Discuss and evaluate whether the state has an obligation to enact laws and support institutions
that make individuals better people.
Approach 1:
Rousseau
Plato/Hobbes
Both agree that the state has an obligation to make individuals better people, however they
fundamentally differ in their opinion of ‘good’ people, thus marking contrasting approaches to their
respective social contract theory.
The question asks us to examine the role of the state and its responsibility for the
development of the individual in becoming a ‘better’ person. First of all, it is necessary to define what
is meant by the term ‘better’, as it lacks a universal definition. In fact, it is precisely the contrasting
conceptions of what it means to be a good person which entail different approaches to the role of the
state. In response to this question I will examine the views expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and
Hobbes, who both agree that the state has an obligation to ensure individuals become better people,
however greatly diverge in what this entails. For Hobbes, being a ‘better’ person implies being
prevented from reverting to our nature, thus the state for him has more of an obligation to ensure our
safety and protection than anything else. Whereas Rousseau would define the term as achieving the
effective balance between our natural compassion and self-interest, which is precisely what we have
in our state of nature. Hence, the state has an obligation to make us better people by helping us
maintain these elements from our state of nature even within a social contract. I will agree with
Rousseau that
Approach 2:
Nozick
Rousseau
The question asks us to examine the role of the state and its responsibility for the
development of the individual in becoming a ‘better’ person. First of all, it is necessary to define what
is meant by the term ‘better’, as it lacks a universal definition. For libertarian philosophers such as
Nozick, being a ‘better’ person means creating a just society wherein all are free to pursue their own
liberty without interfering or interference from others. For Rousseau, on the other hand, a ‘better’
person is one who balances their natural tendencies for compassion and self-interest and can thereby
conceive the General Will, i.e. what is in the interest of the community as a whole. It is precisely the
contrasting conceptions of what it means to be a good person which entail different approaches to the
role of the state. Following Nozick’s argument, a state should protect our individual freedoms and
thus play as minimal a role as possible, whereas Rousseau argues that a state
Evaluate the claim that universal human rights can only exist effectively within a democratic
political system.
Approaches: liberalism and socialism
, The question asks us to consider the relationship between universal human rights and
the liberal system of government: democracy, and the extent to which the two are compatible.
The term universal human right refers to the justified entitlement or claim on others which
applies to all equally and unequivocally. I will firstly examine the liberal approach which
agrees with the claim that human rights can only be realized within a democratic political
system which ensures everyone’s freedom from interference from others. Whereas, secondly,
I will outline the Marxist critique of human rights which rejects the liberal basis they are built
upon due to intrinsic differences in the liberal and socialist definitions of human nature.
Ultimately, I agree with Karl Marx’s conception of humans as naturally cooperative and
social rather than individualist and selfish, and thus believe in different kinds of human rights
which are not compatible with a democratic system.
1. For liberals, a democracy ensures universal human rights as it seeks to ensure
maximum liberty for all in order to prevent interference on our free will.
○ Thus, human rights are created to protect humans from each other and
to maximize individual liberty. For example to free speech, expression,
religion and property.
○ This view is outlined by utilitarian liberal John Stuart MIll, who
believed individual rights were essential for a democratic system to
function.
○ Democracy is the only form of government which considers citizens as
individuals whose autonomy and freedom to make choice is protected.
○ This is because the basis of democracy is the freedom to vote in order
to consent to a legitimate political system which can be considered an
accurate representation of the majority of the population.
○ By inhibiting individual liberty we would be inhibiting the system of
democracy itself, as it would no longer be a consensual legitimate
contract.
○ Thus democracy must protect human rights which are universal and
apply to all in order to exist.
2. Nevertheless, the universal human rights declaration has often been criticized
for its reliance on liberal values and rejection of multicultural approaches to
rights.
○ Rights have been criticized for having a western bias
○ For example, emphasis on secularism and property is a liberal idea
○ Neglects other cultural values
i. Such as asian norms concentrated on ancestry, loyalty to
family, keeping social order and respect for authority
○ Article 17: right to own property
i. Follows liberal values
○ Article 23: male bias, men as the primary bread-winners
i. Does not treat everyone equally as it claims
that make individuals better people.
Approach 1:
Rousseau
Plato/Hobbes
Both agree that the state has an obligation to make individuals better people, however they
fundamentally differ in their opinion of ‘good’ people, thus marking contrasting approaches to their
respective social contract theory.
The question asks us to examine the role of the state and its responsibility for the
development of the individual in becoming a ‘better’ person. First of all, it is necessary to define what
is meant by the term ‘better’, as it lacks a universal definition. In fact, it is precisely the contrasting
conceptions of what it means to be a good person which entail different approaches to the role of the
state. In response to this question I will examine the views expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and
Hobbes, who both agree that the state has an obligation to ensure individuals become better people,
however greatly diverge in what this entails. For Hobbes, being a ‘better’ person implies being
prevented from reverting to our nature, thus the state for him has more of an obligation to ensure our
safety and protection than anything else. Whereas Rousseau would define the term as achieving the
effective balance between our natural compassion and self-interest, which is precisely what we have
in our state of nature. Hence, the state has an obligation to make us better people by helping us
maintain these elements from our state of nature even within a social contract. I will agree with
Rousseau that
Approach 2:
Nozick
Rousseau
The question asks us to examine the role of the state and its responsibility for the
development of the individual in becoming a ‘better’ person. First of all, it is necessary to define what
is meant by the term ‘better’, as it lacks a universal definition. For libertarian philosophers such as
Nozick, being a ‘better’ person means creating a just society wherein all are free to pursue their own
liberty without interfering or interference from others. For Rousseau, on the other hand, a ‘better’
person is one who balances their natural tendencies for compassion and self-interest and can thereby
conceive the General Will, i.e. what is in the interest of the community as a whole. It is precisely the
contrasting conceptions of what it means to be a good person which entail different approaches to the
role of the state. Following Nozick’s argument, a state should protect our individual freedoms and
thus play as minimal a role as possible, whereas Rousseau argues that a state
Evaluate the claim that universal human rights can only exist effectively within a democratic
political system.
Approaches: liberalism and socialism
, The question asks us to consider the relationship between universal human rights and
the liberal system of government: democracy, and the extent to which the two are compatible.
The term universal human right refers to the justified entitlement or claim on others which
applies to all equally and unequivocally. I will firstly examine the liberal approach which
agrees with the claim that human rights can only be realized within a democratic political
system which ensures everyone’s freedom from interference from others. Whereas, secondly,
I will outline the Marxist critique of human rights which rejects the liberal basis they are built
upon due to intrinsic differences in the liberal and socialist definitions of human nature.
Ultimately, I agree with Karl Marx’s conception of humans as naturally cooperative and
social rather than individualist and selfish, and thus believe in different kinds of human rights
which are not compatible with a democratic system.
1. For liberals, a democracy ensures universal human rights as it seeks to ensure
maximum liberty for all in order to prevent interference on our free will.
○ Thus, human rights are created to protect humans from each other and
to maximize individual liberty. For example to free speech, expression,
religion and property.
○ This view is outlined by utilitarian liberal John Stuart MIll, who
believed individual rights were essential for a democratic system to
function.
○ Democracy is the only form of government which considers citizens as
individuals whose autonomy and freedom to make choice is protected.
○ This is because the basis of democracy is the freedom to vote in order
to consent to a legitimate political system which can be considered an
accurate representation of the majority of the population.
○ By inhibiting individual liberty we would be inhibiting the system of
democracy itself, as it would no longer be a consensual legitimate
contract.
○ Thus democracy must protect human rights which are universal and
apply to all in order to exist.
2. Nevertheless, the universal human rights declaration has often been criticized
for its reliance on liberal values and rejection of multicultural approaches to
rights.
○ Rights have been criticized for having a western bias
○ For example, emphasis on secularism and property is a liberal idea
○ Neglects other cultural values
i. Such as asian norms concentrated on ancestry, loyalty to
family, keeping social order and respect for authority
○ Article 17: right to own property
i. Follows liberal values
○ Article 23: male bias, men as the primary bread-winners
i. Does not treat everyone equally as it claims
