Phil Neujahr

Course Description

     The second year of the Oglethorpe Core Curriculum is a two semester sequence of courses which looks at different conceptions of human nature and their implications regarding human social and political organization.  In this first semester we will explore these ideas in selected works of philosophy and political theory in the west from the ancient world to the early Modern period.

     Ancient and medieval thinkers were concerned with the nature of human virtue and human happiness.  In pre-Christian times, Plato and Aristotle took the optimistic view that the purpose of the political state is to produce virtue and happiness in its citizens.  They were therefore interested in the question of what it means to be a good person and what it means to be happy.  (Are inner virtue and inner happiness the same thing?  If not, how are they related?)  The answers to these questions will depend on one’s view of human nature:  Is there a fixed human nature, the same in all human beings, which determines what it is to be a good and happy person?  What is required, in the way of material possessions or relations with other persons or anything else, for a person to be virtuous and happy?  Is human well-being such that everyone in a society can be happy, or does the happiness of some people require the unhappiness, or at least the lesser happiness, of others?  If not everyone can be happy, what should determine who is able to lead a happy life and who is not?  Should the political state try simply to create the greatest total quantity of happiness among its members, or are there standards of justice which the state must look to in deciding which kind of society or form of government produces an equitable distribution of happiness?

     Of the Christian thinkers in this course, Augustine, like Aristotle, is interested in these questions regarding virtue and happiness, but he is much less optimistic than Aristotle  about the capacity of the political state to produce either of these states in human beings.  Aquinas, as a Christian follower (partly) of Aristotle, believes in a cooperation between the political state and the Church to give the people in the state earthly happiness and earthly virtue, and eventually eternal salvation.

     With Thomas Hobbes we enter the early Modern period.  The political theories of Hobbes and of John Locke (especially Locke) underlie the modern liberal state.  Here the purpose of the state is not to produce virtue and happiness in its citizens, but is mainly to provide security from external and internal threats so that each citizen can pursue his or her own well being, either as an individual or as a member of some larger organization.  In such a state each person is free to decide what it means to be virtuous and what it means to be happy, and can then engage in his/her own project of seeking goodness and happiness.  From ancient political thought through the theories of Locke, we thus have “the incredible shrinking State” regarding the expectation of what the political state is supposed to do for its citizens.         

     A secondary theme of this course, which is dealt with by all of the thinkers whom we will study, is the institution of slavery.  In slavery it would seem that the happiness of some people (the slaves) is diminished so as to increase the happiness of others (the owners).  Virtually all of the thinkers from ancient times through the beginning of the Modern period defended or at least condoned, with whatever qualifications, the ownership of other human beings as property.  Slavery in the Western world is an interesting topic in its own right, and the study of the various arguments regarding slavery will help us with the broader topics of human happiness and social justice, and the question of whether the state should be a moral force in the lives of its people.

     We will begin the course by reading a portion of Book II of Plato’s Republic.  Here one of the characters in the dialogue, Glaucon, presents his famous “praise of injustice”.  Glaucon argues that the happiest human life would be that of the successful sociopath.  According to this view, if I could violate both the formal laws and the unwritten rules of society and get away with it, so that everyone behaved “justly” toward me but I behaved “unjustly” toward everyone else, I would be the happiest of men.  I would have all of the benefits of living in a society with none of the burdens.  Glaucon’s portrait of the totally successful and blissfully happy criminal will lead us into our study of the thinkers whom we will look at in some detail in this course.  The view of human nature and human happiness which each thinker puts forward can be measured against Glaucon’s picture of the amoral and (therefore) totally happy person.  With each thinker we can ask, “According to Aristotle (or Augustine, etc.), is Glaucon right?  Would such a life indeed be the happiest one which we can imagine?”

     The main thinkers whom we will study in this course are:

Aristotle

      In his moral and political philosophy Aristotle presents a remarkably systematic and coherent vision of human happiness and the individual and common good. In the Ethics he presents his vision of “the good for man,” and in the Politics he considers the kind of state in which this end can be best attained.  He also presents the most thoughtful defense of slavery which is to be found in ancient writings.  We will study Aristotle as a representative of pre-Christian Western thought and as a basis for comparison with subsequent thinkers.

St. Augustine

     We will consider the views of Augustine, expressed mostly in his City of God, as the

first serious Christian response to the question of human earthly good and how best to realize it in social and political institutions.  In the world of Augustine, unlike that of Aristotle, the Church and the Roman state existed as distinct institutions.  In Augustine’s view the Church is ultimately responsible for human happiness, and so Augustine sees a reduced role for the earthly political state.  The topics which Augustine  is forced  to address include the proper relation of Church and state and also the question of religious freedom.

St. Thomas

      Thomas Aquinas attempts in his writings to construct a systematic Christian world view upon the framework of Aristotle’s philosophy.  By Aquinas’ day, twelve hundred years after the beginning of Christianity and eight hundred years after St. Augustine, it was clear that the earthly state was not going to disappear as soon as earlier Christians had believed it would, so more sustained thought had to be given to the question of how, from a Christian perspective, the earthly state should be structured and should operate.  So in contrast to the piecemeal approach of Augustine, St. Thomas works to develop a complete and coherent Christian theory of society and the state.  Aquinas accepts the institution of slavery, as Augustine does, but expresses some reservations about it based on Christian principles.

Hobbes

      The Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes contains the first attempt at a scientific view of human nature and human motivation and presents the first non-Christian theory of the state after Aristotle.  Holding a rather gloomy picture of the human condition, Hobbes argues that given the way individual human beings are, the only two possible conditions of human society are total anarchy (“the war of all against all”) or absolute rule by a monarch.  The Hobbesian philosophy, supposedly based upon the science of Galileo, is the first Western argument that all of the power in a political state must be concentrated in a single ruler.

Locke

      The last thinker whom we will study in this course is John Locke, whose political philosophy is expressed in his Second Treatise of Government.  Locke reacts strongly against the views of Hobbes and argues against Hobbes’ defense of absolute monarchy.  Locke, by contrast, has a more robust conception of individual rights, especially property rights.  Locke’s political philosophy is not “Christian” per se, but it does have a clear religious basis, unlike the political theory of Hobbes.  Although Locke does defend a very specific (and unlikely) form of slavery under certain circumstances, his overall philosophy clearly implies that the sort of slavery which existed in pre-Civil War America is morally indefensible.  Locke’s arguments entered in, awkwardly, to the beginning of the American experiment in democracy.

Books Required:

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics; trans. by Terence Irwin.  (Hackett Press.)

Aristotle, Politics; trans. by Carnes Lord.  (University of Chicago Press.)

St. Augustine, Political Writings; edited and trans. by Michael W. Tkacz and Douglas Kries.  (Hackett Press.)

St. Thomas, On Law, Morality, and Politics; edited by William P. Baumgarth and Richard J. Regan, S.J.  (Hackett Press.)

Hobbes, Leviathan; edited by Edwin Curley.  (Hackett Press.)

Locke, Second Treatise of Government; edited by C.B. Macpherson.  (Hackett Press.)

Schedule of Topics:

Wks 1-4 – Aristotle (Exam)

Wks 5-6 – St. Augustine

Wks 7-8 – St. Thomas (Exam)

Wks 9-11 – Hobbes

Wks 12-14 – Locke  (Final Exam)

Grading:

     There will be two exams during the semester, each of which will count approximately 15% of your grade in the course, plus a final exam which will count approximately 20% of your course grade.  In addition, there will be about fifteen pages of writing, in the form of three short papers.  The papers together will count about 30% of your course grade.  In addition, I plan to give lots of quizzes during the semester, nearly one per class period, which will total perhaps 20% of your course grade.  In addition, I may employ a “fudge factor” which will take into account attendance, class participation, and improvement in the course.

     This course will adhere to the present OU policy regarding the grade of Incomplete.

Attendance:

     You should plan to attend every class session.  Of the forty-two class periods (not counting exam days) you are allowed to miss eight with no grade penalty.  After the eighth absence, unless you have some enormously persuasive justification, your course grade will go down by one third of a letter grade with each successive absence.  Twelve or more absences will result in a grade of FA in the course. I also appreciate it when students show up on time.  Three “lates” will count as one absence.

This course will adhere to the OU Honor Code.