Democracy refers very generally to a method of group decision making

characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of

the collective decision making. Four aspects of this definition should be noted.
First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which I mean decisions
that are made for groups and that are binding on all the members of the group.
Second, this definition means to cover a lot of different kinds of groups that may be
called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations,
economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. Third,
the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight to it. It is quite
compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have
democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not
settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of
democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of oneperson one-vote in an election for representatives to an assembly where there is
competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including
equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building. Democracy may
refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct participation of
the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it
may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to
make the decisions.
The function of normative democratic theory is not to settle questions of definition
but to determine which, if any, of the forms democracy may take are morally
desirable and when and how. For instance, Joseph Schumpeter argues (1956, chap.
XXI), with some force, that only a highly formal kind of democracy in which citizens
vote in an electoral process for the purpose of selecting competing elites is highly
desirable while a conception of democracy that draws on a more ambitious
conception of equality is dangerous. On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1762, Book II, chap. 1) is apt to argue that the formal variety of democracy is akin
to slavery while only robustly egalitarian democracies have political legitimacy.
Others have argued that democracy is not desirable at all. To evaluate their
arguments we must decide on the merits of the different principles and conceptions
of humanity and society from which they proceed.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of

the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as
a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
"Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state
ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.There are many
varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of
them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which
they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within
productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system is based on the organisational precept of production for

use, meaning the production of goods and services to directly satisfy economic
demand and human needs where objects are valued based on their use-value or
utility, as opposed to being structured upon the accumulation of capital and
production for profit. In the traditional conception of a socialist economy,
coordination, accounting and valuation would be performed in kind (using physical
quantities), by a common physical magnitude, or by a direct measure of labour-time
in place of financial calculation. On distribution of output there have been two
proposals, one which is based on the principle of to each according to his
contribution and another on the principle of from each according to his ability, to
each according to his need. The advisability, feasibility and exact methods of
resource allocation and valuation are the subject of the socialist calculation debate.
The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies.
Core dichotomies within the socialist movement include the distinction
between reformism and revolutionary socialism and between state
socialism and libertarian socialism. State socialism calls for the nationalisation of
the means of production as a strategy for implementing socialism, while libertarian
socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct
democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions,
and workers' councils coming from a general anti-authoritarian stance. Democratic
socialism highlights the central role of democratic processes and political
systems and is usually contrasted with non-democratic political movements that
advocate socialism. Some socialists have adopted the causes of other social
movements, such as environmentalism, feminism and liberalism.
Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class
political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private
property on society. The revival of republicanism in the American Revolution of 1776
and the egalitarian values introduced by the French Revolution of 1789 gave rise to
socialism as a distinct political movement. In the early 19th century, "socialism"
referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the
solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th century, "socialism" had
come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative postcapitalist system based on some form of social ownership. During this time, German
philosopher Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels published works
criticizing the utopian aspects of contemporary socialist trends and applied
a materialistunderstanding of socialism as a phase of development which will come
about through social revolution instigated by escalating and conflicting class
relationships within capitalism. Alongside this there appeared other tendencies such
as anarchism, revolutionary syndicalism, social-democracy, Marxism
Leninism and democratic socialism as well as the confluence of socialism with antiimperialist and anti-racist struggles around the world. The socialist movement came
to be the most influential worldwide movement and political-economic worldview of

the 20th century. Today, socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with
varying degrees of power and influence in all continents leading national
governments in many countries.
Etymology
For Andrew Vincent "The word socialism finds its root in the Latin sociare, which
means to combine or to share. The related, more technical term in Roman and then
medieval law was societas. This latter word could mean companionship and
fellowship as well as the more legalistic idea of a consensual contract between
freemen." The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the
founders of what would later be labelled "utopian socialism". The term "socialism"
was created to contrast against the liberal doctrine of "individualism", which
stressed that people act or should act as if they are in isolation from one another.
The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social
concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth. They viewed
liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism that
harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition. They
presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a
society based on cooperation.[ The term socialism is attributed to Pierre Leroux,
and to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in France; and in Britain to Robert Owen in 1827,
father of the cooperative movement.
The modern definition and usage of the term "socialism" settled by the 1860s,
becoming the predominant term among the earlier associated words "co-operative",
"mutualist" and "associationist". The term "communism" also fell out of use during
this period, despite earlier distinctions between socialism and communism from the
1840s. An early distinction between "socialism" and "communism" was that the
former aimed to only socialize production while the latter aimed to socialize both
production and consumption. However, by 1888 the term "socialism" was used by
Marxists in place of "communism", which was now considered an old-fashion term
synonymous with socialism. It was only until 1917 after the Bolshevik revolution
that "socialism" came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and
communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik
seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticisms that Russia was not
sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.

In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source
and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge
or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or
a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual
and deductive". Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure.
Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can

directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational
principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so
fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction.
Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence
are unnecessary to ascertain truth in other words, "there are significant ways in
which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience".
Because of this belief, empiricism is one of rationalism's greatest rivals.
Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist
standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other
ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the
unique path to knowledge". Given a pre-modern understanding of reason,
rationalism is identical tophilosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic
(skeptical) clear interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential
cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo
Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that
understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but asmaieutic. Rationalism
should not be confused with rationality, nor with rationalization.
In politics, Rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics
of reason" centered upon rational choice, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion
the latter aspect's antitheism later ameliorated by utilitarian adoption of pluralistic
rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology.

It is difficult to identify a major figure in the history of rationalism, or even a major

period of history in rational thought before the Enlightenment. One of the primary
reasons for this is the fact that humans have the ability to know information they
otherwise shouldn't know primarily in the field of mathematics. Every philosopher
has acknowledged this to some degree or another. Secondly, it is the nature of
philosophical thought to obtain knowledge and information with the use of our
rational faculties instead of coming to knowledge by mystical revelation.
Since the Enlightenment, rationalism is usually associated with the introduction of
mathematical methods into philosophy as seen in the works of Descartes, Leibniz,
and Spinoza.[3]This is commonly called continental rationalism, because it was
predominant in the continental schools of Europe, whereas in
Britain empiricism dominated.
Even then, the distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later
period and would not have been recognized by the philosophers involved. Also, the
distinction between the two philosophies is not as clear-cut as is sometimes
suggested; for example, Descartes and Locke have similar views about the nature of
human ideas.

Proponents of some varieties of rationalism argue that, starting with foundational

basic principles, like the axioms of geometry, one could deductively derive the rest
of all possible knowledge. The philosophers who held this view most clearly
were Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz, whose attempts to grapple with the
epistemological and metaphysical problems raised by Descartes led to a
development of the fundamental approach of rationalism. Both Spinoza and Leibniz
asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be
gained through the use of reason alone, though they both observed that this was
not possible in practice for human beings except in specific areas such
as mathematics. On the other hand, Leibniz admitted in his book Monadology that
"we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions."

History
Rationalist philosophy from antiquity
Because of the complicated nature of rationalist thinking, the nature of philosophy,
and the understanding that humans are aware of knowledge available only through
the use of rational thought, many of the great philosophers from antiquity laid down
the foundation for rationalism though they themselves weren't rationalists as we
understand the concept today.
Pythagoras (570495 BCE)
Pythagoras was one of the first Western philosophers to stress rationalist insight. He
is often revered as a great mathematician, mystic and scientist, but he is best
known for thePythagorean theorem, which bears his name, and for discovering the
mathematical relationship between the length of strings on lute bear and the
pitches of the notes. Pythagoras "believed these harmonies reflected the ultimate
nature of reality. He summed up the implied metaphysical rationalism in the words
"All is number". It is probable that he had caught the rationalist's vision, later seen
by Galileo (15641642), of a world governed throughout by mathematically
formulable laws". It has been said that he was the first man to call himself a
philosopher, or lover of wisdom,
Plato (427347 BCE)
Plato also held rational insight to a very high standard, as is seen in his works such
as Meno and The Republic. Plato taught on the Theory of Forms (or the Theory of
Ideas) which asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas),
and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the
highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Plato's forms are accessible only to
reason and not to sense. In fact, it is said that Plato admired reason, especially

in geometry, so highly that he had the phrase "Let no one ignorant of geometry
enter" inscribed over the door to his academy.[
Aristotle (384322 BCE)
Aristotle has a process of reasoning similar to that of Plato's, though he ultimately
disagreed with the specifics of Plato's forms. Aristotle's great contribution to
rationalist thinking comes from his use of syllogistic logic. Aristotle defines syllogism
as "a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something
different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so."
Despite this very general definition, Aristotle limits himself to categorical syllogisms
which consist of three categorical propositions in his work Prior Analytics. These
included categorical modal syllogisms.
After Aristotle
Though the three great Greek philosophers disagreed with one another on specific
points, they all agreed that rational thought could bring to light knowledge that was
self-evident information that humans otherwise couldn't know without the use of
reason. After Aristotle's death, Western rationalistic thought was generally
characterized by its application to theology, such as in the works of the Islamic
philosopher Avicenna and Jewish philosopher and theologian Maimonides. One
notable event in the Western timelime was the philosophy of St. Thomas
Aquinas who attempted to merge Greek rationalism and Christian revelation in the
thirteenth-century.
Modern rationalism
Ren Descartes (15961650)
Descartes was the first of the modern rationalists and has been dubbed the 'Father
of Modern Philosophy.' Much subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his
writings, which are studied closely to this day.
Descartes thought that only knowledge of eternal truths including the truths of
mathematics, and the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the
sciences could be attained by reason alone; other knowledge, the knowledge of
physics, required experience of the world, aided by the scientific method. He also
argued that although dreams appear as real as sense experience, these dreams
cannot provide persons with knowledge. Also, since conscious sense experience can
be the cause of illusions, then sense experience itself can be doubtable. As a result,
Descartes deduced that a rational pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about
reality. He elaborated these beliefs in such works as Discourse on
Method, Meditations on First Philosophy, and Principles of Philosophy. Descartes
developed a method to attain truths according to which nothing that cannot be
recognised by the intellect (or reason) can be classified as knowledge. These truths

are gained "without any sensory experience," according to Descartes. Truths that
are attained by reason are broken down into elements that intuition can grasp,
which, through a purely deductive process, will result in clear truths about reality.
Descartes therefore argued, as a result of his method, that reason alone determined
knowledge, and that this could be done independently of the senses. For instance,
his famous dictum, cogito ergo sum or "I think, therefore I am", is a conclusion
reached a priori i.e., prior to any kind of experience on the matter. The simple
meaning is that doubting one's existence, in and of itself, proves that an "I" exists to
do the thinking. In other words, doubting one's own doubting is absurd. This was, for
Descartes, an irrefutable principle upon which to ground all forms of other
knowledge. Descartes posited a metaphysical dualism, distinguishing between the
substances of the human body ("res extensa") and the mind or soul ("res cogitans").
This crucial distinction would be left unresolved and lead to what is known as
the mind-body problem, since the two substances in the Cartesian system are
independent of each other and irreducible.
Baruch Spinoza (16321677)
The philosophy of Baruch Spinoza is a systematic, logical, rational philosophy
developed in seventeenth-century Europe. Spinoza's philosophy is a system of ideas
constructed upon basic building blocks with an internal consistency with which he
tried to answer life's major questions and in which he proposed that "God exists
only philosophically." He was heavily influenced by thinkers such as Descartes,
Euclid and Thomas Hobbes, as well as theologians in the Jewish philosophical
tradition such as Maimonides. But his work was in many respects a departure from
the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many of Spinoza's ideas continue to vex thinkers today
and many of his principles, particularly regarding the emotions, have implications
for modern approaches to psychology. Even top thinkers have found Spinoza's
"geometrical method" difficult to comprehend: Goethe admitted that he "could not
really understand what Spinoza was on about most of the time." His magnum
opus, Ethics, contains unresolved obscurities and has a forbidding mathematical
structure modeled on Euclid's geometry. Spinoza's philosophy attracted believers
such as Albert Einstein and much intellectual attention.
Gottfried Leibniz (16461716)
Leibniz was the last of the great Rationalists who contributed heavily to other fields
such as metaphysics, epistemology, logic, mathematics, physics, jurisprudence, and
thephilosophy of religion; he is also considered to be one of the last "universal
geniuses".He did not develop his system, however, independently of these
advances. Leibniz rejected Cartesian dualism and denied the existence of a material
world. In Leibniz's view there are infinitely many simple substances, which he called
"monads" (possibly taking the term from the work of Anne Conway).

Leibniz developed his theory of monads in response to both Descartes and Spinoza,
because the rejection of their visions forced him to arrive at his own solution.
Monads are the fundamental unit of reality, according to Leibniz, constituting both
inanimate and animate objects. These units of reality represent the universe,
though they are not subject to the laws of causality or space (which he called "wellfounded phenomena"). Leibniz, therefore, introduced his principle of pre-established
harmony to account for apparent causality in the world.
Immanuel Kant (17241804)
Kant is one of the central figures of modern philosophy, and set the terms by which
all subsequent thinkers have had to grapple. He argued that human perception
structures natural laws, and that reason is the source of morality. His thought
continues to hold a major influence in contemporary thought, especially in fields
such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.[
Kant named his branch of epistemology Transcendental Idealism, and he first laid
out these views in his famous work The Critique of Pure Reason. In it he argued that
there were fundamental problems with both rationalist and empiricist dogma. To the
rationalists he argued, broadly, that pure reason is flawed when it goes beyond its
limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the realm of all
possible experience: the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the
human soul. Kant referred to these objects as "The Thing in Itself" and goes on to
argue that their status as objects beyond all possible experience by definition
means we cannot know them. To the empiricist he argued that while it is correct
that experience is fundamentally necessary for human knowledge, reason is
necessary for processing that experience into coherent thought. He therefore
concludes that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge. In
the same way, Kant also argued that it was wrong to regard thought as mere
analysis. In Kant's views, a priori concepts do exist, but if they are to lead to the
amplification of knowledge, they must be brought into relation with empirical data".

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of

action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit
and reducing suffering or the negatives. This theory is an economic analysis that is
human-centered (or anthropocentric) and has a moral foundation. Classical
utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill. It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although
when Anscombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between "oldfashioned utilitarianism" and consequentialism. In utilitarianism, the moral worth of
an action is determined only by its resulting consequences; however, there is
debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences,
foreseen consequences and intended consequences. In A Fragment on Government,

Bentham says, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the
measure of right and wrong" and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he talks of "the principle of
utility" but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle."
Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to
ethics. It is a type of naturalism. It can be contrasted withdeontological ethics,
which does not regard the consequences of an act as a determinant of its moral
worth; virtue ethics, which primarily focuses on acts and habits leading to
happiness; pragmatic ethics; as well as with ethical egoism and other varieties of
consequentialism.
As to the origin of the word 'Utilitarianism' Mill acknowledged in a footnote that,
though "believing himself to be the first person who brought the word utilitarian into
use. He did not invent it, but adopted it from a passing expression in
Mr. Galt's Annals of the Parish." Mill seems to have been unaware that Bentham
had previously used the word 'utilitarian' in his 1781 letter to George Wilson and in
Bentham's 1802 letter to Dumont he had claimed that 'Utilitarian' was the proper
name for his new creed.
Historical background
The importance of happiness as an end for humans has long been
recognized[citation needed]. Forms of hedonism were put forward
by Aristippus and Epicurus; Aristotle argued that eudaimonia is the highest human
good and Augustine wrote that "all men agree in desiring the last end, which is
happiness." Happiness was also explored in depth byAquinas. Different varieties of
consequentialism also existed in the ancient and medieval world, like the state
consequentialism of Mohism or the political philosophy of Niccol Machiavelli.
Mohist consequentialism advocated communitarian moral goods including political
stability, population growth, and wealth, but did not support the utilitarian notion of
maximizing individual happiness. Machiavelli was also an exponent of
consequentialism. He believed that the actions of a state, however cruel or ruthless
they may be, must contribute towards the common good of a society. Utilitarianism
as a distinct ethical position only emerged in the eighteenth century.
Although utilitarianism is usually thought to start with Jeremy Bentham, there were
earlier writers who presented theories that were strikingly similar. In An Enquiry
Concerning the Principles of Morals, David Hume writes:
"In all determinations of morality, this circumstance of public utility is ever
principally in view; and wherever disputes arise, either in philosophy or common
life, concerning the bounds of duty, the question cannot, by any means, be decided
with greater certainty, than by ascertaining, on any side, the true interests of
mankind. If any false opinion, embraced from appearances, has been found to
prevail; as soon as farther experience and sounder reasoning have given us juster

notions of human affairs, we retract our first sentiment, and adjust anew the
boundaries of moral good and evil."
Hume studied under Francis Hutcheson, and it was he who first introduced a key
utilitarian phrase. In An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and
Virtue (1725), Hutcheson says when choosing the most moral action, virtue is in
proportion to the number of people a particular action brings happiness to. In the
same way, moral evil, or vice, is proportionate to the number of people made to
suffer. The best action is the one that procures the greatest happiness for the
greatest numbersand the worst is the one that causes the most misery.
In the first three editions of the book, Hutcheson included various mathematical
algorithms "...to compute the Morality of any Actions." In this, he pre-figured
the hedonic calculus of Bentham.
Some claim that John Gay developed the first systematic theory of utilitarian
ethics. In Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality (1731), Gay
argues that:
happiness, private happiness, is the proper or ultimate end of all our actions each
particular action may be said to have its proper and peculiar end(but). they still
tend or ought to tend to something farther; as is evident from hence, viz. that a
man may ask and expect a reason why either of them are pursued: now to ask the
reason of any action or pursuit, is only to enquire into the end of it: but to expect a
reason, i.e. an end, to be assigned for an ultimate end, is absurd. To ask why I
pursue happiness, will admit of no other answer than an explanation of the terms.
This pursuit of happiness is given a theological basis:
Now it is evident from the nature of God, viz. his being infinitely happy in himself
from all eternity, and from his goodness manifested in his works, that he could have
no other design in creating mankind than their happiness; and therefore he wills
their happiness; therefore the means of their happiness: therefore that my
behaviour, as far as it may be a means of the happiness of mankind, should be
suchthus the will of God is the immediate criterion of Virtue, and the happiness of
mankind the criterion of the wilt of God; and therefore the happiness of mankind
may be said to be the criterion of virtue, but once removed(and) I am to do
whatever lies in my power towards promoting the happiness of mankind.

Modern Utilitarianism by Thomas Rawson Birks 1874

Gay's theological utilitarianism was developed and popularized by William Paley. It
has been claimed that Paley was not a very original thinker and that the
philosophical part of his treatise on ethics is "an assemblage of ideas developed by
others and is presented to be learned by students rather than debated by

colleagues." Nevertheless, his book The Principles of Moral and Political

Philosophy (1785) was a required text at Cambridge and Smith says that Paley's
writings were "once as well known in American colleges as were the readers and
spellers of William McGuffey and Noah Webster in the elementary
schools." Although now largely missing from the philosophical canon, Schneewind
writes that "utilitarianism first became widely known in England through the work of
William Paley." The now forgotten significance of Paley can be judged from the title
of Thomas Rawson Birks's 1874 work Modern Utilitarianism or the Systems of Paley,
Bentham and Mill Examined and Compared.
Apart from restating that happiness as an end is grounded in the nature of God,
Paley also discusses the place of rules. He writes:
actions are to be estimated by their tendency. Whatever is expedient, is right. It is
the utility of any moral rule alone, which constitutes the obligation of it.
But to all this there seems a plain objection, viz. that many actions are useful, which
no man in his senses will allow to be right. There are occasions, in which the hand of
the assassin would be very useful The true answer is this; that these actions, after
all, are not useful, and for that reason, and that alone, are not right.
To see this point perfectly, it must be observed that the bad consequences of
actions are twofold, particular and general. The particular bad consequence of an
action, is the mischief which that single action directly and immediately occasions.
The general bad consequence is, the violation of some necessary or useful general
rule
You cannot permit one action and forbid another, without showing a difference
between them. Consequently, the same sort of actions must be generally permitted
or generally forbidden. Where, therefore, the general permission of them would be
pernicious, it becomes necessary to lay down and support the rule which generally
forbids them.