern citizenship.
To describe this double movement political philosophers thought it was important to
differentiate between two ways of understanding the organisation of social and political life. On one hand, there is the primitive and gregarious form in which individuals are all in conflict
because they consider each other as wolves (homo homini lupus). This form is called the state of nature and is not the state of civilised and intelligent people. On the other hand, there is an evolved and educated form in which individuals cooperate and are capable of giving way in their ambitions so that everyone can be a part of the project of the city. This form receives the name of rule of law, because the relation between laws and the Law is a criterion to measure the level of civilisation. The state of nature (barbarity) is in complete opposition to the rule of law (civilisation).
The Rule of Law and the Social Contract
This leap from barbarity to civilisation happens when individuals are capable of submitting to the rules of a contract. The citizen is the person who is ready to make this leap and assume the consequences. The rules, norms, laws and values that are treated in this contract form a rule of law.
Citizenship according to Two Modern Philosophers: Locke and Rousseau
J. Locke
Essay on Civil Government
Being men free, equal and independent by nature, none of them can be withdrawn from
this situation and submitted to political power with his consent. This is given by an agreement celebrated with others to meet and integrate in a community destined to offer
them a good, safe and peaceful life together.
Two Treaties of Government
J. J. Rousseau
The Social Contract
This act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic;it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and several are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.
The Social Contract. Or Principles of Political Right
1. Define the following expressions: "State of nature", "rule of law", "social contract".
2. Read Locke and Rosseau's texts carefully. What stands out in each of them? How do they understand political association (contract)?
The Historic Conquest of Citizenship
The Historic Conquest of Citizenship
Athens and Ancient Citizenship
The concept of citizenship appeared in Greece in the 5th and 4th centuries before
Christ. It describes the way free individuals, who because of their condition could take
responsibility for the dealing with public matters, participated in city life. These cities were
actually medium-sized towns called polis. This term refers to a city-state, which means, not
only the union of citizens but also the way in which they were organised. Not everyone had the condition of citizen (polites), because women, children and slaves were not considered capable of taking on the responsibility of running the city. The ones who had the condition of citizens were obliged to participate in the running of the city, holding positions in equality and changing positions from time to time.
Rome and the Limits of Laws
Another important moment in the history of citizenship came with the expansion of the
Roman Empire. Rome developed the Greek idea of citizenship and spread it throughout the
Mediterranean. Roman Law developed the procedures for taking part in the life of the Republic and obtaining citizenship. To be a citizen of Rome was a privilege and honour people from other places could achieve if they obeyed the laws of the Empire or the Republic. From the first century before Christ to the third after Christ, the concept of citizenship changed, not only because it spread throughout the Mediterranean, but because it raised a very important problem: could only those who obeyed Roman laws be citizens? Was it possible to have another law, another Republic and another way of being a citizen?
Stoic philosophers like Seneca and Cicero set out an interesting transformation of the concept of the citizen and extended it to individuals capable of submitting to the laws of reason, as if the city in which they had to live was not a real city as had been seen up until then, but rather a "virtual" city in which all human beings could participate.
National Citizenship, Modern Citizenship
This tension between the real citizenship imposed by Rome and the virtual citizenship
in which one took part only by using reason and considering himself to be part of the world,
would mark the birth of the modern concept of citizenship. Apart from this tension between
written and unwritten laws, from the 6th century onwards, the concept of citizenship would be directly related to the new ways of understanding the Republic which, from then on, would receive the name of "nation". Citizenship became national and was limited by the state of belonging to a territory, by the link to a sovereign power and by the achievement of certain benefits in exchange for certain responsibilities. With the appearance of modern nations, sovereignty was the responsibility of the nation as a whole (national sovereignty) or of the people defined as a group formed by all individuals (popular sovereignty).
Athens and Ancient Citizenship
The concept of citizenship appeared in Greece in the 5th and 4th centuries before
Christ. It describes the way free individuals, who because of their condition could take
responsibility for the dealing with public matters, participated in city life. These cities were
actually medium-sized towns called polis. This term refers to a city-state, which means, not
only the union of citizens but also the way in which they were organised. Not everyone had the condition of citizen (polites), because women, children and slaves were not considered capable of taking on the responsibility of running the city. The ones who had the condition of citizens were obliged to participate in the running of the city, holding positions in equality and changing positions from time to time.
Rome and the Limits of Laws
Another important moment in the history of citizenship came with the expansion of the
Roman Empire. Rome developed the Greek idea of citizenship and spread it throughout the
Mediterranean. Roman Law developed the procedures for taking part in the life of the Republic and obtaining citizenship. To be a citizen of Rome was a privilege and honour people from other places could achieve if they obeyed the laws of the Empire or the Republic. From the first century before Christ to the third after Christ, the concept of citizenship changed, not only because it spread throughout the Mediterranean, but because it raised a very important problem: could only those who obeyed Roman laws be citizens? Was it possible to have another law, another Republic and another way of being a citizen?
Stoic philosophers like Seneca and Cicero set out an interesting transformation of the concept of the citizen and extended it to individuals capable of submitting to the laws of reason, as if the city in which they had to live was not a real city as had been seen up until then, but rather a "virtual" city in which all human beings could participate.
National Citizenship, Modern Citizenship
This tension between the real citizenship imposed by Rome and the virtual citizenship
in which one took part only by using reason and considering himself to be part of the world,
would mark the birth of the modern concept of citizenship. Apart from this tension between
written and unwritten laws, from the 6th century onwards, the concept of citizenship would be directly related to the new ways of understanding the Republic which, from then on, would receive the name of "nation". Citizenship became national and was limited by the state of belonging to a territory, by the link to a sovereign power and by the achievement of certain benefits in exchange for certain responsibilities. With the appearance of modern nations, sovereignty was the responsibility of the nation as a whole (national sovereignty) or of the people defined as a group formed by all individuals (popular sovereignty).
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)