In the public sheare ones private obligations to freedom should not come before ones duty to the public; if one does not give up some of their freedom one will find them self in an immoral society.

Thesis

Morality comes from the freedom to act on social responsibilities and therefore only exists in the public sphere because there are no responsibilities in the private sphere.

Freedom can only extend so far as choosing between a series of responsibilities, whether in a public atmosphere where rule dictates an individual’s rights or in a private sphere where we maintain responsibilities we must fulfill to ourselves, while there is room for more theoretical freedom in one’s private realm.

The political society which promotes privacy and requires the least responsibility of an individual to that society provides him with the most freedom to achieve his own personal desires; in turn he must act in accordance with his own moral compass to maintain the fluidity and stability of society while achieving his personal goals.

Freedom comes at a price; it requires responsibility. There can be no individual autonomy without an obligation to others.

In the public sphere, a person has an obligation to exemplify the essence of a society, but in the private sphere, that same person has the freedom to exercise his own truth, provided it doesn't harm others.

Man motivated by self-interest can never truly be free because his welfare is paradoxically dependent on other individuals, which entails a moral and practical imperative not to harm them. He must relinquish his personal freedom in exchange for the universal protection of others’ best interests, and therefore his own.

An individual’s freedom can never fully encompass their private or public life because at any given time, a person has responsibilities to the oikos, the public realm, or both.

thesis

You have a duty to be a moral person in the public sphere, but you have the freedom to do what you want in the private sphere as long as it does not harm yourself or others.

private= your own property
public= anyone elses property
moral person= following Kants catagorical imperative
duty= responsability

and no- hannah and I did not do this together. go ahead and laugh.

In a just and moral society, individuals have a duty to promote freedom in the public sphere and a duty to use their freedom in the private sphere. Duty is not the polar opposite of freedom but rather a vehicle for its expansion.

Hannah's Thesis

In the public sphere (everywhere but your own property) one has a duty to abide by agreed upon societal laws, but in the private sphere (your own property) one has greater personal freedom, even to one's own detriment, provided no other is being harmed.

In order to avoid chaos within a society, individuals must assume responsibility and make sacrifices; the individual's motivation to support their society comes from also having the freedom to act of their own will, as long as that will is not detrimental to the public.

To gain ultimate freedom, individuals must temporarily refute their responsibilities, pushing these duties into either the private or public realm; however, because individuals live in communities with universal morals and laws, they are inevitably responsible, making it impossible to be completely free.

Assignment #5 and a Paper Topic

Paper Topic I:

What is the relationship between responsibility and freedom and how does that relate to the public and the private? Use the readings to support your argument.

You must cite at least three of the authors in the Senior Seminar reading packet. Feel free to also include Plato and/or Locke.

4 - 5 pages, due on Wednesday, October 8th in class (in your folders).

For the blog post:
EVERYONE in each group must post a one sentence thesis statement for this paper to the blog by 9pm on Monday night (9/29).
Group discussion on Tuesday will center around your individual arguments and the paper topic in general.

More vs Machiavelli

During a time of conflict and turmoil in sixteenth-century Europe, both Niccolò Machiavelli and Sir Thomas More provided competing definitions of what constitutes the ideal individual. While Machiavelli emphasized the idea of the individual within the secrecies of the private domain, More leaned toward the notion of the individual as a part of the conforming mass of the public society.
Machiavelli assumes at base that people are not inherently good. For humans innately place their self-interests ahead of the benefit of the public. As a result of this assumption, Machiavelli dismisses the notion of an imaginary world and replaces it, in contrast, with things as they truly are. He writes, “For the gap between how people actually behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself” (The Prince 48). Machiavelli takes a pragmatic view of the private individual. He is someone whose first priority is self-preservation and to maintain power at all cost. More, in contrast, sees the public individual as someone who must think of the good of the whole. Rather than recognizing one’s flaws as self-centered, More believes in an idealistic society where everyone is entirely good-natured. He seems to share this belief with Plato. He values the essence of a pure soul, where people learn things the hard way-- in true experience that benefits the public good. More talks of how the king, “had spent the rest of his life in the public service, learning wisdom the hard way, by having to cope with a long series of crises. And what one learns like that isn’t easily forgotten” (Utopia 43). He believes in the idea of a unified public, where the benefit of the whole is imperative among each individual.
In relation to More’s idea of the public individual, he also states his belief on the ideal individual, someone whom seeks peace and generosity for the good of humanity. He talks of the unfairness of personal benefit and the importance of maintaining a productive public interest. In More’s Utopia he speaks of war as the very antithesis of peace, a sort of tool that destroys the good of the society. When Raphael is talking to the Cardinal, he states, “I don’t see how it can possibly be in the public interest to prepare for a war, which you needn’t have unless you want to, by maintaining innumerable disturbers of the peace-- when peace is so indefinitely more important” (Utopia 46). More emphasizes the importance of preserving the public as opposed to the individual. He identifies self-interest as the chief means by which societies become dissolute. Thieves would not need to steal if resources were shared more equally. In stark contrast, Machiavelli talks of the idea of the individual as someone whose top priority is always personal well being, taking care of number one--before the well being of humanity. He believes that using force in order to maintain power and control is appropriate, even when society may not agree with one’s actions: “So we see a ruler cannot seek to benefit from a reputation as generous without harming himself. For, as time goes by, he will be thought of as growing ever more generous, for people will recognize that as a result of his parsimony he is able to live on his income, maintain an adequate army, and undertake new initiatives” (The Prince 49). Machiavelli places a large emphasis on private interest, with the notion that having the power to control society will in the long run benefit the whole of the public.

The Ideals of Machiavelli and More

Machiavelli and More approach the task of evaluating and constructing man’s ideal with the guidance of vastly different philosophies in their respective works, The Prince and Utopia. The simple basis of Machiavelli and More’s views rest on fundamentally contradictory perspectives. Machiavelli dismisses Plato’s world of human ideals on the grounds that they are impossible to achieve. Instead, he insists that because we live in a real world, and thus plausible idealism cannot be founded on a world of the Gods or “ultimate truth”, we must base drive on the reality of man’s nature and past failures or successes. He stands by the notion that no formerly indicated sense of ideal, (defining ideal for the sake of this analysis as the pinnacle society towards which we ought to strive), is useful in the sense that they do not concur with “how things are in real life”, (p.48) and that we must create an ideal world with rationality in mind. More, on the other hand, advocates a naivety on the part of people, and their means of direction through necessity that frees them from blame for their actions.

Listing a number of virtues or behaviors that in past works had at that point been considered good and ideal for a leader to sustain, like honesty, gentleness, generosity, etc, Machiavelli argues that truly these traits are destructive to the general order of a society. He say that “the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an idea will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself”. (p. 48) This speaks widely to Machiavelli’s distrust of human instinct and it’s true righteousness. Furthermore, he makes the case that these amiable qualities are unsustainable, taking for instance the concept of generosity. “The more generous you are, the less you are able to be generous.” (p.50) Machiavelli claims that, while subjects may first be appreciative of a leader’s good will, this in turn becomes something that instigates hatred and subsequent disorder.

To Machiavelli, the common man’s realistic and less- than- favorable nature molds and corrupts society to the point where genuine purity of character in a leader is often detrimental to the society as a whole. He portrays the classic sense of ideals and goodness as folly to the ability of a culture to move forward with any strength. Instead, it is the appearance of these traits that furthers an individual, implying gullibility on the part of common and wholly self- interested citizens. “The common man accepts external appearances and judges by the outcome,” (p 55) and that “men judge more by sight than by touch” (p. 55), saying in many ways that to Machiavelli’s “common man” the notion that the ends justify the means, or rather the outcome has the power to blind people to the actions taken to achieve the final result, is generally accepted.

More has a further traditionally idealist approximation of the “common man”. He maintains that “goodness” is still something greater than a matter of appearances, measured by more than sustaining a position of power, and can be found in a society as the entity he paints it. Using the example of the thief, More realizes that thieves are made out of neglected necessity, not born of mal-intentions. He insists through the Cardinal in his story that man’s actions are not evaluative, and cannot inspire accurate judgment of his character, but more exactly of flaws in the unique system of government. In More’s writing he displays an affinity for and respect of those who demonstrate “wisdom and moral character”.

Machiavelli critiques society as something corrupt only to the point of profit, and as the product of it’s people who fully determine the path of the government. They make vital the use of deceit to instill overarching peace and order. Machiavelli holds that the people compose their government and society, and map out its course. More considers a different reasoning, having respect for idealistically admirable qualities in any person or body of people. He believes in the idea that people are purely a consequence, good or bad, or their surroundings, asserting that society and its faults push individuals to find and associate with the characteristics that we deem corrupt. Finally, he claims, people are most significantly a product of their civilization.

Machiavelli vs. More

Machiavelli thinks of humans as naturally having corrupt impulses; that their number one concern is for themselves. He thinks that people will break bonds of love in order to protect their own interests; that people only care about their private lives. In contrast, More thinks that individuals want to be good at heart, and that they try to put the public good before their own. He thinks that people are not out to corrupt the public state, and they only resort do harm to society when it is necessary for survival.
Machiavelli came to the conclusion that it was better to be feared than to be loved, because men only support those who they are intimidated by, and the kind hearted can be easily used and then forgotten. He proves this by an assumption that men are bad and selfish, that nobody cares about making true friendships and being generous, they only care about personal gain. Machiavelli thinks that the kind men will end up being rejected and friendless because when times get rough they will be deserted, “since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake” (Machiavelli 52). He thinks that men always put themselves first over their society; and that makes them wicked because they do not care about true friendship, generosity, or the feelings of others, they only care about their private needs.
More thinks that individuals do not want to harm their society; they will only do harm out of necessity. More shows this through the problem of theft in many European countries; the government has thieves everywhere and kills them off as best they can, but it doesn’t deter the others or stop crime. More thinks that it would be a better approach to fix the social cause of the crime rather than killing off individuals. He thinks that people steal because there are not enough jobs, leaving starving homeless left with no choice but to steal for survival. He describes his solution simply; “instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody’s under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief and then a corpse” (More 44). The lawyer who More is conversing with disagrees, “they could easily earn an honest living if they wanted to, but they deliberately choose to be criminals” (More 44). More rebuts this, showing that he doesn’t think people are naturally criminals who steal for pleasure or because it is easier than working, he thinks it is because they have to in order to survive. This disagrees with Machiavelli’s belief that all men are inherently wicked and that everyone would ditch their friends and the public good for his private needs. If More believed that he would agree with the lawyer and agree that all thieves deserved the death penalty and he would see the problem as each individual rather than the society as a whole. More’s view is that people don’t act according to their private needs unless it is a matter of life or death; that people don’t want to harm society.

Machiavelli & More

Contrary to the tendencies of many philosophers to describe ideals of what ‘ought to be’, Machiavelli sets out to present his own advice on leadership and citizenship through the lens of supposed reality. The Prince is written upon the foundation of perhaps Machiavelli’s most basic assumption of reality: essentially, that “men are wicked” and therefore are always inclined to act out of their own personal desires.  This also means that acting purely good, politically or publicly, will not be beneficial for an individual who wishes to attain or sustain power. 

Machiavelli subsequently contends that a ruler must be willing to harm individual citizens when necessary in order to ultimately help and preserve the state.  Here, More seems to primarily differ from Machiavelli in his opinion of the duty of the state and the individual.  More sees the state responsible for creating a system and a society that fulfills the needs of its citizens; in a sense, it’s the duty of the state to satisfy it’s subjects’ private realms.  This also implies that unlike Machiavelli, More sees people as essentially good, and he is willing to trust them to do the right thing when granted a privilege.  Machiavelli would likely reply that this system lacks a fear of authority, a component essential to preserving the state because people will only act out of their own private interests unless compelled by fear to do otherwise.  Yet, even further, More’s example of the recurring theft problem insists that people will inevitably keep bringing their private desires into the public sphere if the need is strong enough.

Machiavelli also makes distinctions betweens the public and private responsibilities and personas of the rulers in his society. For example, Machiavelli argues that acting purely generous or compassionate will eventually cause a leader to be “hated and despised” by his subjects due to the long-term repercussions and consequent policies his actions will necessitate.  A ruler must only actually possess these ‘favorable’ qualities in moderation, so that eventually, his actions will contribute to the preservation of a stable state.  In order to stay in power, however, the ruler must appear to be in constant possession of these qualities and have a reputation for them, although he should not actually fully embody them.

Through this reasoning, Machiavelli seems to imply that the rulers have some kind of moral superiority over their subjects; they are able to see what will ultimately preserve the state and function to the peoples’ overall benefit even when the public itself cannot.  Subsequently, this very inability of the general public means rulers must carefully manipulate their public reputation to satisfy their subjects and avoid rebellion.  While More’s society may be able to organize itself around moral, commonly held ideals, Machiavelli sees the need for the ruler to address the realistic and pragmatic aspects of preserving a stable society and preventing chaos; while in More’s Utopia, the individual becomes part of a larger, conforming mass – and arguably loses some of their freedom due to their responsibilities to hold up the state – Machiavelli presents a society where citizens are forced to conform by their ruler.

More’s society presents a place where the private lives of individuals are meant to be kept private, in a place of necessity, and the state should facilitate an environment where this necessity should not have to be brought into the social realm. It is only then that problems arise, such as unemployment and theft.  Conversely, Machiavelli attempts to demonstrate that the only functional possibility would be a more transparent society, where the state has more control over the private lives of the citizens, and the rulers remain behind a veil of secrecy.

 

 

Assignment #4

For all:
Review the details and impact of the USA PATRIOT ACT (yes, it is an acronym). Find information at the Library of Congress website:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:

To think about:
How does this vision/reality of national security relate to Machiavelli and ideas of privacy as articulated in Griswold among other places. What assumptions does the PATRIOT ACT make about government secrecy?

To write in the blog post:
Compare and contrast Machiavelli with More: What are they saying about the ideal of the individual? How does this vision of the individual relate to the balance between the public and the private?

Your group discussion should cover both of these topics.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

William Baird, a professor at Boston University, was arrested and charged with distributing a contraceptive, specifically Emko Vaginal Foam, at the end of one of his lectures. Massachusetts law states that only licensed doctors can distribute contraceptives to married persons; only married persons may receive contraceptives. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to strike down the Massachusetts law. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Stewart and Justice Marshall, wrote the Opinion of the Court, while Justice White (joined by Justice Blackmun) and Justice Douglas each offered concurring opinions. Chief Justice Burger was the lone dissenter and Justices Rehnquist and Powell took no part in the decision.

In a stark contrast to Griswold v. Connecticut, which was just seven years earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to shrink away from the issue of privacy. While the Griswold case was full of broad and bold language about privacy rights, Eisenstadt v. Baird barely touches on it. In a case that can clearly be seen as an issue about our fundamental rights to privacy, the Justices seem to actually try and avoid the subject. There is no talk of “zones of privacy” or “constitutional guarantees” (Douglas, J. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Opinion of the Court). Instead the Justices look to technicalities and lack of evidence to make their decision.

In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Brennan seems to intentionally not address the issue of privacy. Instead, he takes the low road and uses the Fourteenth Amendment and it’s “equal protection” clause. He argues that single and married persons deserve equal protection under the law. He doesn’t use phrases like “fundamental personal rights” or “personal liberties” (Goldberg, J. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, concurring). Instead, his argument is simple and pragmatic: “whatever the rights of the individual to access to contraceptives may be, the rights must be the same for the unmarried and the married alike” (Brennan, J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, Opinion of the Court). Brennan’s argument is a seemingly simple and easy way to get out of having to deal with the burden of the penumbra of privacy issues.

In the other opinions the justices also avoid the issue of privacy rights. Even in Chief Justice Burger’s dissenting opinion he makes it perfectly clear that he is not going to deal with privacy rights. He just flat out says: “To my mind, the validity of this restriction on dispensing medicinal substances is the only issue before the Court” (Burger, C.J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, dissenting). Justice Douglas, who offers a concurring opinion, goes into a tangent about Baird’s First Amendment rights and the difference between “speech” and “conduct.” He also seems to try to dismiss Baird’s act of handing out contraceptives as just the utilization of a visual aid.

Justice White perhaps comes the closest to taking on the issue of privacy rights, but he takes a different angle. He approaches Eisenstadt v. Baird as a case dealing with public health vs. constitutional right to use contraceptives. Even here, where Justice White might have been tempted to use bold language, he manages to keep his statements focused and specific, leaving hardly any room for interpretation. He simply states that while the case may be different if the contraceptive required a prescription or was proven harmful, the Massachusetts law is not valid, given that Emko Vaginal Foam was not proven dangerous. For just a brief second, Justice White uses language that is remotely similar to that of Griswold when he says that: “to sanction a medical restriction upon distribution of a contraceptive not proved hazardous to health would impair the exercise of [a] constitutional right” (White, J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, concurring). White does not continue this train of thought, however, and simply moves on with another argument that does not expand into grand notions of public and private.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

In the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, police enter the home of John Lawrence in response to a weapons disturbance. Upon entering the house, the police found Lawrence and another man, Garner, engaged in a sexual act. The two men were in violation of a Texas law forbidding sexual conduct between two people of the same sex. Lawrence and Garner were taken to jail to spend the night, and when released each had to pay a fine. The men challenged the Texas statute, saying that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected their privacy. The Supreme Court was challenged to look back on the Bowers v. Hardwick case where it ruled that one’s sexual conduct privacy was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Kennedy delivered the Opinion of the Court, explaining that the “the petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was private and consensual” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court). The question then becomes whether the men are free to “engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court). This case didn’t just focus on the private rights of an individual because the law makers are ultimately complaining that sodomy is unnecessary because it is nonprocreative act. Two heterosexual people, however, even those who are married, can also engage in sexual acts with no intention of procreation. In his Opinion Kennedy notes that it is not fair for the government to dictate every aspect of the private sphere, making it no longer private, but public.
As argued in the Griswold Opinion of the Court, the Bill of Rights protects a person’s privacy in his/her own home. The police entered Lawrence’s private space and caught him with Garner. Not only is the act of sexual conduct private, but so is one’s sexual orientation. Justice Kennedy points out several times that there is a long history of laws against homosexual behavior, and never before, have the laws been enforced if the acts were consensual. In the end Kennedy notes that deciding the case based on the private/public realms becomes too difficult. He steps around the Griswold v. Connecticut case by basing his opinion in the right to liberty stated in the Constitution. He then argues the case on the basis of individual liberty. Do the men in this case have a right to the liberty and freedom to take part in a harmless act within the privacy of one’s own home? The Court states that it is unfair to create laws about a behavior just because the subject makes some people uncomfortable. They decide in favor of the men because the case involved two adults who gave full consent “their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court).

(Written by Siobhan... not Ben)

Privacy in Bowers v. Hardwick

Does the constitution give a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, despite state laws against it? Who has the authority to decide what our fundamental rights are? To what extent do private acts effect the public sphere? These were among the many questions raised by the 1986 Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick.

Michael Hardwick was charged in 1982 with violating a Georgia law that criminalized sodomy. After his claim was dismissed by the Federal District Court, he brought suit to the Court of Appeals. The court, citing the precedent of Griswold v. Connecticut and other Supreme Court cases, ruled that the Georgia statute infringed on Hardwick’s fundamental rights because his homosexual activity was a “private and intimate association that is beyond the reach of state regulation by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, White, J, opinion of the court). Georgia’s Attorney General then appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided that the right to privacy that previous Supreme Court cases had pulled from the constitution did not extend to homosexual sodomy, and therefore could be outlawed by states. As Justice White said in the opinion of the court, “None of the rights announced in those cases bears any resemblance to the claimed constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy … No connection between family, marriage, or procreation, on the one hand, and homosexual activity, on the other, has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or by respondent. Moreover, any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, White, J, opinion of the court).

Justice White also stated that the judiciary should act to protect rights from the penumbra of rights only when those rights are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (Palko v. Connecticut) or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” (Griswold v. Connecticut). The majority believed that sodomy did not meet either standard and that forbidding states to outlaw it would overstep their constitutional authority.

Hardwick argued that the law should be different when the homosexual conduct occurred in private. The court, however, ruled that the asserted right to sodomy did not have a similar grounding in the constitution, and that saying it was ok to do in private would open the door to arguments that adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes were justifiable if committed in private.

Georgia’s Attorney General stated that sodomy would have serious negative effects for the public, such as spreading disease or fostering other illegal activity. To strike down Georgia’s statute, he believed, would interfere with the right of the government to maintain a decent society. In contrast, Justice Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opinion that the “Petitioner and the court fail to see the difference between laws that protect public sensibilities and those that enforce private morality.” He went on to say that the fact that the sodomy occurred in private does affect the result, writing that “the same recognition that those decisions are intensely private which justifies protecting them from governmental interference can justify protection individuals from unwilling exposure to the sexual activities of others” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, Blackmun, J, dissenting opinion).

Blackmun believed that the judiciary should protect Hardwick and other’s right to privacy because “individuals define themselves in a significant way through their intimate sexual relationships with others … the court claims that its decision today merely refuses to recognize a fundamental right to engages in homosexual sodomy; what the court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations with others” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, Blackmun, J, dissenting opinion).

Roe v Wade extends Griswold

The case Roe v Wade is widely known through out the United States. It was this case that gave women the right to legal and safe abortion. In this case, the Supreme Court uses the Fourteenth Amendment to affirm these private rights.

The facts of the case were as follows: a single unmarried women, Jane Roe, sued the state of Texas. She was unable to obtain a legal abortion in state because her life was not threatened by the pregnancy and she didn't have any money to travel to a state where abortion was legal. She was joined in the case by a physician and a married couple, but the case's main concern was Roe, who sued “on behalf of herself and all other women”.

Writing for the Majority, in his opinion Justice Blackmun makes it clear that privacy is a central question in this case. From the beginning of the opinion, he states that privacy extends to a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. The opinion says that her decision in a complicated matter, involving mental and physical heath, family, other children, and social stigma. This is a decision that is best determined by a women and her physician.

Next, Justice Blackmun examines the argument that a woman's privacy in this matter is absolute--that she should be able to terminate her pregnancy whenever, however, and for whatever reason she chooses. And further, the state has no right to interfere. He does not agree with this absolute position. The rest of his argument lays out the limitations of this policy. This limitations are put into place because a pregnant woman carries potential life. This potential life eventually passes from nothing more than a group of cells to become a human with his/her own private rights. It's this tension between the rights of the mother and the growing potential life that has stirred up all the controversy about abortion. In this controversy, the Court finds the middle ground: a women has the right of privacy, but this right is subject to some limitations. The State has some ability to impose medical restrictions and other standards protecting prenatal life. As a practical matter, this decision legalized abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and allowed states to impose limits on late term abortion. This is a balance of privacy between the mother and the right of the public to protect new life.

The Griswold case is cited in Roe v Wade as a basis for the decision. Specifically, Justice Blackmun notes the fundamental right to privacy involving activities related to marriage, procreation, and contraception. Griswold set up private rights extending to the sanctity of marriage. Roe v Wade takes this argument on step further. Not only is privacy protected within a family unit, but it is extended to pregnant women and protects their choices in early stages of pregnancy. In this way, Roe v Wade builds upon the penumbra of rights set out in Griswold.

Assignment #3

Each group is assigned a different landmark privacy case of the Supreme Court:
Dru, Susannah, Will -- Roe v. Wade (1973)
Georgia, Philip, Kirsten -- Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Samantha, Madeline, Tristan -- Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Hannah, Siobhan, Ben, Erin -- Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Research your case. Go to www.oyez.org to find summaries of each case. When you are on the page for your case, click on the "Written Opinion" link (under media). At least read the Opinion of the Court.

The post (but others in each group should be thinking about their own answers to these questions as they read the case):
Comment on the specific details of your case. What assumptions about privacy are being made here? Where in your case does "privacy" become an issue? In what ways does your case build (or detract) from the penumbra of rights that create a zone of privacy as outlined in the Opinion of the Court in Griswold? (Or, does your case view privacy in a fashion more in line with a concurring or dissenting opinion from Griswold?)

Plato and Locke's approaches to political society

Plato and John Locke represent diverse views on political society in their respective works, The Republic and The Second Treatise on Government. While Plato creates an ideal society in which individuals surrender their private rights to help the public good, Locke proposes the idea of government as an institution that maximizes private rights.
Locke theorizes that although men have often lived in a state of nature, without government, they are inclined to form societies and governments to supplement the needs and desires that they cannot achieve by themselves. “[W]e are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others; this was the cause of men’s uniting themselves at first in politic societies” (Locke 7). From this, Locke introduces the idea of personal property, the foundation of his society. “The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his” (Locke 13). By using his own labor, an individual removes something from the state of nature and makes it rightfully his own private property. Locke believes that the primary reason that men join governments is for the security of their own private property. In exchange for the protection of property from the government, individuals sacrifice some of their natural rights and are obligated to do their part to uphold the society. Individuals are inclined to join society to achieve the things that they cannot provide for themselves, mainly the preservation of private property.
Private property is a critical component to Locke’s ideal society. He does though place limits on the extent to which private property can be had. Locke opposes private property when it is allowed to spoil or when so much is attained that none is left for the common good. Locke creates a government with an eye towards maintaining and expanding the private sphere.
While Locke sees private property as a pivotal asset to maintaining society, Plato discourages privatization. Plato instead founds his ideal society in achieving the higher truth beyond our own reality. He articulates this in his passage describing the journey out of the cave in Book 7. Our soul is a fragile balance between reason and passion, some favoring reason over virtue or vice versa. Oftentimes individuals get caught up in their own passionate, private desires and cease to search for the higher truth. In Plato’s ideal society, individuals overcome their personal desires and work collectively to achieve the greater good.
Locke and Plato have different foundations for their societies. Locke favors private property while Plato focuses on the achievement of the higher truth. Locke minimizes the role of the public, expecting citizens to act with reason and integrity to maintain an effective society. Plato, in contrast to Locke, believes in the expansion of the public sphere under the reign of a just leader, a “philosopher-king”. There are many forms of government (i.e. tyranny) that both Locke and Plato don’t trust to rule their society. While the two authors have different final goals for their societies, they are both approaching society with a righteous mind and good intentions. To achieve these ultimate goals, in turn, the citizens are obligated to society to do their part to maintain a just society.

Locke, Plato, and Political Society

When comparing both philosophers’ conceptions of political society, it is evident that Plato is primarily concerned with the public sphere as the primary – if not only – factor to the society as whole, while Locke considers the importance of the private sphere in addition to that of the public sphere so long as the two do not clash. Plato uses the farfetched analogy of a perfect utopia to define what he believes to be a seamless political society in which every citizen must devote their best talent for the public benefit of the common people. Every citizen is working for the good of the society as a whole, which is the only way Plato believes the individual can succeed. Only the specific job that applies to each laborer is all that remains of Plato’s citizens’ private spheres, and even this is for the benefit of the public sphere of the entire political society. In short, the biggest difference is that Plato is concerned with the overall function of the political society with no intent – or even effort – to care for the private lives of the individuals that comprise the society, while Locke makes substantial effort to make clear that his ideal intentions for a political society include the well-being of the individual so long as the functional condition of the public is not sacrificed.
When considering the root of the formation of government, each philosopher has a very different opinion as to the origin of the governing body. Plato argues that the purpose of government is to guide the citizens within its reach towards a better future by any means necessary. The government’s only obligation to ensure that the town, city, or empire under its control is the best that it can be, and in achieving this goal, the private must be sacrificed for the public, and never the other way around.
Locke, on the other hand, believes that “…law, in it’s true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law” (Locke, 33). Locke sees the source of government as the communal desire to protect what each citizen calls his own, or what he refers to as ‘proper interest’ in this sentence. And while Plato’s civil government has no other responsibilities other than to ensure what is best for the public - or in Locke’s case, the private – Locke adds that it is the government’s responsibility to stay separated from the private and public spheres of the people until they (either the citizens, or the spheres) clash with one another. Plato’s ideal government is a controlling structure, while Locke’s government serves as a set of rules to protect the private individual, and mediate the public for the good of the people. Each citizen’s primary concern is to do what is best for their private self, but the limit to which they can care for themselves is clear; once one citizen disadvantages another citizen under the same government, they have violated not only the law of the government, but the law of Nature as well. One cannot rightly claim what exceeds his own necessity and/or puts another at a disadvantage.
One thing that Locke and Plato have in common is the idea that when a citizen is born into a political society, they are bound to it until death, or until the government dissolves. In both cases, leaving the government is punishable by death.

Locke and Plato: Political Society/Private Property

John Locke and Plato both tried to imagine and build the most functional society possible. Each believed that the government in the best society had a specific goal, for Locke it was to protect the property of its people, and for Plato it was to do whatever possible in order to preserve the public good. In order for this goal to be achieved, to Locke, the people had to have the maximum involvement in the way in which they were governed – a democracy. He thought it would be impossible for one man to be able to rule a society unselfishly, “I desire to know what kind of government that is…where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to any one question or control those who execute his pleasure” (Locke ch. 2, *13). Plato’s government leaned more towards a monarch, where there was one or few “philosopher kings” who had the utmost knowledge of what is right and wrong. The philosopher kings had the constant ability to maintain the public good. Another key difference between the two philosopher’s societies is how each dealt with private property.

While property was the main concern in Locke’s political society, meant very little in Plato’s Republic. Contrary to Plato, the entire point of forming a government, in Locke’s opinion, should be to ensure that every man maintains possession of the property that he labored for and that god gave him. Plato was trying to eliminate private property, while Locke tried to preserve it. Plato argues that if anyone, specifically people of power, has private possessions or desires, it is eventually detrimental to the whole of the society, “if they acquire private land, houses, and currency themselves, they’ll be household managers and farmers instead of guardians – hostile masters of the other citizens instead of their allies” (Plato 417a-b). The way Locke sets up his government around preserving man’s private property is the clearest example of the difference between his political society and that of Plato: Locke fervently supports the rights of an individual to own property, whereas Plato condemns anything that could deter a person from losing sight of the public good.

In contrast to Plato’s somewhat ridged society, Locke’s political government can seem too liberal, especially with respect to his views on private property and the idea that whatever you labor for is yours. Locke, however, makes a point to establish limits and restrictions to that notion. He is clear in stating that simply because a man worked for a section of land, does not mean it is his – he must cultivate it and make use of everything he owns, “if they perished, in his possession, without their due use; if the fruits rotted, or the venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended against the common law of nature, and was liable to be punished; he invaded his neighbour’s share, for he had no right, farther than his use called for any of them” (Locke ch. 5, *37). Although Locke’s restriction to man owning private property seems logical, the nature of man is to desire more possessions whether he can make use of it or not.

Locke vs. Plato

Both Plato and Locke have the same basic beliefs that a government is best for the people but that is where the similarities end. Both realize the importance of government but Plato maximizes the potential of the government while Locke only describes its necessity. When Plato creates his government with the maximum potential he overlooks what the government was set up to protect, the individual. Locke tries to describe the necessity for a government and the checks that a government needs.

Locke uses his Second Treatise on Government to really define government. He does this by stating why it is needed and then talks about what the government is supposed to do. Locke talks about there being a state of nature that everybody is part of and this is where people can do anything they want. Locke also states that, because of natural law, you shouldn’t intrude on someone else’s freedom. Locke then says that the reason to have government is “making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws… …all this only for the public good.” (Locke, Book 1, bullet 3) So it comes down to that the reason to have government is to protect your own private property which is something that Locke goes into farther.

Plato uses The Republic to critique society by creating a perfect society. Plato views the role of the government as not to just have a set of laws to protect people’s liberty. Plato also believes that it is the role of the government to shape the society. Both Plato and Locke use the idea of the necessity of government but Plato went farther by saying that when someone joins a society they should put all public obligations over every private obligation. He never mentions private property throughout the Republic because he does not really see that as the responsibility of the government. Plato sees the government as something to create a better functioning society not something to regulate natural life.

Locke goes in depth on his view of private property. He believes that once you put work into something it becomes your own and the only restriction of this is that you can only own what you can use because if you hoard and waste then you break the law of nature. Describing this allows Locke to go into the usefulness of trade and the use of money because gold and silver are something that you can hoard that won’t go bad, and if you trade with people you can labor to get a lot of one thing and trade it for other goods. Plato’s views on labor agree with Locke and again go one step farther. He believes that it is the best thing to only produce one good and trade for everything else. He believes that it is actually an injustice to the society if you try to divide your labor and do multiple jobs. This is another example of how Plato goes further then Locke in favoring society rather than the individual. Locke believes that government is created to make life easier for everybody. He believes that it is the government’s role to provide order for a group of people. He says that the government is supposed to protect every individual’s private property including their safety. Plato believes that government is created for the greater good. He believes that it is there to organize everybody’s public spheres of life and make sure that the society functions well. He does not take into account individual’s property and the only reason he takes into account the safety of them is for the preservation of the society.

Assignment #2

First, read the Declaration of Independence:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

Next, a close reading of Locke:
[If you are looking for passages to re-read, think about Books 1-5 and 7-9]

Questions for the blog:
How does Locke's conception of political society differ from Plato's? How does the notion of private property relate both to this difference and Locke's political society? What limits does Locke impose upon political society and what are some critiques of these limits?

For everyone to think about:
Where are the parallels between Locke's notion of government and property and the current structure of the American democracy? (Think about the ways in which the private and public have interacted in the most recent Republican and Democratic conventions.)

Plato's discussion of public and private lives

Clearly our spheres of interaction are deeply connected. Out of necessity and attention towards quality of product, Plato argues, people form states and a subsequent public image, as is compulsory when a group of people maintain interactions. Plato’s Republic rests on a certain ambiguity in differentiating between public and private natures in an individual. Both being part of the same one person, Plato recognizes that each is at least influenced if not dictated by the existence of the other. Plato claims that the only way to achieve justice within a government of people is for the public part of society to ultimately satisfy the private agenda of individuals. Similarly, Plato compares the grander state to the single person, relaying that justice is only achieved in the individual when the rational, or obligatory, sphere corresponds to the irrational, or passionate sphere, and they are one in the same. In book II, Plato reminds us that “we are not all alike” and continues to say that “there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations” (370b). In this he constructs his idea of justice in relation to a public sphere. Each person must make him or herself available to the job for which they are naturally best suited. It is this “nature” of a person that Plato deems his private sphere. Where an individual is needed is determined not only by talent given by birth, but by the society itself, thus pressing the importance of a public influence over personal mission, as Plato implies that passion follows civil obligation to society in a perfectly ordered world.The allegory of the cave describes the scenario in which all people are born- it takes a sense of self and ambition to achieve what Plato terms true wisdom. Here the person who is noblest and wisest of all, having found his private self completely part of his public image, is viewed with the least respect in the community. To the man who has unanimity between private a public principles is no longer riddled with the trivial aspects of human nature, as he sees justice and beauty as but the shadows they are within the cave, despite everyone else’s ignorance. Plato’s realization is that if everyone could be exposed to the sun, a symbol for truth, petty and earthly conflicts would become a matter of perspective, which would incite peace and justice. Furthermore, he argues that it is the ignorance of the rest of the population that makes a public sphere necessarily different from a private one, as those who show their true selves are rendered useless and ridiculed for insanity. Plato discusses the importance of the rational principle holding power over the irrational, claiming that “in all of us, even in good men, there is a lawless wild-beast nature” (572b) and relates this to the honesty of the guardians, whose true natures are tested before they can be proper rulers, discussing again the difference in natures of men. Through education and testing, the guardians are the epitome of truth, as their public self is fully their private self, and vice versa.The two general parts of an individual dictate that person, there being “the one with which man reasons, we may call the rational principle of the soul [i.e. the public]; the other, with which he loves, and hungers, and thirsts, and feels the flutterings of any other desire, may be termed the irrational or appetitive [i.e. the private].” (439d) It is not so much the notion that public alters private sphere that Plato seeks to convey, but rather that for justice to be tangible, public must either mold or completely inspire an individual’s private sphere.

Socrates' invasion of private lives

In Plato’s book The Republic Socrates creates an ideal city where the community is valued over an individual. Socrates takes this to the extreme, giving the government the power take away citizen’s personal freedoms in order to make the city run like a machine. Socrates says, “it is the law which produces such men in the city, not in order to leave each man free to turn where he will, but that it may itself use them to bind the city together” (Plato 270-271). Socrates’ philosophies do not take into account the individuals wants and needs. Socrates thinks that everybody will accept the terms of the city and be content with having one job his whole life, with being stuck in his social class forever, and having to constantly serve the public good. This is not realistic, humans want as many freedoms as possible and they want to take what they have earned and keep it. Socrates’ republic takes away personal freedoms and invades people’s private lives to a point where its citizens will be unhappy and reject the government.
In Book II of The Republic, Socrates comes to the conclusion that one man can only have one job in order to make the city run smoothly. He does not take into account that an individual might want to switch his profession, or that he might be good at multiple jobs and want to pursue both. These basic rights and freedoms are brushed aside in order to make the perfect city, “we gave each man one trade, that for which nature had fitted him. Nothing else was to occupy his time, but he was to spend his life working at that” (Plato 68). Socrates doomed every person in his city to a monotonous life where he did the same thing until he died. The people living in the republic would not give up that personal freedom without a fight, and they would resent the government for controlling their lives.
In Socrates’ republic there is a hierarchical class system of workers, soldiers, and guardians. In Book IV he decides that citizens of his city cannot move from class to class, and to try to do so would be an injustice. “Our classes are three, and meddling and interchange among them is the greatest of injuries to the city, and might justly be described as the extreme of evil doing” (Plato 153). This decision limits people to one class and one fate for their whole lives. People have no hope of bettering themselves by making money and moving up the social and political ladder, instead they are trapped. Socrates overlooks that his people will rebel against this lack of personal freedom. The city will have unhappy merchants and soldiers who feel oppressed and who will cause trouble for the government.
In Socrates’ analogy of the cave, the lucky people who have gone up and seen the light, those who are educated, live in a blissful land of sun and happiness. Those who have gone up to the light then do not want to return to the dark and primitive cave where they grew up. Socrates describes the transition into darkness as painful and possibly dangerous, alluding that the cave dwellers might do the enlightened harm because of their new and radical ideas, “do you not think that they would kill him who tried to release them and bear them up” (Plato 267). Despite this, Socrates does not allow the enlightened to live in the wonderful realm of light, he forces them to come back down to the cave and help the community. “We must not allow them the liberty which they now enjoy…the liberty…of staying there, and refusing to descend again to the prisoners to share with them in toils and honors” (Plato 270). While this may or may not be in the best interest of the city, it takes away from the personal rights of the educated to occupy their time how they please, and puts them in potential danger from the ignorant citizens. This invasion of their private lives could cause the philosophers to resent their government and rebel against Socrates’ republic.
Socrates’ Republic invades its citizens private lives by only allowing each person one job, by confining them to one class for their whole lives, and by forcing the educated become leaders. The people will not stand for this invasion and will rebel against the government, ruining Socrates’ utopia.

Siohaberin- Blog #1 (Hannah)

Plato’s main goal of The Republic was to find justice, and for that he needed the perfect city. In order to do that, he had to sacrifice the free will of its citizens. Yet, the lack of individual freedom ruined the perfection of the Republic, because what is good for the public is not always good for the citizen. For instance, every person in the Republic was assigned a job at the craft he was most talented at; he could only do that job because that was best for the city. It did not matter if that job was not what he wanted to do, because to do any other job would not be in the public’s best interest, and thus unjust. Another way the founders took away the free will of their people was by only allowing a few of them to leave the cave. Plato and the founders made the citizens live in oppression and darkness for the betterment of the city. In this way, Plato himself chained the citizens to the cave. Their whole lives were sacrificed for the good of the Republic.
Each citizen was required to work for the city. “The doer must attend to what is done, not treat it as a hobby” (370b). He was required to work hard, and not leisurely, or the product and the city would suffer. He must only do this one job, so he could perfect it and the city would benefit the most out of his labor. Plato would “not let the shoemaker try to be a farmer of weaver or builder at the same time, but a shoemaker, in order that the work of shoemaking might be done well for us” (374b) Not do what was best for the city would be injustice.
Plato stated that justice was “Minding one’s own affairs on the part of the economic, auxiliary, and Gaurdian kinds, each doing what is its own in the city” (434c) The greatest wrongdoing would be for a citizen to try to do a job he was not good at.“ Meddling interference among these three kinds, and changing into one another, is the greatest harm to the city, and would most rightly be described as an extreme or wrongdoing” (434c) This is because it would not benefit the city for a natural farmer to try to be a soldier, or a soldier to try to be a leader. Plato took away each mans free will for the perfection of the public. Plato enslaved his citizens into servitude for the city, whether he realized it or not.
In Plato’s allegory of the Cave, Plato would only allow the best men to ascend up to the light and see the sun. Once he took them up there, he forced them to go back down and teach the rest of the citizens for the public good. “Then it is our own task as founders…[to make them] see the Good and rise upward in that ascent. And when they have ascended and sufficiently seen, not to allow to them what is not allowed’ ‘What is that?’ ‘To abide there, I replied, and refuse to go back down again among the prisoners and share their labors”(519d) Glaucon objected to this “Then we’ll do them an injustice? He said. We’ll cause them to live a worse life when they’re capable of better?’ ‘You again forget, my friend, I replied, that it is not a concern of law that some one class in a city should do and fare surpassingly well, but to contrive that this should come to be present in a the city as a whole…causing them to share with each other the benefit each is capable of providing to the community at large. Law produces such men in a city not in order to allow them to turn in any direction they each may wish, but in order that it may use them to bind the city together” (519e-520a) Plato did not allow the man who was freed from the shackles of the Cave to stay free. By doing this, Plato himself chained his citizens to the Cave. He only allowed the best citizens to see the light, and when those did, he forced them to go back down. The Cave is an allegory to The Republic itself, and Plato is himself the enslaver.
Plato said that a city ruled by a tyrant was enslaved, yet he enslaved his own citizens. He did not let them choose which jobs to have. He did not let them choose to live in a world of darkness or light. Their whole existence was to benefit the city. He sacrificed their lives for the public good.

Plato on the relationship between public and private

In these sections of The Republic, Plato often refers to an individual’s natural aptitude or abilities: “in the first place, no two of us are born exactly alike. We have different natural aptitudes, which fit us for different jobs” (370b). While this implies that Plato believed more strongly in nature than in nurture, his focus on the upbringing of his citizens, and the origin of tyranny, bring out some ambiguities on the issue.  Despite Plato’s disputable clarity on the topic, his references to a person’s nature are very connected to the question of private and public spheres and their relationship. While having a public self in any social group is inevitable, Plato seems to be arguing, it must be in direct communication with the innate, unchangeable private self and all its benefits.

Logically, Plato’s conception of what is each individual’s nature would be the most obvious informer to that person’s private sphere; it is the most basic entity of his true self.  Plato’s remark that the “greatest evil” in society is the exchange or intermixing between the classes of citizens in a society is implying that a society is most ‘just’ when citizens stay true to their nature and do not attempt to falsely, or publicly, transcend who they were ‘born to be’ in society.  Therefore, it appears that in his ideal state, Plato is attempting to create a civilization where people remain loyal to their private, inborn selves (which would exist varyingly due to everyone’s innate, varying natures) and then directly transpose these selves onto their public lives and actions with no false public constructions.

Accordingly, Plato’s analogy of the cave ends with the assertion that the philosopher rulers, who alone have been born with the capacity for attaining the divine knowledge of Forms, must, after their attainment of that knowledge, unwillingly descend back into the “cave” to rule and benefit their society with their newfound understanding.  Once again, the citizens are expected to transfer, in its full effects, any benefit from their private selves onto the public society.

Plato’s exploration of tyranny and the tyrant again seems to be remarking upon the intricate connection between our private and public selves: Plato appears to be saying that at least a significant component of tyranny in an individual is natural.  Yet sometimes it seems unclear how much he attributes to the individual’s experiences and influences, for his definition of a tyrant includes qualities that are acquired “by birth or habit or both” (573c).  Still, Plato says that a real tyrant acts how others might only dream of acting, and this is exactly what happens “when a natural tyrant gains absolute power, and the longer he holds it the truer he runs to the type” (576b).  It is unclear whether Plato’s idea of a tyrant is purely the result of outside influence, and so would be an impossibility in Plato’s ideal society, or if it is just chance of nature, and so would be a possible problem is his society.

Essentially, the relationship between Plato’s representations of citizens’ public and private spheres seems to be that one’s public sphere has an obligation to his private self to be true – for example, the class system regarding each person’s function in society set up in Plato’s ideal construction is very rigid, and would fail if someone was unfaithful to their ‘rightful place’.  The public self is that which can benefit those other then ourselves, and in a society where all personal action must be directed toward societal good, the two spheres of public and private must be in absolute accordance.