!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - .

/01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9

1

















!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9

:;"#"<= >213?


!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
2
In this booklet you will finu uiscussion topics foi youi tutoiials. These topics aie of two
soits:
1) Questions foi uiscussion uuiing youi tutoiial.
2) Nicio-essay topics foi weeks 4, S, 6, 8, 9 anu 1u. These micio-essay topics ask
you to wiite a shoit Suu-woiu piece in auvance of youi tutoiial. You must submit
youi micio-essay thiough N0LE befoie the time of youi tutoiial each week ANB
biing a papei copy of youi essay to the tutoiial. The point of micio-essays is to
piepaie you foi tutoiial uiscussions, anu also to give you a chance to uevelop
specific philosophical skills that will be useful to you in this mouule anu beyonu.
Nicio-essays will not be maikeu, anu youi tutoi will not give you feeuback on
each of youi micio-essays. The micio-essays encouiage you to uevelop these
skills inuepenuently. Bowevei, submission of micio-essays uoes count towaius
youi assessment on this mouule. @&A, B$&=#C D&(( E, F,F"8#,F 6%$< 9$"% 6&='(
G%'F, 6$% ,'8H ('#,I 6'&(,F $% "=C"E<&##,F <&8%$J,CC'9. (But theie aie ways
to avoiu oi minimize these penalties. Foi uetails, see the Philosophy
Bepaitment's booklet foi fiist-yeai stuuents, available heie:
http:www.sheffielu.ac.ukpolopoly_fs1.Su7689!file1stYiBooklet1S-14.puf)

The point of tutoiials in geneial is foi you to have the chance to uiscuss some of the
issues coveieu in the couise with each othei anu with youi tutoi. You will finu that the
topics coveieu in the lectuies sink in fai bettei if you have a chance to talk them thiough
anu iaise any pioblems that you have in youi unueistanuing of them. Theie aie thiee
goluen iules that will help you anu youi gioup to get the most out of tutoiials. The point
of these is just to encouiage an atmospheie that eveiyone feels comfoitable with anu in
which theie can be a uebate that eveiyone leains fiom.
Bon't be afiaiu to contiibute
Respect othei people (though you uon't have to agiee with them)
Tiy to back up what you say with ieasons iathei than meiely stating youi
opinion

The tutoiials follow the topics coveieu in the lectuies. Bon't woiiy if you uon't get
thiough all the questions that have been set, oi even if the tutoi uoesn't iefei explicitly
to the questions. The point is to have a fiuitful uiscussion on the issues iaiseu by the
couise, anu the questions aie just theie to stimulate such uiscussion anu pioviue fouuei
foi ieflection.
In the tutoiials, you can spenu some time uiscussing youi micio-essays, anu any
inteiesting questions that aiise out of the micio-essay topics, as well as the fuithei
uiscussion questions that I have pioviueu.
I hope that you will enjoy thinking about the topics pioviueu heie. If you have any
suggestions foi impiovement, please let me know. I can be contacteu at
u.viehoffsheffielu.ac.uk.
!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
3
K,,+ !H%,, - KH'# &C L&E,%#9 0

MN O0PQNJR55;S !N.0P !/05 KRRT

Q,'F&=G4 Q,'F&=GC 'CC&G=,F 6$% L1I L>I L3

U",C#&$=C 6$% F&C8"CC&$= &= !"#$%&'(

1. Biscuss with youi tutoi the exceipts fiom }im Piyoi's "uuiuelines on Wiiting a
Philosophy Papei" that aie posteu on N0LE.
a. Bow is wiiting a philosophy essay uiffeient fiom othei kinus of essay wiiting.
b. What uo you have to pay special attention to when you wiite a philosophy essay.

2. In 189S, the legislatuie of the State of New Yoik (in the 0niteu States) passeu the
Bakeshop Act, which piohibiteu inuiviuuals fiom woiking in bakeiies foi moie than ten
houis pei uay oi sixty houis pei week. The law seiveu to piotect the health of woikeis,
to upholu sanitaiy conuitions in bakeiies, anu to insulate woikeis fiom piessuie by
employeis to woik longei houis. Some yeais latei, }oseph Lochnei, the ownei of a
bakeiy, was convicteu anu fineu foi iequiiing anu peimitting one of his woikeis to
woik foi moie than sixty houis a week. In a famous juuicial uecision, his conviction was
eventually oveituineu by the 0S Supieme Couit. The Supieme Couit aigueu that the
Bakeshop Act was incompatible with }oseph Lochnei's fieeuom (moie specifically, his
fieeuom of contiact to entei into agieements with his woikeis without inteifeience by
the state).

Bo you agiee with the Supieme Couit that Lochnei's fieeuom was thieateneu by the
Bakeshop Act. Bo you think that fieeuom !"#$%&& (i.e., not just that of employeis like
Lochnei, but also of theii employees) was set back by the Act. Ask youiself in
paiticulai:
a. Biu the Bakeshop Act '#( *%+, anyone's -#.%(/"# libeity (as Beilin unueistanus that
notion). If so, whose negative libeity is set back.
b. Boes the Bakeshop Act %0"%-+# anyone's -#.%(/"# libeity. If so, whose.
c. Boes such a law auvance oi set back anyone's 1!'/(/"# libeity (as Beilin unueistanus
it). If so, how. If not, what othei values uoes it auvance.
u. Bo you think that a law that sets back anyone's negative libeity can nonetheless be
justifieu. Tiy to give some examples of laws that fall into this categoiy.

S. Boes NacCallum's tiipaitite analysis of fieeuom help us answei whethei the
Bakeshop Act ought to be oveituineu on giounus of fieeuom. If yes, why. If not, why
not.


!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
4
K,,+ @$"% - KH'# &C L&E,%#9 00

Q,'F&=G4 Q,'F&=GC 'CC&G=,F 6$% LVI LW

O&8%$JRCC'9 !$B&8
23/' (!1/+ %',' 4!5 (! $#+!-'($5+( (3# %$.56#-( 7$!6 % +!61&#8 1/#+# !7 13/&!'!13/+%&
9$/(/-.: 23/' /' %- /61!$(%-( ',/&& /7 4!5 %$# (! *# %*&# (! 0/'+5'' (3# 1!'/(/!- !7 !(3#$
%5(3!$' /- 4!5$ #''%4':

".the Bobbesian scheme |of negative libeityj has no place foi the notion of significance.
It will allow only foi puiely quantitative juugements. 0n the toughest-minueu veision of
his conception, wheie Bobbes seems to be about to uefine libeity in teims of the
absence of physical obstacles, one is piesenteu with the veitiginous piospect of human
fieeuom being measuiable in the same way as the uegiees of fieeuom of some physical
object, say a levei. Latei we see that this won't uo, because we have to take account of
legal obstacles to my action. But in any case, such a quantitative conception of fieeuom
is a non-staitei.
Consiuei the following uiabolical uefence of Albania as a fiee countiy |in 1979j. We
iecognize that ieligion has been abolisheu in Albania, wheieas it hasn't been in Biitain.
But on the othei hanu theie aie piobably fai fewei tiaffic lights pei heau in Tiiana than
in Lonuon. (I haven't checkeu foi myself, but this is a veiy plausible assumption.)
Suppose an apologist foi Albanian Socialism weie neveitheless to claim that this
countiy was fieei than Biitain, because the numbei of acts iestiicteu was fai smallei.
Aftei all, only a minoiity of Lonuoneis piactise some ieligion in public places, but all
have to negotiate theii way thiough tiaffic. Those who uo piactise a ieligion geneially
uo so one uay of the week, while they aie helu up at tiaffic lights eveiy uay. In sheei
quantitative teims, the numbei of acts iestiicteu by tiaffic lights must be gieatei than
that iestiicteu by a ban on public ieligious piactices. So if Biitain is consiueieu a fiee
society, why not Albania.
So the application even of oui negative notion of fieeuom iequiies a backgiounu
conception of what is significant, accoiuing to which some iestiictions aie seen to be
without ielevance foi fieeuom altogethei, anu otheis aie juugeu as being of gieatei anu
lessei impoitance. So some uisciimination among motivations seems essential to oui
concept of fieeuom. A minute's ieflection shows why this must be so. Fieeuom is
impoitant foi us because we aie puiposive beings. But then theie must be uistinctions
in the significance of uiffeience kinus of fieeuom baseu on the uistinctions in the
significance of uiffeient puiposes." (Chailes Tayloi, "What's Wiong with Negative
Libeity.", pp.1Su-1 in Nillei, eu., Libeity.)

;- 4!5$ 6/+$!<#''%4= #81&%/- /- 4!5$ !9- 9!$0' 2%4&!$>' %$.56#-( %.%/-'( 1$!1!-#-(' !7
-#.%(/"# &/*#$(4:

Note: you can uiscuss the issues iaiseu by this micio-essay topic fuithei in the tutoiial.

@"%#H,% X",C#&$=C 6$% F&C8"CC&$= &= #H, #"#$%&'(

1. "Is fieeuom not at stake when we finu ouiselves caiiieu away by a less significant
goal to oveiiiue a highly significant one. 0i when we aie leu to act out of a motive we
consiuei bau oi uespicable. The answei is that we sometimes uo speak in this way.
!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
5
Suppose I have some iiiational feai, which is pieventing me fiom uoing something I
veiy much want to uo. Say the feai of public speaking is pieventing me fiom taking up a
caieei that I shoulu finu veiy fulfilling, anu that I shoulu be quite goou at, if I coulu just
get ovei this 'hang-up'. It is cleai that we expeiience this feai as an obstacle, anu that we
feel we aie less than we woulu be if we coulu oveicome it." (Tayloi, p.1S2)

Bo you finu Tayloi's claim heie convincing. Consiuei the examples he invokes. Tayloi
uisagiees with Beilin in thinking that inteinal obstacles can limit oui fieeuom. Nust he
also uisagiee with Beilin about how political institutions ought to be oiganizeu to fostei
fieeuom.

2. Philip Pettit auvances a thiiu conception of fieeuom as non-uomination, which (one
may think) cuts acioss the uistinction between positive anu negative fieeuom. Bow
uoes non-uomination uiffei fiom negative anu positive fieeuom as it is chaiacteiizeu by
Beilin anu by Tayloi. Coulu non-uomination nonetheless be subsumeu unuei one oi the
othei of these labels.

S. Pettit aigues that fieeuom as non-uomination is both haiuei anu easiei to lose than
negative libeity. Why uoes he think so. Bo you think this makes fieeuom as non-
uomination a moie attiactive conception of fieeuom. Woulu we be bettei off focusing
on non-uomination iathei than non-inteifeience when we think about political
aiiangements.

4. Can you think of policies that piotect oui fieeuom as non-uomination, but not oui
fieeuom as non-inteifeience. 0f policies that piotect oui fieeuom as non-inteifeience,
but not oui fieeuom as non-uomination.

!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
6
K,,+ @&A, - L&<&#C #$ L&E,%#9

Q,'F&=G4 Q,'F&=GC 'CC&G=,F 6$% LYI LZI L[

O&8%$JRCC'9 #$B&8
23/' (!1/+ %',' 4!5 (! 1$#'#-( %- %$.56#-( !7 4!5$ !9- %' +!-+/'#&4 %' 1!''/*&#:

Imagine Alex owns a plot of lanu (the lanu is hei piivate piopeity), anu Beinu wants to
pitch a tent on it. Beinu knows that theie is a stanuing iule oi law that foibius setting up
a tent on anothei peison's lanu without that peison's consent. When Beinu staits
setting up his tent, Alex calls the police, who pievent Beinu fiom setting up his tent.

?!6# 13/&!'!13#$' (3/-, (3%( (3# 1!&/+# %+(/!- 0!#' -!( &/6/( @#$-0>' 7$##0!6: A(3#$'
(3/-, /( 0!#': B!-+/'#&4 C/:#: /- DEE 9!$0'F #81&%/- 934 4!5 0! !$ 0! -!( (3/-, (3%( @#$-0>'
7$##0!6 /' &/6/(#0 *4 (3# 1!&/+# %+(/!-: G! -!( '/61&4 %''#$( 4!5$ !1/-/!-= *5( ./"#
%$.56#-(' (3%( '511!$( 4!5$ +!-+&5'/!-: C?/-+# 4!5 %$# +!61%$/-. (9! 1!'/(/!-'= (3/-,
%*!5( *!(3 934 4!5 3!&0 (3# "/#9 4!5 3!&0 %-0 934 4!5 0!->( 3!&0 (3# +!61#(/-. "/#9:F

Note: you can uiscuss the issues iaiseu by this micio-essay topic fuithei in the tutoiial.

@"%#H,% \&C8"CC&$= U",C#&$=C 6$% #H, !"#$%&'(

1. Bayek explains eaily on that he will take fieeuom to be the absence of coeicion. Why
uoes he want to say this. Is this a goou basis foi an account of the value of fieeuom.
(Think in paiticulai about how phenomena othei than coeicion can have the same
effects on agents. What woulu Bayek want to say about these phenomena.)

2. In the last pages of his essay, Bayek pioposes that the state's use of coeicion neeu not
unueimine oui fieeuom, if the law is geneial in foim, pieuictable in its effects, etc. Tiy
to think of cases wheie these conuitions aie met, yet we woulu want to say that a state
thieatens oui fieeuom. Also tiy to think of cases wheie these conuitions aie not met,
anu yet we might want to say that oui fieeuom is not thieateneu.

S. Baviu Nillei pioposes that oui juugment that anothei agent's action inteifeies with
oui fieeuom uepenus on a juugment about that agent's uuties anu iesponsibilities. Bo
you agiee. Compaie Nillei's view to that of Waluion on the one hanu, of Bayek on the
othei.

4. }eiemy Waluion aigues that a homeless peison, A, can be unfiee to sleep even if
nobouy intenus to pievent A fiom sleeping altogethei, as long as eveiybouy intenus to
pievent A fiom sleeping on theii own piopeity anu theie is nowheie else foi A to sleep.
Bo you finu this aigument convincing. Boes it show that fieeuom is not just the absence
of coeicion.




!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
7
K,,+ 5&] - /$EE,C

Q,'F&=G4 Q,'F&=G 'CC&G=,F 6$% L12

O&8%$JRCC'9 !$B&8
A-# !7 (3# ',/&&' -#+#''%$4 /- !$0#$ (! 0! 13/&!'!134 C!$ H5'( %*!5( %-4 !(3#$ %$(' '5*H#+(F
9#&& /' +&!'# $#%0/-.: I!9#"#$= 13/&!'!134 (#8(' %$# !7(#- 0/77/+5&( (! 5-0#$'(%-0 !- % 7/$'(
$#%0/-.J (3#4 +%- *# +!61&#8= !$ (3#4 +%- *# 9$/((#- /- % '(4&# (3%( /' -!( #%'4 (! $#%0: ;(
+%- *# 3%$0 (! 7!&&!9 (3# %$.56#-(: ;- (3/' 6/+$!<#''%4 9# 9/&& +!-+#-($%(# !- !-#
1%$(/+5&%$ (#8( %-0 ($4 (! 0$%9 !5( /(' %$.56#-(' (3$!5.3 +&!'# $#%0/-.:

"Fiom this institution of a Commonwealth aie ueiiveu all the iights anu faculties of him,
oi them, on whom the soveieign powei is confeiieu by the consent of the people
assembleu.
Fiist, because they covenant, it is to be unueistoou they aie not obligeu by foimei
covenant to anything iepugnant heieunto. Anu consequently they that have alieauy
instituteu a Commonwealth, being theieby bounu by covenant to own the actions anu
juugements of one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be
obeuient to any othei, in anything whatsoevei, without his peimission. Anu theiefoie,
they that aie subjects to a monaich cannot without his leave cast off monaichy anu
ietuin to the confusion of a uisuniteu multituue; noi tiansfei theii peison fiom him that
beaieth it to anothei man, oi othei assembly of men: foi they aie bounu, eveiy man to
eveiy man, to own, anu be ieputeu authoi of all, that he that alieauy is theii soveieign
shall uo anu juuge fit to be uone; so that any one man uissenting, all the iest shoulu
bieak theii covenant maue to that man, which is injustice: anu they have also eveiy man
given the soveieignty to him that beaieth theii peison; anu theiefoie if they uepose
him, they take fiom him that which is his own, anu so again it is injustice. .
Seconuly, because the iight of beaiing the peison of them all is given to him they make
soveieign, by covenant only of one to anothei, anu not of him to any of them, theie can
happen no bieach of covenant on the pait of the soveieign; anu consequently none of
his subjects, by any pietence of foifeituie, can be fieeu fiom his subjection. That he
which is maue soveieign maketh no covenant with his subjects befoiehanu is manifest;
because eithei he must make it with the whole multituue, as one paity to the covenant,
oi he must make a seveial covenant with eveiy man. With the whole, as one paity, it is
impossible, because as yet they aie not one peison: anu if he make so many seveial
covenants as theie be men, those covenants aftei he hath the soveieignty aie voiu;
because what act soevei can be pietenueu by any one of them foi bieach theieof is the
act both of himself, anu of all the iest, because uone in the peison, anu by the iight of
eveiy one of them in paiticulai. Besiues, if any one oi moie of them pietenu a bieach of
the covenant maue by the soveieign at his institution, anu otheis oi one othei of his
subjects, oi himself alone, pietenu theie was no such bieach, theie is in this case no
juuge to ueciue the contioveisy: it ietuins theiefoie to the swoiu again; anu eveiy man
iecoveieth the iight of piotecting himself by his own stiength, contiaiy to the uesign
they hau in the institution. It is theiefoie in vain to giant soveieignty by way of
pieceuent covenant. The opinion that any monaich ieceiveth his powei by covenant,
that is to say, on conuition, pioceeueth fiom want of unueistanuing this easy tiuth: that
covenants being but woius, anu bieath, have no foice to oblige, contain, constiain, oi
piotect any man, but what it has fiom the public swoiu; that is, fiom the untieu hanus of
that man, oi assembly of men, that hath the soveieignty, anu whose actions aie
!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
8
avoucheu by them all, anu peifoimeu by the stiength of them all, in him uniteu. ." (T.
Bobbes, K#"/%(3%-, Chaptei 18.)

L!$ 4!5$ 6/+$!<#''%4= %-'9#$ (3# 7!&&!9/-. M5#'(/!-'J

1. Some questions of inteipietation:
a) What uoes Bobbes mean when he says that peisons who covenant "aie not obligeu
by foimei covenant to anything iepugnant heieunto". (line 4)
b) What uoes it mean to act "without |someone'sj leave". (line 9)
c) What uoes Bobbes mean when he says that the subjects of a monaich cannot
"tiansfei theii peison fiom him that beaieth it to anothei man". (line 19)
u) What uoes "pietence of foifeituie" mean. (line 2u)
e) What uoes "want of unueistanuing" mean heie. (line SS)

2. Bobbes uefenus two uiffeient (but ielateu) claims in the seconu anu thiiu paiagiaph
of this section. Can you biiefly explain, in youi own woius, what the main claim of each
paiagiaph is.

S. (a) With whom uo we entei into a contiact to entei into a commonwealth anu submit
to the Soveieign, accoiuing to Bobbes. (b) Whose iights aie violateu when an inuiviuual
tiies to leave the commonwealth.

4. Look at the final lines of this passage (staiting with "The opinion that any monaich
ieceiveth his powei by covenant."). What is, accoiuing to Bobbes, the mistake maue by
those who think the monaich is bounu by a contiact. Can you think of anothei example
of the same kinu of mistake in anothei context. (Bint: What is, foi Bobbes, the veiy
point of establishing a state.)

Note: you can uiscuss the issues iaiseu by this micio-essay topic fuithei in the tutoiial.

@"%#H,% \&C8"CC&$= U",C#&$=C 6$% #H, #"#$%&'(

S. Why uoes Bobbes think that, once we have left the state of natuie anu enteieu into a
commonwealth, we cannot ietuin to the state of natuie without violating oui
obligations.

6. In the final paiagiaph (staiting with "Seconuly, ."), Bobbes offeis an aigument that
aims to show that theie cannot be a contiact between subject anu Soveieign.
(a) Bistinguish the two uiffeient possibilities Bobbes mentions.
(b) Why can't the Soveieign have enteieu into a contiact with the "whole multituue".
(c) Why can't the Soveieign have enteieu into a contiact with each inuiviuual subject.
(u) Why uoes it mattei that theie is no contiact between subject anu Soveieign. What
follows fiom it.

7. Bo you think Bobbes is iight to holu that humans will inevitably quaiiel uue to
"competition", "uiffiuence", anu the uesiie foi "gloiy" (Chaptei 1S). Coulu we be
motivateu by these anu yet avoiu a life that is "solitaiy, pooi, nasty, biutish, anu shoit"
without setting up a state.
!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
9
K,,+ R&GH# - L$8+,

Q,'F&=G4 Q,'F&=G 'CC&G=,F 6$% L13

O&8%$JRCC'9 !$B&8
23/' (!1/+ 3#&1' 4!5 (! &#%$- (! +!-'($5+( % 1#$'5%'/"# %$.56#-( #"#- /7 4!5 0!->(
1#$'!-%&&4 %.$## 9/(3 /(: 23/' /' %- /61!$(%-( ',/&& *#+%5'# 6%,/-. % .!!0 +%'# 7!$ 4!5$
!9- 1!/-( !7 "/#9 !7(#- /-"!&"#' *#/-. %*&# (! (3/-, 4!5$ 9%4 /-(! (3# !11!'/(# 1!/-( !7
"/#9 %-0 5-0#$'(%-0 (3# $#%'!-' '!6#!-# 6/.3( 3%"# 7!$ 3!&0/-. /(:

In Section 149 of the ?#+!-0 2$#%(/'#, }ohn Locke aigues that the legislative powei (the
powei to make law) is gianteu to the law-makei meiely as a tiust, which is to be
exeiciseu foi the sake of the subjects (to auvance theii secuiity anu wellbeing). So, he
suggests, the people must keep the powei to iemove oi change the law-makei if the
people juuge that the law-makei uoes not exeicise his powei foi the subject's sake. This,
Locke thinks, just follows fiom the veiy iuea of a tiust: If A is gianteu powei foi the sake
of auvancing B's wellbeing, then if A fails to auvance B's wellbeing, A loses the powei he
has been gianteu, anu the powei ietuins to B. B can then ie-assign that powei to
whoevei B thinks woulu best make use of that powei to auvance B's wellbeing.
Locke thus concluues that the people always ietain a iight to iebel against theii
goveinment if the goveinment abuses the powei it has been gianteu. If, foi instance, a
goveinment thieatens the people's fieeuom anu secuiity, then the people have a iight
to oveithiow the goveinment anu ieplace it with anothei one.

N3#(3#$ !$ -!( 4!5 %.$## 9/(3 K!+,#>' %++!5-( !7 (3# 1#!1&#>' $/.3( (! $#*#&&/!- %.%/-'(
(3#/$ .!"#$-6#-(= ($4 (! 15( 7!$9%$0 %- %$.56#-( %.%/-'( /(: 2$4 (! 6%,# 4!5$ %$.56#-(
%' 1#$'5%'/"# %' 1!''/*&# *4 +!-'/0#$/-. 1!''/*&# !*H#+(/!-' %-0 +!5-(#$%$.56#-(':
O#6#6*#$ 4!5 -##0 (! *# %' *$/#7 %-0 +!-+/'# %' 1!''/*&# (! 7/( (3/' /-(! DEE 9!$0':

Note: you can uiscuss the issues iaiseu by this micio-essay topic fuithei in the tutoiial.

@"%#H,% \&C8"CC&$= U",C#&$=C 6$% #H, !"#$%&'(4

1. Why uoes Locke believe that all peisons aie equal in the state of natuie. (Sections 4-
6)

2. What kinu of libeity uo peisons possess in the state of natuie, accoiuing to Locke.
(Sections 4-14)

S. Bow uoes Locke's unueistanuing of fieeuom uiffei fiom Bobbes'. (See especially
Sections 1-24, 87.)

4. Bo you think people possess a iight to punish otheis in the state of natuie. What aie
the limits to this iight, accoiuing to Locke. Bo you think these limits aie sufficient.
(Sections 7-12)

S. Bow uoes Locke's view of the natuie of fieeuom affect his aiguments foi the limits of
political authoiity anu the iight to iebellion. (See especially Sections 199, 2u1-212,
221-229, 24u-24S.)
!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
10

6. Consiuei Locke's aigument foi majoiity iule (Sections 9S-99). Bow is the aigument
meant to woik. Bo you think his aigument shows that you have a uuty to obey the
uemociatically maue laws of youi state even if you voteu against them (but weie
outvoteu).

!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
11
K,,+ M&=, - L$8+, 7 5&<<$=C

Q,'F&=G4 Q,'F&=G ;CC&G=,F 6$% L1V

O&8%$JRCC'9 #$B&8
23/' 6/+$!<#''%4 /' 0#'/.-#0 (! 3#&1 4!5 &#%$- (! 7!+5' !- !-# 1%$(/+5&%$ %'1#+( !7 %
+!61&#8 6!$%& M5#'(/!-= %-0 (! %0%1( %$.56#-(' 7$!6 !-# +!-(#8( (! %-!(3#$:

It is often thought that touiists anu othei visitois to a countiy have an obligation to
obey the laws of the countiy they aie visiting. Yet few (if any) of them have explicitly
piomiseu to obey the laws of the host state. 0ne might, howevei, think that touiists
have tacitly consenteu to the laws' of the countiy they aie visiting.

;- 4!5$ #''%4= +!-'/0#$ 93#(3#$ (3# %$.56#-( 7$!6 (%+/( +!-'#-( (3%( 9# 3%"# 0/'+5''#0 /-
+&%'' 9/(3 $#.%$0 (! $#'/0#-(' 6/.3( %11&4 (! (!5$/'('= %-0 3!9: B!-'/0#$ *!(3 934 !-#
6/.3( (3/-, (3%( (!5$/'(' %$# 6!$# &/,#&4 (! *# *!5-0 *4 (%+/( +!-'#-( (3%- $#'/0#-(' %$#=
%-0 934 !-# 6/.3( (3/-, (3%( (3#4 %$# &#'' &/,#&4 (! '! *!5-0:

@"%#H,% \&C8"CC&$= U",C#&$=C 6$% #H, !"#$%&'(

1. Bo you think that Simmons' example of the chaiiman asking about a change in
meeting time is an instance of tacit consent. Aie those piesent at the meeting bounu by
the uecision to move the meeting.

2. Bo you think we have a geneial uuty to obey the laws of the countiy in which we aie
living. Bo you think we have this uuty even if the laws aie unjust. If the laws aie
suboptimal, but not evil. (Think of examples foi each of these cases.)

S. What is Simmons' view of the claim that those iesiuing in a countiy tacitly consent to
its laws, anu thus have a uuty to obey them. Coulu featuies othei than iesiuency be
unueistoou to imply tacit consent. Which ones. Woulu aiguments baseu on featuies
othei than iesiuency be moie convincing.

4. Bo you think Locke's account of political obligation iests on an aigument fiom tacit
consent. If not, what else uoes it iest on. In eithei case, is Locke's aigument convincing.


!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
12
K,,+ !,= - Q$"CC,'"

Q,'F&=G4 Q,'F&=G 'CC&G=,F 6$% L1W

O&8%$J,CC'9 !$B&8
P3/&!'!134 !7(#- $#M5/$#' 4!5 (! $#+!-'($5+( % "#$4 +!61&/+%(#0 (#8(= %-0 '## 93#(3#$ (3#
%$.56#-( +%- *# 6%0# !5( (! *# "%&/0: C23/-, !7 (3/' 7!$ -!9 H5'( %' (3# M5#'(/!- 93#(3#$
(3# #%$&/#$ '(#1' /- %- %$.56#-( $#%&&4 &#%0 (! (3# &%(#$ '(#1'= %-0 5&(/6%(#&4 (! (3#
%5(3!$>' +!-+&5'/!-:F 23/' /' 4!5$ (%', /- (3/' DEE 9!$0 6/+$!<#''%4:

Rousseau asks how oui fieeuom can peisist when we aie bounu by laws with which we
uisagiee anu against which we voteu (?!+/%& B!-($%+( Iv.2). Bis answei is that, when an
opinion contiaiy to my own pievails, this meiely shows that I was mistaken in my
assessment of the geneial will. Thus, if uecisions aie maue in the iight way, then even
those who voteu against a law aie bounu by it, without any violation of theii fieeuom.

L/$'(= #81&%/-= '(#1 *4 '(#1= 3!9 O!5''#%5 +!--#+(' 6%H!$/(4 0#+/'/!-<6%,/-. (! (3#
.#-#$%& 9/&&= %-0 (3# .#-#$%& 9/&& (! #"#$4*!04>' 7$##0!6: ?#+!-0= /0#-(/74 (3# +!-0/(/!-'
(3%( 65'( *# 6#( /7 % 6%H!$/(4 0#+/'/!- /' (! 1$!1#$&4 /0#-(/74 93%( (3# .#-#$%& 9/&&
0#6%-0': CQ!5 6%4 9$/(# (3/' /- *5&&#( 1!/-(' $%(3#$ (3%- %' % +!-(/-5!5' (#8(:F

@"%#H,% U",C#&$=C 6$% \&C8"CC&$= &= #H, !"#$%&'(

1. Bo you think the conuitions that the majoiity uecision must meet to piopeily iuentify
the geneial will aie evei met in societies as we know them. Bo you think they can be
met. If not, why not. If yes, how can they be met.

2. Explain why Rousseau thinks theie cannot be a "iight of the stiongest" (I.S). Bo you
finu his aigument convincing.

S. Rousseau lays out some faiily specific institutional constiaints on how uemociatic
uecisions ought to be maue. (See, foi instance, II.S.) Iuentify what these conuitions aie.
Why uoes Rousseau think they aie necessaiy. Bo you agiee.

4. In Book II.7, Rousseau explains that the institution of a state iequiies changing
human natuie, oi tiansfoiming human beings fiom solitaiy inuiviuuals to membeis of a
society. What uo you think he means by this. Can you explain how political anu social
institutions might be thought to tiansfoim us in this way.

S. Bow uoes Rousseau's view of human natuie uiffei fiom that of Bobbes anu Locke.
Think, in paiticulai, about (a) what motivation people have in the state of natuie, anu
(b) how malleable human natuie is.
!"#$%&'( *$$+(,# - ./01234 5,(6 7 5$8&,#9
13
K,,+ R(,A,= - O&((

MN O0PQNJR55;S !/05 KRRT

Q,'F&=G4 Q,'F&=GC ;CC&G=,F 6$% L>2I L>1

U",C#&$=C 6$% \&C8"CC&$= &= #H, !"#$%&'(

1. What uoes Nill mean when he speaks of the "tyianny of the majoiity" (Chaptei 1).
Bow can the majoiity tyiannize inuiviuuals. Can you think of examples in touay's
society wheie majoiity opinion is tyiannical.

2. Nill's famous 'haim piinciple' asseits that "the only puipose foi which powei can be
iightfully exeiciseu ovei any membei of a civilizeu community, against his will, is to
pievent haim to otheis." (Chaptei 1)
(a) Think of uiffeient kinus of powei - foi instance, the powei the goveinment has ovei
you, the powei you have ovei youi paients anu youi paients have ovei you, the powei
you have ovei youi fiienus anu they have ovei you, etc. Aie all these foims of powei
coveieu by Nill's piinciple.
(b) What counts as haim to otheis. Consiuei some examples: (i) Fieu is ueeply
uistuibeu by the thought that anyone in his town woulu ieau poinogiaphy. Is Fieu
haimeu if someone ieaus poinogiaphy in his town. (ii) Nike loves Lauien anu pioposes
to hei. She iejects him. Is he haimeu by hei iejection. Can you think of othei examples
that iaise questions about oui unueistanuing of haiming otheis.
(c) Is the fact that an action haims anothei '577/+/#-( to justify inteifeiing with it.
(u) When an agent peifoims an action that haims himself, but no one else, what (if
anything) might we uo to pievent him fiom peifoiming it, accoiuing to Nill.
(e) Consiuei this case: }onathan is at a bai, about to uiink a glass of what he believes to
be gin anu tonic. Alas, he is mistaken - the glass contains petiol. Night we pievent him
fiom uiinking it, accoiuing to Nill. Boes oui answei to this question help us think about
whethei the piohibition of cannabis anu othei uiugs is justifieu.

S. Nill offeis foui uistinct aiguments foi fieeuom of speech anu uiscussion. Can you
iuentify them. Which of the aiguments uo you finu most convincing.

4. In some countiies, ceitain foims of speech aie piohibiteu. Foi instance, in ueimany,
Bitlei's book 'Nein Kampf' may not legally be publisheu oi solu. What woulu
pioponents of this piohibition say to each of Nill's aiguments foi fieeuom of speech.
Can you make a convincing case foi piohibiting the publication of Bitlei's book.